Group items tagged

Argument: The author aims to demonstrate that the conspicuous insertion of Yann Martel's religious beliefs in "life of Pi" is destructive to Martel's attempts to encourage his readers to believe in GOD and religion. However, the author quickly asserts that the problem is simply not very relevant! He even goes as far as admitting that he - a firm atheist - began to affirm a faith in god after reading the novel, under the pretense that the impossibility of the tale encourages the growth of the reader's imagination and therefore his/her faith in God. Evidence: "...the fiction...reveals a truth by explicit sermonising rather than as a natural conclusion drawn from the relationships and events it presents, [and] is displeasing, even 'immoral'" "As he travels through the pages...the reader[s]...atheist or already committed follower[s], experience some major revelation to the spirit, coming to, or restoring, a belied in GOD." "...the simple narrative may reveal virtues and ethics, yet is primarily concerned with entertaining the reader...in magical ways which powerfully invoke the active imagination." "...the novel occupies too perfectly 100 chapters. Yet the miraculous outcomes of this definite structure...defy explanation, logic, reality. This is magic realism in its most subversive form..." Thoughts: the author successfully uses significant support to lend credibility to his argument and does a good job of doing so. He did a fantastic job of explaining and defining his view point and overall I thoroughly agree with his criticism of "Life of Pi".

The author John Iverson main purpose of writing the paper was to show how much O'Neil revealed about himself in The Iceman Cometh. Each character Parritt, Hickey and Slade represented Id, Ego, Super Ego about O'Neil. John Iverson quickly went to each point of Id, Ego, and Super Ego in a logical and organized theme. He stayed focused at the point at hand. Every tad bit that the author adds supports his views of how the characters in the play are pieces of O'Neil. There is clearly enough evidence in the paper to support the author. This evidence used is typical. The main conclusion the author is trying to portray is that the three characters represent O'Neill's Oedipus complex. The character Don Parritt represents the ID, Hickey the Ego, and Slade the Super Ego. Iverson bases the information given from the great psychologist Sigmund Freud who believes in the Oedipus complex. Freud believed that all people have a Oedipus complex that shows the internal desires and external conflicts that relate to their parents. O'Neill at the time had a bad relationship with his mother due to her abuse of morphine. The author does not correlate with the subject on a personal basis. Nowhere does it state how the author felt or interfered his own life about the conclusion.

Argument: The article was proving that Farewell to Arms is a tragedy. It was not written with the same structure of a traditional tragedy, so it has been argued on weather or not it is. The critic claims that the novel is because of Catherine's death. Others say that her death was pointless and uncalled for, but the critic points out that her death was part of the tragic plot. Hemingway constructs a unique relationship between Catherine and Frederic so you have sympathy toward them so he can create a tragic emotion in the end. Evidence: "Hemingway has fashioned a new form of tragedy in which the hero acts not mistakenly but supremely well, and suffers a doom which is not directly caused by his actions at all. The belief that life is a tragedy, lip itself, has become the backbone for a new literary structure." (Merrill). "…in A Farewell to Arms, as in any tragic work, we are made to feel that the hero's doom is inevitable. If the reader doubts that Hemingway has achieved this sense of tragic inevitability, let him consider whether the book could have ended with the lovers' escape to Switzerland rather than Catherine's death." (Merrill). Thoughts: Hemingway created a different style that no one had ever tried before making it open for argument. Merrill provides the reader with a detailed background and analysis of A Farewell to Arms, which supports and proves his claim to be right. He gives insight into who Hemingway was, and why he wrote the novel in a nontraditional manner. By proving his understanding of the novel I was able to see connections to what he was saying and what happened in the story. I think that because his analysis was so in depth it was hard to find a way to disagree.

