Nathaniel Burns-Sarno
Advanced Placement English/ Mr. George
August 25, 2009
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay Topic 1
Clemen’s Critique of Commonality’s Classes
“I feel for Adam and Eve now, for I know how it was with them…The Garden of Eden I know now was an unendurable solitude. I know that the advent of the serpent was a welcome change—anything for society.” These very words were spoken by author Samuel Clemens( better known by his pseudonym, Mark Twain), and recorded for his biography. With this one quote, anyone can acquire an idea of Twain’s feelings towards society. To acquire a much larger idea of Twain’s stance, they need only examine his literary works, which all seem to have some critique of darker sides of what was then modern society. In fact, Twain makes his disapproval of his society so clear that one could find a quote chastising society by simply opening to a random page of any one of his novels. Indeed, Twain makes a strong case against society, usually disguised within the seemingly simple storyline of one of his books. There is no greater example of this than “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, which despite being a sequel to one of Twain’s earlier works, has stood out on its own in the world of American Literature. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn tells the story of the titled character, a boy living in the antebellum south who travels down a river with an escaped slave, Jim. Throughout the novel, Huck enters many towns and interacts with various characters, most of whom serving as the representation of the different classes within society. Through these characters, Twain makes it clear that society is far from perfect, and is in fact, a dark, racist, hate-filled plot of land inhabited by characters who are not worthy enough to be considered humans. To be fair, there are also many kind, good-natured characters within the novel, but just like in real life society, they seem either stay in the background or simply go unnoticed. The only compassionate characters who are the exception to this seem to be the two protagonists, Huck and Jim. However, even they participate in some activities that can be seen as less than moral by today’s standards. Granted, most of the bad things they had done were due to circumstances beyond their control, and even then none of their actions could hold a candle to the cruelty of most of the characters within the novel, who as I have mentioned before, serves as the embodiment of society. Twain shows society in many different lights, showing both its good and bad points. However, the bad points seem to far outnumber the good, which is to be expected from a work of Twain. Society is mostly shown as racist and conniving. Of the two, racism seems to be the most prominent.
The dominant critique of society(or at least what seems to be the dominant one to me) is the amount of racism that is put into its foundation. In the antebellum south, there was not even the slightest hint of equality. The color of one’s skin determined there place in society, and the laws surrounding all aspects of slavery were very(pardon the pun) black and white. If a black person was living in the south at that time, one could safely bet that they were a slave. In fact, any other bets would have been foolish. Not only were all black people in the south doomed to live a life of servitude under white people, but they were also treated as if they were not even human. The prime example of this is the use of the term “nigger” within the novel. This term is the most well-known derogatory term for a black person in society, and to speak it today would be considered a large taboo. However, Twain’s portrayal of the antebellum south in this novel show the word to be a widely accepted term. What I found most interesting about this is that white people were not the only ones to use it. Jim himself used the term various times in the novel, and never in contempt or bitterness. This shows that perhaps the word “nigger” had become so widely accepted that even the black people who were called by it found it to be a proper term. It could even go as far as a black person thinking themselves to be a separate species, not included in humankind. That would not surprise me, as it is made clear in this novel that the white people do not consider black people to be humans at all, denying them every right that they should have as human beings. What is worse is that some white people in this novel do not even value the life a black person. An example of this is when Sally Phelps, the aunt of Huck’s best friend, Tom Sawyer, asked Huck if anyone was hurt when the cylinder-head was blown out. When Huck tells her that it killed a nigger, she replies, “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt”(Twain 258). This shows that the life of a black person is worth nothing in this novel. They are treated like mules and sold for a profit on a whim. However, even though the black people get the brunt of the abuse within the novel, they are not the only ones treated with cruelty. Indeed, this novel shows that even those of the same skin color would use each other for a profit.
