What I aim to do in this essay is show that unlike David Hampton, Paul Poitier is constructed as an “honest liar,” a self-conscious translator between the contested reality of the imaginary and the accepted reality of everyday life. I also want to show that the similarities in their actions are not especially important, and that Poitier and Hampton are very different individuals. Poitier ultimately is redeemed, at least somewhat, by the manner in which he seeks out the help of the Kitteridges, whereas Hampton is not, because he continues his confidence schemes and deceptions until death.
Now, the first thing that I have to do is show what I mean by “honest liar,” because Poitier is clearly dishonest in the ordinary sense of the word. But his dishonesty creates, in the real world, the sort of circumstances that he is lying about. A quotation from the play is particularly apt here: “I believe that the imagination is the passport we create to take us into the real world. I believe the imagination is another
…show more content…
phrase for what is most uniquely us” (Guare). Let me give you an example of what I mean. Poitier lies to Rick and Elizabeth about his relationship with the wealthy Kitteridges, claiming to be their son. As a confidence scheme, the connections forged here would be dissolved as soon as the falsity of their foundation was revealed. There would be no genuine connection between the Kitteridges and Poitier. He would not be able to turn to them, as an actual son might, and seek their help. But in this play, he is able to do so. Justifications are given for this, of course, but that does not negate the symbolic and literary effect created: Poitier has constructed a genuine connection out of a feigned one. What’s more, he himself appears to rely on this connection as if it were a genuine one, even before its legitimacy is established. He turns to the Kitteridges, seeking their help. For Hampton, no such created relationships exist. The second difference, apart from Hampton not being an honest liar, is that Hampton took steps to distance himself from his African-American heritage (Kasindorf). It is precisely this heritage, it seems, that gave Poitier his strength as someone participating in the construction of the real from the imaginary, because blackness is inextricably tied to contested notions of what is real (Du Bois). As Hampton implies in his interview, his efforts to distance himself from his African-American heritage were self-conscious and deliberate. It therefore seems that if the imaginary is “what is most uniquely us,” that Hampton’s cons were at least partly grounded in self-denial or self-rejection. One commonality between Poitier and Hampton, though, is the self-created nature of their ultimate fates.
Poitier’s death is only implied, of course, and is not in any way certain, but even if he survived or lived well in prison, his conclusion has a sense of tragedy about it. The freedom that he created for himself in his confidence schemes was ultimately destroyed, and those same cons were responsible for the loss of his freedom. Similarly, the interpersonal connections that Poitier was able to forge were ripped apart as a result of his crimes. It seems that Poitier’s story is a tragic one. Hampton’s is similarly tragic, although it lacks the crucial element of redemption that Poitier attained. He died from AIDS-related complications after a long string of confidence schemes. Integral to his schemes was the seduction of his male victims, and it is almost certain that this is how he ultimately contracted AIDS. His death was therefore in this sense
self-inflicted. The second commonality between Poitier and Hampton is that both of them wound up leveraging their exposed misdeeds in a desperate attempt to remain afloat. Poitier, after fleeing from Rick and Elizabeth, seeks out the Kitteridges and throws himself on their mercy. Hampton similarly seeks out a successful person who knows of his deceptions: Guare, the author of Six Degrees of Separation. He files a lawsuit against Guare, alleging that the latter had profited off of his copyright: his persona and actions. Although the manner in which each sought the assistance of others is different (Poitier entreating, Hampton demanding), both attempted, when desperate, to trade on their past misdeeds rather than on their ability to create convincing lies. Ultimately, what I think I have shown here is that Hampton and Poitier are deeply different individuals whose similarities are on the surface only. Poitier participates in the active creation of his imagination: he makes it real, and he trades on that created reality. The victimization that he commits is not accidental, but it certainly is not his goal. The primary damage his lies cause is the result of interpersonal conflict between Rick and Elizabeth rather than his direct doing. Hampton, by contrast, set out on a path of deliberate victimization, as is shown by his total lack of any remorse and the demands he made to Guare. The fate of each was self-caused, but in the case of Poitier, his death occurs in spite of his eventual redemption, whereas the death of Hampton occurs because he stubbornly persists on his path.
“A good liar uses the truth.” This is a technique used by notorious imposters Frederic Bourdin, and Frank Abagnale. Although Bourdin posed as a child for a second chance at adolescence, Abagnale posed as an adult to gain financial means and respect. Bourdin and Abagnale’s success in deception can be primarily attributed to their careful observation of their surroundings, as well as their ability to detect the emotions of those around them.
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.
