Nathaniel Burns-Sarno
Advanced Placement English/ Mr. George
August 1, 2009
The Great Gatsby Essay Topic 1
Pessimistic Principles
Mankind is a generally distrustful race. It is human nature to, when introduced to someone of a mysterious background, assume the worst about them. Such assumptions often build upon themselves, slowly growing from simple distrust to a much more serious hatred. For when presented with a conundrum, people often become frustrated in their inability to figure it out, causing them to respond with anger. Such is the case in the novel The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nick Carraway, the narrator of the story, often comes into contact with people who believe that his neighbor, Gatsby, had accumulated his great wealth through contemptible means. Although many of them agree on this theory, they rarely agree on exactly what unfavorable activity Gatsby was taking part in. Some believe him to be a bootlegger, while others believe that he is simple living off the inheritance of a dead relative. Whatever their beliefs may be, they all look at Gatsby as if he has done something wrong. Gatsby’s optimistic attitude and extravagance does nothing to ease their views. He goes throughout the novel seemingly proud of the fact that he built himself up to be a wealthy and successful man. He could also be demonized for the fact that the motives for some of his actions are often unclear. For example, he is famous for holding social gatherings, yet those who attend know little to nothing about him. Perhaps they attend in the hopes of solving the mystery that is Gatsby. However, it is more likely that many of them agree to being around Gatsby simply to confirm their own suspicions. No matter where he is, Gatsby is looked upon with pessimistic eyes. Fitzgerald developes the theme of pessimism among Americans in his novel through many characters’ views of Gatsby, showing how the wealthy behave around one another, and expressing the capitalist idea of The American Dream.
As mentioned before, Gatsby seems to be generally disliked throughout the novel. However, it is my belief that the one of the very few(if not the only) reasons that Gatsby is assumed to be underhanded is that he himself never reveals the secret of how he gained his fortune. The fact that Gatsby’s name is often met with disapproval simply cannot have anything to do with the fact that he takes pride in his wealth. For it seems that everyone who criticizes Gatsby has pride in their fortunes, as well. Their suspiciousness could very well have been caused by jealousy. Some may envy Gatsby because his wealth was larger than theirs, while some may envy him because his supposed scandals were never discovered. However, as likely a reason as envy may seem, it cannot be determined for sure. Perhaps the most interesting view of Gatsby comes from the very narrator of the story, Nick Callaway. Nick describes Gatsby as the representation of everything for which he had unaffected scorn. The scorn that Nick has for Gatsby could come from their conflicting personalities, as Nick believes himself to be one of the only honest people in the world, and Gatsby seems to hide everything about himself. Their differences become even greater as the novel progresses. Gatsby keeps his optimistic attitude in situations that called for nothing otherwise, while Nick seems to have left the whole experience with pessimistic views. What is most interesting about Nick’s view of Gatsby is that even though he believes Gatsby to be everything he hates, he still has a great respect for him. An example of this is when Nick removed the vulgar message someone had written on Gatsby’s steps shortly after his death.
The novel has a large assortment of wealthy people who often interact with one another. While these interactions are plentiful, they are rarely diverse. Every conversation about Gatsby seems to follow the same pattern; A person presents someone else’s assumptions of Gatsby, followed by them presenting their own suspicions, and ending with them creating a new assumption to occupy the holes of past assumptions. Also, even when Gatsby is not involved, the conversations never reach the point of being pleasant, and usually end badly, like when Tom broke Myrtle’s nose just because she kept mentioning Daisy. The fact that the wealthy in this novel are unable to communicate in a pleasant fashion shows that they are not truly happy, which usually leads to a pessimistic view of the world. This is an eye-opening thought for Fitzgerald to write about as it shows that you do not have to be in a bad situation to be pessimistic. Indeed, even those who have everything can feel like they have nothing.
The American dream means different things to different people. For some, the American dream is to start a family. For others, it is to be known nationwide for some great accomplishment. While both these views are acceptable by many, they are not shared by everyone. In fact, many believe that the American dream is simply to become so successful that the latter part of life will be an easy ride. This view of the American dream seems to be the accepted one of characters in the novel. The idea is that if you build yourself up, your wealth will be built up, as well. This is surely the case with Gatsby, as his name is easily recognizable, contributing to his wealth by gaining him a lot of business. However, his recognition also gains him a lot of criticism. Gatsby is one of those people who you either love or you hate. The latter seem to be the more apparent view throughout the novel, although Gatsby does receive love from some characters, such as Daisy. There may be a lot of unfavorable ideas of how Gatsby became so rich, but anyway you look at it, he was simply living his own American dream. He was successful and had his own place in the world. Even though many looked at him as if he was a criminal, you can bet that those same people were wishing that they were him.