While on their travels, Huck and Jim encounter two con-artists(better known as the duke and the dauphin, whom they are posing as). These two men are arguably the most despicable characters in the novel, and serve to show how cruelty travels in a cycle. From the very start of joining Huck and Jim, who had just saved them from being captured, these men took advantage of Huck and Jim’s respective situations(Huck being a young boy who had feigned death and Jim being an escaped slave). All they seemed interested in was money and profit, and they did not care who they had to go through or how many people they had harmed in order to gain it. Despite being so unlikeable, these two men do help to portray Twain’s message about cruelty traveling in a cycle. The duke and dauphin advertise a performance in order to scam people out of their money. When they people arrived and found that the short performance was not worth what they had paid, they had a very interesting reaction. Rather than spreading the word that the performance was a scam, and helping their fellow man to not be cheated out of his money, the townspeople decided to tell everyone that the show was great so that those they told would go see it and be cheated out of their money, as well. This was perhaps done so that those who had already been cheated could feel better about themselves, as if they were in need of schadenfreude. While that is an understandable part of human nature, it is rare that anyone would feel the need to create it themselves. The duke and the dauphin also end up selling Jim for reward money, which shows that they are more interested in a quick buck than a long term investment. After all, they already had enough power over Jim to have him take part in their scams. These men being so despicable, I cannot imagine why they never thought of that.
Even though “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” was written long ago, it still has a lot to teach us. This novel was written in a different time, when all men were far from equal. When juxtaposed with today’s society, it is clear how far we have come. An America where people were treated like slaves based on their race is now and America lead by a half-black president. Even so, I would not be surprised if in the future, people look back on our modern society and criticize how primitive we were. However, that is easily preventable if we keep striving for a better America. In the words of Mark Twain, “Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today”.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Great Gatsby Essay
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Native Son Essay(Edited)
Nathaniel Burns-Sarno
English 10 Honors/ Mr. George
May 1, 2009
Native Son Essay Topic 3
Bigger Thomas: The Logic Behind the Lunacy
The world is comprised of three groups of people; the ones whose actions make them seem good, the ones whose actions make them seem evil, and the ones whose actions make them seem between good and evil. In order for either of these three to survive, the other two must exist. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no evil without good, and no one between good and evil without good and evil to begin with. These three groups of the world seem to be at a constant war with one another, as their views tend to conflict with each other. The evil prey on the good, and the good fend off the evil. Those between good and evil are often tempted by both sides, and thus try to push them away. Both good and evil are at an equal force. However, those who are good are often favored over those who are evil. Good deeds bring about rewards, while evil deeds bring about punishment. So, the question is; Why would anyone choose a life of evil over good? The answer is a simple one: Good and evil are simply a matter of one’s point of view. We can easily judge someone who has committed a crime to be evil. However, they themselves would have seen their crime as an act of good. There is no purely malicious deed. That is, no deed done based on malice alone. A person will do something only if they believe it to be the right thing (at least during the time that they are doing it). With enough thought, criminals can easily justify their actions, and even if their excuses fall upon deaf ears, they can never be proven as being universally wrong(only politically so). Any act can be defended, no matter how heinous. Therefore, no action committed by Bigger Thomas, the main character of the novel Native Son, by Richard Wright, can be deemed evil. Even crimes as horrible as murder, attempted ransom, and running from the police can be justified.
Bigger Thomas murdered two people in the novel Native Son. The first person he murdered was Mary Dalton, the daughter of Mr. Dalton, Bigger’s employer. The murder took place on the night that Mary and Jan, Mary’s boyfriend, took Bigger out for a night on the town. During the excursion, Bigger, Mary, and Jan all drank a lot of alcohol and became drunk. Mary, being too buzzed to even stand up on her own, required Bigger’s assistance in getting to her bed. After Bigger helped Mary to her bed, Mrs. Dalton, Mary’s blind mother, came upstairs to check on her. Bigger knew that if he was found in Mary’s room, he would be accused of rape simply because he was a black man. Unfortunately, due to her drunken state, Mary was unable to keep herself quiet. In a panic, Bigger placed his hand over Mary’s mouth to silence her. When Mrs. Dalton left the room, and Bigger was able to remove his hand from Mary’s mouth, he found Mary to be dead. Bigger automatically knew what would happen if people found out about him accidently murdering Mary. He knew that the consequences for his mistake would be ten times worse than the punishment that would be bestowed upon a white murderer. “She was dead and he had killed her. He was a murderer, a Negro murderer, a black murderer. He had killed a white woman. He had to get away from here”(Wright 87). Bigger knew that he had done wrong, and would be seen as a murderer. However, his murder was only a technical one, one that would certainly not be punishable by death if a white man had done it. Knowing that he had to avoid anyone discovering his “murder”, Bigger chopped up Mary’s body and threw the pieces into a furnace. While this act is certainly more heinous than the actual murder, it is easier to justify. Bigger was simply doing what he could to continue his life, as his death would not fix anything.
