Group items tagged

Argument: Wealth is dangerous to society because it leads to moral deterioration in the form of drugs and alcohol. Claims:-Wealth skews personal identity leading to feelings of superiority and entitlement -Wealth provokes an unattainable desire for happiness through the forms of luxury and indulgence Evidence: -"Alcohol or drugs are used to escape the pain brought on by a warped perspective, and the rich have no trouble getting more, whenever desired." -"For example, in cases of inheritance, where wealthy individuals didn't really earn their money at all, there are high rates of abuse and addiction." -"However, happiness soon becomes an unattainable ideal when it gets tied up with an insatiable desire for personal possessions and luxurious living. When you always want more, you're never satisfied, and the dissatisfied are more likely to turn to drugs or alcohol."

Argument: Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" has numerous connections to the works of Virgil and Aeneas as a commentary of ethical and moral decay. Claims:-Fitzgerald was a moralist -Fitzgerald is similar to Petronius -Fitzgerald uses Virgil as a moral guide Evidence:-"Like most moralists from Hesiod to C. B. De Mille, he set a moral type (like Nick Carraway) against a moral antitype (Gatsby)." -"Fitzgerald, like Petronius, is interested in the trappings of the wealthy of his day; both Gatsby and Trimalchio have amassed huge wealth by questionable means, and cannot entirely obscure their low origins and gross habits. When both men celebrate their material success by throwing lavish parties for hordes of dissolute neighbors, they are rewarded by being the subject of their guests' gossip." -"The farmers described in Virgil's Georgics are exemplars of Augustan morality, the same kind of values cherished by Nick Carraway." -"At the end of The Great Gatsby Nick concludes the novel by speaking of the effort to escape the past and achieve one's ambition in an image expressing the archetypal element in any struggle for a distantly receding ideal."

This article explains Jane Austen's thoughts on marriage during her time period by means of analyzing her novel Pride and Prejudice. The author of this article concludes that Austen wanted to demonstrate though her characters and book, "the unhappy consequences of unwise marriages." Austen contrasts the two types of marriage by means of her fictional couples and she exemplifies marriage based on wealth and marriages based on love. The correct link to article: http://search.ebscohost.com.lib.chandleraz.gov/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=MOL9610000388&site=lrc-live

The critism attached by Fetterley depicts the true steps a women had to take in the late 19th century to get by. Alcott was a clever writer and Fetterley gave her all the praise she deserved. Alcott struggled in her life both with health and wealth. The sharp contrast between her two books Little Women and Behind a Mask is evident and the author of this critism, Fetterley, forms a solid argument of women's rights and how they are highlighted in these novels. The critism hits key points and uses contextual evidence to support its claims. At the very beginning of the novel Jean Muir is epitomized as the perfect women. Fetterley is quick to jump on the fact that Louisa Alcott strives to be this perfect women but is bound by reality and realizes such roles aren't possible for her. Fetterley hits the key issues that Alcott presents by saying, "radical critique of the cultural constructs of 'femininity' and 'little womanhood,' exposing them as roles women must play, masks they must put on, in order to survive." There is a common denominator in Little Women and Behind a Mask and Fetterley discovered the pattern and exploited it. Jean Muir, who was far from fair, had to take on the character of one of the "Little Women" in order to survive economically. She was sneaky. She was sly. However, she did what she needed ot survive. Fetterley used evidence from both books when forming her high opinion of Alcott.

In the critique by richard Boyd on Dred: A Tale of the Great Dismal Swamp there is little to be said due to his wealth of analsysis of this story. Not only does he put the story in some historical contexts happening at the time, he analyzes the demenors of a range of characters, most frequently, the character Frank Russel. The ingnorant biggot of a character contends time and time again that the factor of freedom is a small one indeed. He is proslavery and believes that slavery will only end in violence.

Argument: The argument is The Pearl is a realistic book that does not have happy endings or sugar coats the realistic part, its just a fictional story with true meaning to it. In each book he writes he shows a different interpretation on life and how it really was at the time period. Evidence: "Perhaps such a basically fantastic, sentimental story does not warrant such strong condemnation; but The Pearl has been widely used as an introduction to fiction, and it provides the kind of introduction that is a disservice both to its author--who wrote much better, controlled works--and to fiction itself by failing to suggest the tough-minded complexity of the greatest examples of the art." (French). "The story that Steinbeck reports hearing is a perfect, self-contained parable that can be read in a variety of ways--it provides consolation for the unsuccessful, a pat on the back for those who choose freedom over wealth, and a scourging of the guilt of those who have suffered for choosing to serve Mammon." (French) "To stress the symbolic importance of these events, Steinbeck heavy-handedly relates each to one of three songs--of the Family, the Enemy, and the Pearl (capitals Steinbeck's)--that Kino keeps hearing in his head." (French) Thoughts: Like most of Steinbeck's books he shows the true meaning of what life was. I think the best authors are the ones who speak there minds and share there opinions in there books. It beings out the character of them. I believe that French (the author of the article) really described and illustrated the way the book effected people and how john Steinbeck is a realist. Steinbeck explains that each and every problem we face every day comes with its pros and cons. Kino had to make a decision with is daily life. I believe wrong he wasn't able to fulfill his dream bring his family on the right track but he made a run at it and most people at that time it was hard to live the dream you always wanted and Steinbeck made a good poi

From a young age, Pip went to the Satis House and played cards with Estella. That's where he fell for her and where his desire for nobility began. Parkinson submits that while games are typically played for enjoyment, Pip did not enjoy playing cards, or his life as a gentleman. Pip's approach to his life as a nobleman is similar to his approach to cards. He does neither for enjoyment, he does both to impress Estella, and in the end fails to do either. Pip's wealth brings him no happiness, only discomfort and debt. Parkinson suggests that economic standing is determined by chance in addition to skill, which is accurate in Great Expectations, Pip and Estella get rich through luck, while Magwitch gets rich through mostly hard work and only a little help from luck. In addition, Pip loses at every game, no matter how hard he tries, and he blows through his fortune and ultimately loses it all. Life is just one big game, and playing for the wrong reasons can leave you destitute.