It seems that no matter how well off you are, you will always be met with disapproving stares. That is just one of the many pessimistic messages conveyed through Fitzgerald’s writing. Fitzgerald does an excellent job of making his characters genuine through having them live their lives by the rules of typical human nature. It makes me wonder what kinds of turns the story would have made had it been viewed through the eyes of those who were not wealthy. The real grabber of this novel is that you can have mixed feelings towards a character, but still not hate them for their actions. What makes the pessimism in this novel so pure is that fact that had anyone been put in Gatsby’s situation, they most likely would have behaved in the same way.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Essay
Nathaniel Burns-Sarno
Advanced Placement English/ Mr. George
July 15, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Essay
Edmond’s Retribution: Wrongful or Righteous?
Retribution is defined as “a requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil”(Dictionary.com). It is, in a sense, the act of setting things right. At least, that is how it always seems to those who are practicing an act of retribution. The truth of the matter is that even when retribution is served for noble reasons, it is still a selfish act. When one seeks vengeance for an act done against them, they do so not because of what morality tells them is right, but because of what their emotions tell them is right. When one seeks vengeance for an act done against another person, they not only ignore morality, but also what the one who has been wronged may have wanted. In the case in which one who has suffered injury from another calls upon a third party to avenge them, the selfishness is clear. However, just because retribution is a selfish act, that does not necessarily mean that it is a wrongful act. After all, devotion to oneself is human nature. We all want for the world to be fair, so we take it upon ourselves to punish those who act unjustly. In doing so, we are often guilty of partisanship, ourselves. This is especially common when a wrongful act of great magnitude is inflicted upon an innocent person. Such a case exists in The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas. Edmond Dantes, the protagonist of the novel, is wrongfully imprisoned for false accusations of treason. He spends years in a dungeon, not even being released when the laws against what he was accused were changed with the rise of a new ruler, and his “treason” was to be looked at as a favorable action. As he is left to rot in prison, he learns of the events that lead to his confinement, and swears revenge. He also learns of a massive cache of treason hidden on the island of Monte Cristo. His mind set on vengeance, Dantes escapes prison, travels to Monte Cristo and claims the treasure in order to use it to punish those responsible for his incarceration. With his new wealth comes a new name for himself; the Count of Monte Cristo. The name changes more than his title; it changes is identity. Dantes is transformed from a noble sailor with dreams and ambitions to an empty shell of a man devoid of emotions. The only ideals he holds on to are the ideals of reward and punishment, which allows him to feel no remorse as he seeks to ensure that the men who caused his suffering meet their demise. Vengeance becomes his obsession. But is such an obsession within the boundaries of true morality? It is certainly not. However, that does not prevent his vengeance from being within the boundaries of true justice. His enemies deserved their fate, as they caused Dantes a great amount of suffering for little to no reason. Dantes may have wished for them a great amount of suffering, but he is unlike them in a very important aspect; he had something to gain from their destruction. Or rather, something to regain: the life that was stolen from him without cause.
Dantes was in no way deserving of the act committed against him. He was a kind, generous man with love and compassion in his heart and a great sense of honor. The only crime Dantes committed was the crime of being too trustful. Even when he is first told of how the men he considered to himself to be on good terms with had caused his incarceration, he refused to believe it. This shows that he had a great amount of trust for these men, and would never have expected them to commit such a disgraceful act. Even though he did not particularly like any of them, he was still just enough trust them and not behave in any way that might offend them. That makes what they did to him even more despicable. There actions are made to be a greater degree of loathsome by the fact that none of them had a good reason for making a noble man like Dantes suffer. Danglars had no fair reason to hate Dantes. He was simply jealous that Dantes’ superior sailing skills and leadership had earned him the position of captain, which Danglars wanted for himself. Fernand’s only reason for plotting against Dantes is that Mercedes, Fernand’s cousin and the woman he loves, chose to marry Dantes instead of him. Perhaps the most disgusting of all is Villefort, who imprisons Dantes despite knowing his innocence. He does so only because freeing Dantes would jeopardize his position. All three of these men had virtually no real basis for their motives. Dantes was simply a victim of circumstance, as well as a victim of three malevolent fiends.
Dantes’ time in prison turned him from a man with many emotions to a man with very few. There was no great detail in the description of what his life in the dungeon was like, and after seeing the result of it, it is clear that no description is needed. Dantes must have endured Hell to become such a cold, uncaring person. Throughout the novel, he become less like a person and more like a representation of pure justice, believing that if good actions are to be rewarded, then evil actions are to be punished. This belief becomes his personality, as when he becomes the Count of Monte Cristo, human kindness and random acts of charity become foreign concepts to him. The fact that reward and punishment are the only concepts he is left to understand after his time in prison only strengthens the argument that his vengeance is just. His life and love were torn away from him, and he felt that those who acted against him deserved to feel what it was like. He felt that they had everything, but deserved to have nothing. So, he took it upon himself to make his idea of rewards and punishments into a reality. This is appropriate because the actions of his enemies were based on their own greed and selfishness, the very traits that would lead to their downfalls.