The other Murder Bigger committed was the murder of Bessie, his girlfriend. The act of killing Bessie was done for the same reason as the act of burning Mary’s corpse; to cover his tracks. He needed to keep Bessie quiet in order to avoid being put to death. She had to die for him to survive. It was simply survival of the fittest.
After murdering Mary, Bigger created a ransom note and sent it to the Daltons, claiming to have kidnapped Mary and offering her return in exchange for riches. While a despicable act when seen through the eyes of the “good”, one must consider Bigger’s position in the world he was living in. As a black citizen(and I use the term loosely), Bigger was given nothing. He was forced to live in a confined area of poverty, and taunted with the images of the world on the other side; the white world. He had done nothing to deserve the lousy hand life had dealt him. The only crime he had committed to end up there was the crime of being black. It is only natural that Bigger would feel entitled to some of what the white people had. So, with Mary’s death and word out of her disappearance, Bigger saw the opportunity to make a better life for himself. He knew that the Daltons were rich enough to gain back whatever they had lost, so they were the perfect target. They would not suffer for having lost money, and Bigger would thrive for having gained money. The only thought Bigger had in his mind while writing the ransom note was getting out of the hell that he called a home, and entering something much greater.
When all signs of Mary’s murder pointed to Bigger, Bigger went on the lamb, even going as far to fire his gun at police in order to avoid his capture. While certainly an illegal act, one cannot say that the thought of doing so would not enter their own minds, if placed in that situation. Bigger attempted to kill in order to avoid being killed. Once again, survival of the fittest. While it can often be viewed as a barbaric principle, keep in mind that Bigger was uneducated, and had to work on instinct alone. No one should have been surprised by that.
Bigger’s actions led to his downfall, but they are not without reason. Everything he did, while performed rashly and without thinking first, is understandable. He did what he thought to be the wisest choice, which I’m sure anyone would do in a similar situation. In fact, it is clear that had the “white world” given Bigger more in life, none of these tragedies would have taken place. In a way, the “white world” is just as much at fault for Bigger’s crimes as Bigger himself. Bigger’s view of right and wrong would not have been so contradictory to their own if they would have treated him properly. Bigger cannot be blamed for thinking what he did to be right. His views were forced on him the moment he was born.
English 10 Honors/ Mr. George
May 1, 2009
Native Son Essay Topic 3
Bigger Thomas: The Logic Behind the Lunacy
The world is comprised of three groups of people; the ones whose actions make them seem good, the ones whose actions make them seem evil, and the ones whose actions make them seem between good and evil. In order for either of these three to survive, the other two must exist. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no evil without good, and no one between good and evil without good and evil to begin with. These three groups of the world seem to be at a constant war with one another, as their views tend to conflict with each other. The evil prey on the good, and the good fend off the evil. Those between good and evil are often tempted by both sides, and thus try to push them away. Both good and evil are at an equal force. However, those who are good are often favored over those who are evil. Good deeds bring about rewards, while evil deeds bring about punishment. So, the question is; Why would anyone choose a life of evil over good? The answer is a simple one: Good and evil are simply a matter of one’s point of view. We can easily judge someone who has committed a crime to be evil. However, they themselves would have seen their crime as an act of good. There is no purely malicious deed. That is, no deed done based on malice alone. A person will do something only if they believe it to be the right thing (at least during the time that they are doing it). With enough thought, criminals can easily justify their actions, and even if their excuses fall upon deaf ears, they can never be proven as being universally wrong(only politically so). Any act can be defended, no matter how heinous. Therefore, no action committed by Bigger Thomas, the main character of the novel Native Son, by Richard Wright, can be deemed evil. Even crimes as horrible as murder, attempted ransom, and running from the police can be justified.
