Group items tagged

argument: the comparison of Orwell's books and the affect his life had on them claim: Orwell put an unerring finger on the totalitarian element in anarchism itself, the nightmare of a society ruled by a public opinion so powerful that it can take the place of law.... evidence: The evidence lies not within the article itself but within the comparison of both 1984 and Animal Farm

Argument: The novels, Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, two novels written by the two Bronte sisters, Charlotte and Emily, both contain similar details and characteristics that suggest their literary greatness. Key components concerning the setting, major characters, and overall theme contribute to the social issues of the Victorian time period. The sisters all wrote on similar premise of changing the world through their feminist ideas and the further promotion of woman's rights and equality. Evidence: This point is thoroughly suggested in the analysis of the sisters' use of a gothic style, the Byronic hero, the feminist sentiments, and the industrialization of the British Empire. The gothic style is portrayed through the primary theme of both novels being the "suppressed sexual longing and forbidden love." The dark setting of Wuthering Heights, the manor, and the mansion that is depicted in Jane Eyre further portray the gothic tone. The Byronic hero is portrayed through the two key male parts of each novel, being Heathcliff and Rochester. A Byronic hero is one who is not necessarily depicted as being attractive or handsome gentlemen, but in spite of this characteristic they are able to contribute to the theme. The feminist question and search for woman independence is greatly mentioned in both Eyre and Heights, however, the time period is perhaps against this. For instance, the author of this source mentions that "Queen Victoria herself, who was a strong supporter of women's education and even helped establish a college for women…was against giving women the right to vote, calling the suffrage campaign "a mad folly." Thoughts: Overall, this source has several key components that are further going to push my paper along greatly. Most importantly are the very similar aspects of the two novels will help prove my point that both pieces of literature were probably more of a collaboration, where the two sisters perhaps discussed their societal problems and

Argument: Rubin Rabinovitz writes that Anthony Burgess reuses a motif of libertarian vs. authoritarian in many of his novels. Often times this conflict of the characters is a projection of Burgess' views on morals and ethics as well as a display of Burgess' internal struggle. Rabinovitz refers to his novels A Clockwork Orange and the Tremor of Intent, pegging characters to libertarian and authoritarian personas. Through these comparisons he observes Burgess' own inconsistencies in his writing. Evidence: "The apparent inconsistencies in Burgess's dualistic moral views are sometimes seen as the result of his utilization of the Eastern yin-yang principles" (Rabinovitz). "What the religious novelist often seems to be saying is that evil is a kind of good, since it is an aspect of Ultimate Reality; though what he is really saying is that evil is more interesting to write about than good" (Burgess). "Very often, Burgess's use of Manichean dualism does work to reconcile differences in Eastern and Western thought; but problems arise when a choice must be made between relativism and absolutism...Absolutism seems to demand absolute fidelity, and in this sense Burgess's moral point of view appears ambiguous or inconsistent" (Rabinovitz). Thoughts: Rabinovitz focuses on conflicting ideologies that are not often recognized when reading A Clockwork Orange. He also offers a background on Anthony Burgess' location and how that contributes to his characters. Rabinovitz recognizes many of Burgess' characters as projections of Burgess himself and proposes how the clash of eastern and western philosophy influenced the author.

Cody Villanueva Jensen AP LIT 24 January 2011 Literary Analysis #3 Yann Martel's novel Beatrice and Virgil, in comparison to his highly praised novel Life of Pi, did not merely meet the expectations of critics. According to MICHIKO KAKUTANI, a New York Times writer, this novel that follows the life of a donkey, monkey and a writer's detailed stories re-telling the Holocaust, is said to be "misconceived and offensive as his earlier book." Mimicking animalistic characters and simple text in Martel's previous novel, Beatrice and Virgil, is a simple metaphor using animals to portray Jewish extinction. Kakutani also points out that Martel's novels also includes a play that is closely resembled to that of "Beckett's "Waiting for Godot."" Not only does Kakutani perceive this as awkward, but do not appeal to the novels ending but making it a "disappointing and often perverse novel." But Kakutani gives little to support such reasoning, but clutters his argument with an overall summary that gives the reader a brief understanding of the novel. His overall purpose for such a criticism, or article one may say, is a list of brief downsides compared to Martel's past novel, possible noting that Martel Life of Pi is a single novel of achievement and that Martel is not a writer that continues eloquence throughout his series of novels. Even though it is hard to assume bias within Kakutani's criticism, it can be perceived that this novel brought no interest to Michoko. Therefore Kakutanis simply sits closely to a neutral position when describing his feelings toward the novel Beatrice and Virgil, simple stating small downsides and flaws the novel has compared to Yann Martel's other literary works.

