Group items tagged

The Survival of the Fittest Throughout The Handmaid's Tale, a major ideal is a strong feminist stance. The author is trying to convince other critics that Offred, a character in the novel, portrays a strong woman fighting for survival against politics. While others believe that Offred is "no hero," "a wimp," this author is convinced that she continuously "proves her consistent efforts not only to survive, but also to maintain her individuality." With the evidence the author has given to support his ideas about this ideal to survive, the evidence he provides proves to be logical. When the author states, "an examination of her more subtle rebellion against the oppressive totalitarian regime," he is persuasively showing that Offred portrays the strong nature of the human spirit. The focus the author commits on the argument is obvious. The author repeatedly compares Offred to other strong characters in other Margaret Atwood novels and in The Handmaid's Tale itself. This proves the author's consistency with the evidence he provides to prove his purpose. These also help show the pros of his persuasive side of the argument about how strong a feminine hero can be through human spirit. The evidence this author provides significantly supports his perspective. He starts out by attacking other arguments that have been stated, using it as a tactic to show that his perspective is more "correct." There is plenty of evidence provided in this article to help support his argument. With statements like "the Republic of Gilead is a typical totalitarian society in that it promotes terror tactics while enforcing its rigid dogmas," the author is setting up for his next piece of evidence. He uses the typical case where he sets you up for the next argument, uses evidence from text, and then attacks the opposite side of the argument, but all with a twist. Most authors would have used quotes from the novel itself or a source to attack the opposite s

Argument: In The Pearl, Steinbeck, not only shows hardship and suffering but argues that peoples rights and freedom were lost. He shows that not every story is a happy ending. "The loss of the pearl at the end of the story suggests his loss of hope for the future and a loss in his belief that he can control his life and destiny." (Perkins). It is another story about achevining the "American Dream" Evidence: "Kino's rebellious spirit challenges but cannot change the system. Unable to fight off the forces that try to oppress him, he loses his son along with his dreams of a better life for his family." (Perkins) "Steinbeck offers his response to oppressive political systems that try to crush the human spirit, declaring that he believes that the "free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world." (Perkins) "Steinbeck illustrates the tragic consequences of the loss of that freedom of the spirit in The Pearl, expressing a profound sympathy for the individual and the community that suffers under such an oppressive system." (Perkins) Thoughts: Based on the article the author explains a valid point how in this world we might say were equal on paper but we have to show we are equal. In my opinion I don't think life should end that way i think you should always have a second chance. Steinbeck doesn't describe his books like that. Maybe hes showing the actual world as it is. We might say all this pretty stuff about how the world should be and how life should end up but nothing happening. John Steinbeck is a realist and shows the world how it is. The pearl symbolized his dreams. And an education shouldn't be the only way to be successful in life school and education is not for everyone Steinbeck shows that it just takes a lot of heart to do what you dream of. Kino showed a lot of heart but with the effort he failed and described the world as a failure. Quotes: "But the pearls were accidents, and the finding of one was luc

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 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".

Branislav L. Slantchev's purpose of discussing Eiji Yoshikawa's, Taiko, is to relate this work to Yoshikawa's more popular title, Musashi, and to also show the few faults Yoshikawa has made in his writing. Slantchev's opinion is that since so few people know of Yoshikawa, those who are familiar will become enthralled and find his work flawless. Slantchev is one of the few to finally go against the majority critical opinion and voice his personal issues with Yoshikawa. The article begins with a general summary of Taiko with an explanation of the tale as one that is about bringing "prosperity to the ravaged land is an inspiring, if bloody, tale of courage, imagination, and political intrigue." This statement already sets up the beginning with the multiple literary similarities between Taiko and Musashi. The article even discusses the "historical reality" still being "fictionalized." Nevertheless, Slantchev still continues to praise Yoshikawa when speaking of the engaging narrative and attention to battles until he reaches the character development. Slantchev argues, "Hideyoshi is so likable, he appears terribly one-dimensional." This statement is supported by the fact that even though the main character, Hideyoshi, has a "monkey face" he is still able to have success when it comes to the opposite sex. Slantchev recommends many other novels that would actually contain a more balanced point of view. Ultimately, Slantchev still ties his argument back to how Yoshikawa is still a stunning author that has the ability to write a complex mixture of "loyalty, honor, calculation, and greed that is bound to baffle the foreigner." There is a perfect consistency of admiration as well as points of dissatisfaction within the article. Thorough evidence is provided for all of the arguments made. Slantchev does appear to possess a slight bias in writing his article, as he occasionally slants his writing in comparing Taiko to Musashi almost too often. Al

Argument: The feministic bildungsroman that establishes itself throughout the novel seems to be contradictory towards the Christian commitments of the young Jane Eyre. It argues that the character St. John symbolized the patriarchal religious system, which was in the end rejected by Jane. Furthermore, this rejection defies the expectations of marriage at the time and symbolizes a more feminist emphasis. Evidence: This point is suggested primarily throughout the closing passage of the novel. The rhetoric of this may seem to be slightly confusing, because it basically challenges the feministic viewpoint that was built in the novel. The final paragraph casts a light over St. John and all of his endeavors throughout the novel, Lamonaca states, "Classic feminist readings have tended to view St. John as one-dimensional patriarchal villain; accordingly, Jane rejects not only her pious cousin, but also the Christian worldview he represents." Further explication in the novel is shown in the rejection of St. John, for "Jane effectively resists Rochester's and St. John's attempts to possess her spirit as well as her body." This further promotes the protagonist's struggle against male control, and a lockdown patriarchal marriage. The contradiction in the closing statements however "leaves open the possibility that Jane, despite her efforts, has failed to reconcile the conflicting demands of domesticity and faith." Thoughts: I think that Charlotte Bronte basically wanted to make a clear cut statement against the patriarchal and male run events in her society. However, as the writing came to a close she didn't want to make it seem as if the novel was meant to be an anti-Christian sentiment. So she was able to subdue the super strong feministic thoughts and instead decided to create a conclusion that makes the patriarchal society still seem to have some notoriety when in reality she may have believed different. The fact that Jane chose to marry out of societyâ€

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.