Bigger Thomas murdered two people in the novel Native Son. The first person he murdered was Mary Dalton, the daughter of Mr. Dalton, Bigger’s employer. The murder took place on the night that Mary and Jan, Mary’s boyfriend, took Bigger out for a night on the town. During the excursion, Bigger, Mary, and Jan all drank a lot of alcohol and became drunk. Mary, being too buzzed to even stand up on her own, required Bigger’s assistance in getting to her bed. After Bigger helped Mary to her bed, Mrs. Dalton, Mary’s blind mother, came upstairs to check on her. Bigger knew that if he was found in Mary’s room, he would be accused of rape simply because he was a black man. Unfortunately, due to her drunken state, Mary was unable to keep herself quiet. In a panic, Bigger placed his hand over Mary’s mouth to silence her. When Mrs. Dalton left the room, and Bigger was able to remove his hand from Mary’s mouth, he found Mary to be dead. Bigger automatically knew what would happen if people found out about him accidently murdering Mary. He knew that the consequences for his mistake would be ten times worse than the punishment that would be bestowed upon a white murderer. “She was dead and he had killed her. He was a murderer, a Negro murderer, a black murderer. He had killed a white woman. He had to get away from here”(Wright 87). Bigger knew that he had done wrong, and would be seen as a murderer. However, his murder was only a technical one, one that would certainly not be punishable by death if a white man had done it. Knowing that he had to avoid anyone discovering his “murder”, Bigger chopped up Mary’s body and threw the pieces into a furnace. While this act is certainly more heinous than the actual murder, it is easier to justify. Bigger was simply doing what he could to continue his life, as his death would not fix anything.
The other Murder Bigger committed was the murder of Bessie, his girlfriend. The act of killing Bessie was done for the same reason as the act of burning Mary’s corpse; to cover his tracks. He needed to keep Bessie quiet in order to avoid being put to death. She had to die for him to survive. It was simply survival of the fittest.
After murdering Mary, Bigger created a ransom note and sent it to the Daltons, claiming to have kidnapped Mary and offering her return in exchange for riches. While a despicable act when seen through the eyes of the “good”, one must consider Bigger’s position in the world he was living in. As a black citizen(and I use the term loosely), Bigger was given nothing. He was forced to live in a confined area of poverty, and taunted with the images of the world on the other side; the white world. He had done nothing to deserve the lousy hand life had dealt him. The only crime he had committed to end up there was the crime of being black. It is only natural that Bigger would feel entitled to some of what the white people had. So, with Mary’s death and word out of her disappearance, Bigger saw the opportunity to make a better life for himself. He knew that the Daltons were rich enough to gain back whatever they had lost, so they were the perfect target. They would not suffer for having lost money, and Bigger would thrive for having gained money. The only thought Bigger had in his mind while writing the ransom note was getting out of the hell that he called a home, and entering something much greater.
When all signs of Mary’s murder pointed to Bigger, Bigger went on the lamb, even going as far to fire his gun at police in order to avoid his capture. While certainly an illegal act, one cannot say that the thought of doing so would not enter their own minds, if placed in that situation. Bigger attempted to kill in order to avoid being killed. Once again, survival of the fittest. While it can often be viewed as a barbaric principle, keep in mind that Bigger was uneducated, and had to work on instinct alone. No one should have been surprised by that.