Robert McKay, author of the criticism on human-animal relationships that are described in The Temple of My Familiar by Alice Walker, believes in two arguments. One begin that Robert believes that the ability in which humans use language sets the difference between humans and animals. Secondly, he critiques about how Walker has "anti-oppressive" political views towards race and gender. In the story Walker "re- writes" the book of Genesis and she makes many references that are mythological and biblical. Robert McKay believes that humans and animals are very distinct and even though many people believe that there is communication between an animal and a human…well they are wrong according to McKay. In the novel Walker wrote about past lives and how humans came from animals, well according to McKay that's impossible and that's is why he critiques Walker on her comparisons between a human and an animal. The second argument he brought up was how political references were made to gender and race. These references were made when the young boy and the young girl were together and they realized that they were different due to the color of their skin. It is like an allusion to the bible says McKay because the boy lost his sexual innocence due to the temptation. Also, Walker makes an animal intertwine in a way between humans. For example, she puts the woman, followed by the familiar and then the man when in reality the animal is external in this human relationship. In the story when the boy and girl were together as it was stated above the boy kills the girl's familiar which was a serpent and it represents the serpent from the bible according to McKay, but that event (the boy killing the serpent) represents how men (white men) had the power over women and animals.

Argument: Khaled Hosseini gives a face to the Afghan people in The Kite Runner. It humanizes the culture and gives outsiders to the culture a little insight to the fact that we may not be that different from each other after all. The novel offers the theme of personal redemption that many have dealt. Literary critics have seen this book as being an allegory but Jefferess takes this a step farther by pointing out how this novel is really a political allegory that uses a humans shot at redemption in comparison to that of the country Afghanistan's chance to fix itself. Evidence: "Hence the novel "humanizes" Afghan culture, providing depth and meaning to the sign "Afghanistan" for the non-Afghan reader, otherwise a mere signifier of post-9/11 conflict" (Jefferess). "While Amir's quest for personal redemption may be read as an allegory of Afghanistan's national project of healing, I read the novel as a political allegory that reflects the way in which the "third world", marked by its difference from the "West", becomes a site to be transformed through the project of nation-building" (Jefferess). "This project is presented in the West as an ethical demand that is paradoxically conceived of as both a humanitarian project and a disciplinary one; to be recognized as human, Afghanistan must conform to particular western expectations of democracy, liberalism, and multiculturalism. While the novel's reception reflects an openness to, and a desire for, understanding the Other, it also reflects the limits of acceptable difference"(Jefferess) Thoughts: The view that Jefferess took on The Kite Runner is extremely interesting. Not many have seen the novel as merely an ethical allegory, but he argues this point well. The fact that since the US has entered the war in Afghanistan, many people view that the end of the war will be when Afghanistan becomes a democracy and adopts western ideals, but what isn't always understood is that with change, comes

Raymond Tatalovich's criticism offers an interesting perspective on the ideas put forth in Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience". The main point is put forth in the title.. does Thoreau intend to call people to morality or anarchy? His intentions are to extract from this essay the root of his implications and theory of obligation to the government. He argues that Thoreau believes that the consent of people is necessary in order for the government to operate - a type of contractual agreement. However, he does recognize the fact that the majority in society controls the norms and can imprison people that go against them. Therefore, he does not defend civil disobedience to a point that will get someone imprisoned. Tatalovich also does a fabulous job at bringing to light other civil disobedience "leaders" such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. He states that Thoreau however, takes a much stronger stance on the extent to which people should act out in favor of their own views on what's right and wrong. It should also be noted that Tatalovich sees deficiencies in Thoreau's view of the government as an operational unit and its efficiency. However, he argues that in no way is he a no-government man by offering this quote: "I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed ... as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people, to discover a pretext for conformity" (Thoreau 33). This criticism offers a good perspective that will enable me to compare the government conformity in Catch 22-militarily, versus the liberalistic mentality of civil disobedience. There is a stark discord between these two concepts and I believe it will be riveting to delve into a comparison between the two based upon the role and operation of the government.