Dantes grew to become the representation of a literal justice. In doing so, he gained rewards while his enemies suffered punishments. As I said before, retribution is a selfish act. This is proven by the result of the novel, as justice came to serve Dantes, and Dantes was justice, himself.
Advanced Placement English/ Mr. George
July 15, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Essay
Edmond’s Retribution: Wrongful or Righteous?
Retribution is defined as “a requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil”(Dictionary.com). It is, in a sense, the act of setting things right. At least, that is how it always seems to those who are practicing an act of retribution. The truth of the matter is that even when retribution is served for noble reasons, it is still a selfish act. When one seeks vengeance for an act done against them, they do so not because of what morality tells them is right, but because of what their emotions tell them is right. When one seeks vengeance for an act done against another person, they not only ignore morality, but also what the one who has been wronged may have wanted. In the case in which one who has suffered injury from another calls upon a third party to avenge them, the selfishness is clear. However, just because retribution is a selfish act, that does not necessarily mean that it is a wrongful act. After all, devotion to oneself is human nature. We all want for the world to be fair, so we take it upon ourselves to punish those who act unjustly. In doing so, we are often guilty of partisanship, ourselves. This is especially common when a wrongful act of great magnitude is inflicted upon an innocent person. Such a case exists in The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas. Edmond Dantes, the protagonist of the novel, is wrongfully imprisoned for false accusations of treason. He spends years in a dungeon, not even being released when the laws against what he was accused were changed with the rise of a new ruler, and his “treason” was to be looked at as a favorable action. As he is left to rot in prison, he learns of the events that lead to his confinement, and swears revenge. He also learns of a massive cache of treason hidden on the island of Monte Cristo. His mind set on vengeance, Dantes escapes prison, travels to Monte Cristo and claims the treasure in order to use it to punish those responsible for his incarceration. With his new wealth comes a new name for himself; the Count of Monte Cristo. The name changes more than his title; it changes is identity. Dantes is transformed from a noble sailor with dreams and ambitions to an empty shell of a man devoid of emotions. The only ideals he holds on to are the ideals of reward and punishment, which allows him to feel no remorse as he seeks to ensure that the men who caused his suffering meet their demise. Vengeance becomes his obsession. But is such an obsession within the boundaries of true morality? It is certainly not. However, that does not prevent his vengeance from being within the boundaries of true justice. His enemies deserved their fate, as they caused Dantes a great amount of suffering for little to no reason. Dantes may have wished for them a great amount of suffering, but he is unlike them in a very important aspect; he had something to gain from their destruction. Or rather, something to regain: the life that was stolen from him without cause.
Dantes was in no way deserving of the act committed against him. He was a kind, generous man with love and compassion in his heart and a great sense of honor. The only crime Dantes committed was the crime of being too trustful. Even when he is first told of how the men he considered to himself to be on good terms with had caused his incarceration, he refused to believe it. This shows that he had a great amount of trust for these men, and would never have expected them to commit such a disgraceful act. Even though he did not particularly like any of them, he was still just enough trust them and not behave in any way that might offend them. That makes what they did to him even more despicable. There actions are made to be a greater degree of loathsome by the fact that none of them had a good reason for making a noble man like Dantes suffer. Danglars had no fair reason to hate Dantes. He was simply jealous that Dantes’ superior sailing skills and leadership had earned him the position of captain, which Danglars wanted for himself. Fernand’s only reason for plotting against Dantes is that Mercedes, Fernand’s cousin and the woman he loves, chose to marry Dantes instead of him. Perhaps the most disgusting of all is Villefort, who imprisons Dantes despite knowing his innocence. He does so only because freeing Dantes would jeopardize his position. All three of these men had virtually no real basis for their motives. Dantes was simply a victim of circumstance, as well as a victim of three malevolent fiends.
Dantes’ time in prison turned him from a man with many emotions to a man with very few. There was no great detail in the description of what his life in the dungeon was like, and after seeing the result of it, it is clear that no description is needed. Dantes must have endured Hell to become such a cold, uncaring person. Throughout the novel, he become less like a person and more like a representation of pure justice, believing that if good actions are to be rewarded, then evil actions are to be punished. This belief becomes his personality, as when he becomes the Count of Monte Cristo, human kindness and random acts of charity become foreign concepts to him. The fact that reward and punishment are the only concepts he is left to understand after his time in prison only strengthens the argument that his vengeance is just. His life and love were torn away from him, and he felt that those who acted against him deserved to feel what it was like. He felt that they had everything, but deserved to have nothing. So, he took it upon himself to make his idea of rewards and punishments into a reality. This is appropriate because the actions of his enemies were based on their own greed and selfishness, the very traits that would lead to their downfalls.
Dantes grew to become the representation of a literal justice. In doing so, he gained rewards while his enemies suffered punishments. As I said before, retribution is a selfish act. This is proven by the result of the novel, as justice came to serve Dantes, and Dantes was justice, himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