Bigger’s actions led to his downfall, but they are not without reason. Everything he did, while performed rashly and without thinking first, is understandable. He did what he thought to be the wisest choice, which I’m sure anyone would do in a similar situation. In fact, it is clear that had the “white world” given Bigger more in life, none of these tragedies would have taken place. In a way, the “white world” is just as much at fault for Bigger’s crimes as Bigger himself. Bigger’s view of right and wrong would not have been so contradictory to their own if they would have treated him properly. Bigger cannot be blamed for thinking what he did to be right. His views were forced on him the moment he was born.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Native Son Essay
Nathaniel Burns-Sarno
English 10 Honors/ Mr. George
May 1, 2009
Native Son Essay Topic 3
Bigger Thomas: The Logic Behind the Lunacy
The world is comprised of three groups of people; the ones whose actions make them seem good, the ones whose actions make them seem evil, and the ones whose actions make them seem between good and evil. In order for either of these three to survive, the other two must exist. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no evil without good, and no one between good and evil without good and evil to begin with. There three groups of the world seem to be at a constant war with one another, as their views tend to conflict with each other. The evil prey on the good, and the good fend off the evil. Those between good and evil are often tempted by both sides, and thus try to push them away. Both good and evil are at an equal force. However, those who are good are often favored over those who are evil. Good deeds bring about rewards, while evil deeds bring about punishment. So, the question is; Why would anyone choose a life of evil over good? The answer is a simple one: Good and evil are simply a matter of one’s point of view. We can easily judge someone who has committed a crime to be evil. However, they themselves would have seen their crime as an act of good. There is no purely malicious deed. That is, no deed done based on malice alone. A person will do something only if they believe it to be the right thing, at least during the time that they are doing it. With enough thought, criminals can easily justify their actions, and even if their excuses fall upon deaf ears, they can never be proven as being universally wrong(only politically so). Any act can be defended, no matter how heinous. Therefore, no action committed by Bigger Thomas, the main character of the novel Native Son, by Richard Wright, can be deemed evil. Even crimes as horrible as murder, attempted ransom, and running from the police can be justified.
Bigger Thomas murdered two people in the novel Native Son. The first person he murdered was Mary Dalton, the daughter of Mr. Dalton, Bigger’s employer. The murder took place on the night that Mary and Jan, Mary’s boyfriend, took Bigger out for a night on the down. During the excursion, Bigger, Mary, and Jan all drank a lot of alcohol and became drunk. Mary, being too buzzed to even stand up on her own, required Bigger’s assistance in getting to her bed. After Bigger helped Mary to her bed, Mrs. Dalton, Mary’s blind mother, came upstairs to check on her. Bigger knew that if he was found in Mary’s room, he would be accused of rape simply because he was a black man. Unfortunately, due to her drunken state, Mary was unable to keep herself quiet. In a panic, Bigger placed his hand over Mary’s mouth to silence her. When Mrs. Dalton left the room and Bigger was able to remove his hand from Mary’s mouth, he found Mary to be dead. Bigger automatically knew what would happen if people found out about him accidently murdering Mary. He knew that the consequences for his mistake would be ten times worse than the punishment that would be bestowed upon a white murderer. “She was dead and he had killed her. He was a murderer, a Negro murderer, a black murderer. He had killed a white woman. He had to get away from here”(Wright 87). Bigger knew that he had done wrong, and would be seen as a murderer. However, his murder was only a technical one, one that would certainly not be punishable by death if a white man had done it. Knowing that he had to avoid anyone discovering his “murder”, Bigger chopped up Mary’s body and threw the pieces into a furnace. While this act is certainly more heinous than the actual murder, it is easier to justify. Bigger was simply doing what he could to continue his life, as his death would not fix anything.
The other Murder Bigger committed was the murder of Bessie, his girlfriend. The act of killing Bessie was done for the same reason as the act of burning Mary’s corpse; to cover his tracks. He needed to keep Bessie quiet in order to avoid being put to death. She had to die for him to survive. It was simply survival of the fittest.
After murdering Mary, Bigger created a ransom note and sent it to the Daltons, claiming to have kidnapped Mary and offering her return in exchange for riches. While a despicable act when seen through the eyes of the “good”, one must consider Bigger’s position in the world he was living in. As a black citizen(and I use the term loosely), Bigger was given nothing. He was forced to live in a confined area of poverty, and taunted with the images of the world on the other side; the white world. He had done nothing to deserve the lousy hand life had dealt him. The only crime he had committed to end up there was the crime of being black. It is only natural that Bigger would feel entitled to some of what the white people had. So, with Mary’s death and word out of her disappearance, Bigger saw the opportunity to make a better life for himself. He knew that the Daltons were rich enough to gain back whatever they had lost, so they were the perfect target. They would not suffer for having lost money, and Bigger would thrive for having gained money. The only though Bigger had in his mind while writing the ransom note was getting out of the hell that he called a home, and entering something much greater.