Argument: The references to western culture and the similarities as well as the differences between Temple of My Familiar by Alice Walker and Gravity Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. During an interview Alice Walker made a comment that said, "Why would they want to?" in regards to "Why write a novel like the one Pynchon wrote? ". Walker refers to her book as "a romance of the last 500,000 years" when according to Adam (writer of the literary criticism) Walker's novel has the "ambition" of Pynchon text. Throughout the text, Adam uses quotes from Walker's novel to relate it to Pynchon's. His purpose for writing this literary criticism was to judge or prove to the public that Walker's novel is in fact similar the Pynchon's. Also, he writes about the difference they have in social views towards the government, and the culture of families. Evidence: "Walker has in common with Pynchon and Wallace a sweeping distrust of the current political, religious, and economic systems of domination prevalent in the world" (Adam). "The world view of The Temple of My Familiar also differs from that of Gravity's Rainbow and many other postmodern texts in its belief in the power of the spiritual to redeem and nourish, even in the midst of oppression and tragedy" (Adam). "Another difference between Walker's novel and Gravity's Rainbow is its concern with communal relationships. Families, tribes, and cultures are of primary importance to the novel, both in the ways that they support the various characters and in the ways in which the characters choose to perpetuate them" (Adam).

Argument: John Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat is a nihilistic novel filled with loneliness and death. The paisanos have destruction following them one step at a time and believe in a God that only brings more destruction to their lives. Fire from a holy candle burned down one home, and the irresponsible personalities of each paisano ultimately ruined the second house along with the relationships that were contained inside it. Evidence: "The people of Tortilla Flat melted into the darkness. Danny's friends still stood looking at the smoking ruin. They looked at one another strangely, and then back to the burned house. And after a while they turned and walked slowly away, and no two walked together" "The paisanos start to put out the accidental fire but then, "struck with a celestial thought," let the house burn, looking at each other and smiling "the wise smiles of the deathless and hopeless ones." "Ah the prayers of the millions, how they must fight and destroy each other on their way to the throne of God." "In the sky, saints and martyrs looked on with set and unforgiving faces. The candle was blessed. It belonged to Saint Francis. Saint Francis will have a big candle in its place tonight." Thoughts: The author, Bethea made several solid points during her analysis. She had a high amount of direct quotes from the novel along with quotes from past criticisms. She organized her thoughts very efficiently and in an easy to understand format. I do not agree with her belief on all the men burning the second house down after their friend died as a way of ending the group friendship. I think the companionship between the men was very close knit however after Danny died they payed their respects to him by letting his home pass away with him. Danny allowed each paisano stay at his home for free, therefore once he died the house had the right to die as well, as respect to Danny from his fellow room mates.

As a long time viewer of the work of Beckett, Hall brings a sense of credibility to the article due to his long standing relationship with all Beckett's productions. Of them, as he implies, Waiting for Godot was the most challenging of then to figure out. With only a blank stage, a tree, and two characters, so much of the production was left up to the opinions of the audience. In Hall's own opinion, this single play is what shaped the way modern theater is thought of, as something that does not ever need to confine to what may have been put forth by the greatest minds in theater. Hall, even being such an admirer for so long, was actually the only producer willing to put the work into the major theaters of the western society. For so long the production was only put forth in a small Paris theater, and Hall was the only man willing to put his own neck on the line to show the world what he sees in this unknown artists creation. What hits me the strangest is that Hall never thought the work would grow, that he never wanted to make it a global sensation, but merely wanted to expose audiences to what he saw in the metaphorical work. As stated "Waiting for Godot hasn't dated at all. It remains a poetic masterpiece transcending all barriers and nationalities". Which is exactly how the work should be considered in today's work of drama and English literature .

1st claim= Othello is related to God, through the trials of the story, Othello is superior to others and is looked up to like God. 2nd claim= Iago is represented as Judas or Peter. He is looked upon as a constant secretive and mischievous evil. 3rd claim= christian culture ties in with the culture of Othello's time period. debate= Shakespeare is satirizing religion and culture. This concludes that Othello's time period and culture with religion is based on the biblical text in the bible text.