Collected Stories]. Critical Essays on Peter Taylor. Ed. Hubert H. McAlexander. New York: G. K. Hall & Company, 1993.
It has long been contested that works of great Literature have certain qualities and that they belong to an exclusive canon of works. Value is placed upon them for a number of reasons, including their reflection of cultural or social movements, the special meaning they possess, and even their use of specific narrative elements. Up until recently, scholars and intellectuals would never dream of examining works of lower caliber with any hopes of discovering value or merit. A new movement within intellectual circles, however, has shifted focus onto so-called low-brow novels like Chester Himes’ If He Hollers Let Him Go and God’s Little Acre by Erskine Caldwell. Surprisingly enough, the works of Himes and Caldwell can be held up to the same tests as more canonical works through their appeal to ideological remnants of Romanticism and the Enlightenment, their use of literary devices to create meaning, and the narratives’ use of these devises to enhance the elements of enjoyment and pleasure in reading.
Although it is considered wrong to tell lies, it seems that literature has offered us situations where telling lies isn’t necessarily bad. Of course, lying often has a tragic outcome, but not always for the person or people who told the lie or lies. Oftentimes, these unfortunate outcomes are directed at the person about whom the lie was told. Furthermore, these stories have explained that dishonesty can result in success for both the liar and the target. Maybe we have been teaching the wrong values to our children.
In conclusion, David Hackett Fischer effectively tells the story of Paul Revere's ride in a way that completely and accurately depicts the events. By developing many of the historical figures that are not as well known as Paul Revere, Hackett Fischer gives the reader a more distinctive understanding of these particular historical events. Paul Revere's Ride also personalizes these events by providing numerous first hand accounts that strengthen the imagery. As a whole, the novel is an effective and interesting historical account that accurately tells the famed story of Paul Revere's midnight ride.
"The Dress Lodger - Literary Essay ." StudyMode. N.p., 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
Baym, N. (2008). Cotton mather. In N. Baym (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of American Literature Volume 1 (p. 143). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Phillip lied multiple ways throughout the story which includes when he lied about patriotism and lied about why he couldn't go out for track.“They sings, play
Charles Brockden Brown’s Wieland is a novel that was written as a reaction to the author’s thoughts and observations of the political climate of the time, says Emory Elliot in his introduction to the work. He also notes that Brown asserted “the nation’s leaders were the ones who most needed to read fiction because the best novels most effectively portray the realities of the human condition” and that “serious novels would challenge the most intelligent readers and demand their full intellectual engagement and reflection” (Elliot, ix). This was in opposition to the general consensus that novel reading was “an idle and even dangerous pastime” (Elliot, ix). Brown’s goal in writing novels was to develop a literary style that was clearly “’American’” (Elliot, x). In this way, Brown’s illustration of a relationship between perception and knowledge exists not only within his novel, but can be extended to the climate of the day and represent a genre that is wholly ‘American’.
Evans, Robert C., Anne C. Little, and Barbara Wiedemann. Short Fiction: A Critical Companion. West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill, 1997. 265-270.
In contrast to the other two short fictions, “Reve Haitien’s” main character ultimately made the appropriate choice with comparison to his morals and beliefs. Throughout the story the audience is driven to believe that Mason is “not
Kelly, John. ENGLISH 2308E: American Literature Notes. London, ON: University of Western. Fall 2014. Lecture Notes.
Lying turns into a true issue at the end of the Death of a Salesman. At the end reality turns out about Biffs' falsehood. Biff at last tells Willy that he has been lying for some time. He has truly been in prison while he was away. Towards the end Biff opens up about lying and would like to lie any more. Biff even concedes "We never came clean for ten minutes in this house!"(miller 104). Moreover we get some answers concerning Harpy's falsehood. Cheerful has dependably said he was fruitful, yet we discover that he was never high up at the spot he worked at. He is truly just an aide to a collaborator. Joyful makes himself appear as though he is essential much the same as his father did. So you can see the falsehoods are rejoiced at the end of the play and they were truly the reason for all the assertions thoroughly considered the play.
In the following essay I would like to examine the significance of narrative unreliability in Martin Amis's novel Money: A Suicide Note in order to prove that John Self, the narrator of this story, is not a reliable one. First of all, some basic literary terms relevant for the discussion shall be explained. Then, this information is going to be applied to the novel in question. Several possible reasons for a narrator's unreliability will be examined in connection to the narration of the protagonist. Furthermore, I will elaborate on John Self's personal motivation for withholding certain bits of information from the reader. At the same time, we shall have a look at several scenes of the novel in order to fully understand the importance of the use of narrative unreliability in Money: A Suicide Note.