When all signs of Mary’s murder pointed to Bigger, Bigger went on the lamb, even going as far to fire his gun at police in order to avoid his capture. While certainly an illegal act, one cannot say that the thought of doing so would not enter their own minds, if placed in that situation. Bigger attempted to kill in order to avoid being killed. Once again, survival of the fittest. While it can often be viewed as a barbaric principle, keep in mind that Bigger was uneducated, and had to work on instinct alone. No one should have been surprised by that.
Bigger’s actions led to his downfall, but they are not without reason. Everything he did, while performed rashly and without thinking first, is understandable. He did what he thought to be the wisest choice, which I’m sure anyone would do in a similar situation. In fact, it is clear that had the “white world” given Bigger more in life, none of these tragedies would have taken place. In a way, the “white world” is just as much at fault for Bigger’s crimes as Bigger, himself. Bigger’s view of right and wrong would not have been so contradictory to their own if they would have treated him properly. Bigger cannot be blamed for thinking what he did to be right. His views were forced on him the moment he was born.
English 10 Honors/ Mr. George
May 1, 2009
Native Son Essay Topic 3
Bigger Thomas: The Logic Behind the Lunacy
The world is comprised of three groups of people; the ones whose actions make them seem good, the ones whose actions make them seem evil, and the ones whose actions make them seem between good and evil. In order for either of these three to survive, the other two must exist. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no evil without good, and no one between good and evil without good and evil to begin with. There three groups of the world seem to be at a constant war with one another, as their views tend to conflict with each other. The evil prey on the good, and the good fend off the evil. Those between good and evil are often tempted by both sides, and thus try to push them away. Both good and evil are at an equal force. However, those who are good are often favored over those who are evil. Good deeds bring about rewards, while evil deeds bring about punishment. So, the question is; Why would anyone choose a life of evil over good? The answer is a simple one: Good and evil are simply a matter of one’s point of view. We can easily judge someone who has committed a crime to be evil. However, they themselves would have seen their crime as an act of good. There is no purely malicious deed. That is, no deed done based on malice alone. A person will do something only if they believe it to be the right thing, at least during the time that they are doing it. With enough thought, criminals can easily justify their actions, and even if their excuses fall upon deaf ears, they can never be proven as being universally wrong(only politically so). Any act can be defended, no matter how heinous. Therefore, no action committed by Bigger Thomas, the main character of the novel Native Son, by Richard Wright, can be deemed evil. Even crimes as horrible as murder, attempted ransom, and running from the police can be justified.
Bigger Thomas murdered two people in the novel Native Son. The first person he murdered was Mary Dalton, the daughter of Mr. Dalton, Bigger’s employer. The murder took place on the night that Mary and Jan, Mary’s boyfriend, took Bigger out for a night on the down. During the excursion, Bigger, Mary, and Jan all drank a lot of alcohol and became drunk. Mary, being too buzzed to even stand up on her own, required Bigger’s assistance in getting to her bed. After Bigger helped Mary to her bed, Mrs. Dalton, Mary’s blind mother, came upstairs to check on her. Bigger knew that if he was found in Mary’s room, he would be accused of rape simply because he was a black man. Unfortunately, due to her drunken state, Mary was unable to keep herself quiet. In a panic, Bigger placed his hand over Mary’s mouth to silence her. When Mrs. Dalton left the room and Bigger was able to remove his hand from Mary’s mouth, he found Mary to be dead. Bigger automatically knew what would happen if people found out about him accidently murdering Mary. He knew that the consequences for his mistake would be ten times worse than the punishment that would be bestowed upon a white murderer. “She was dead and he had killed her. He was a murderer, a Negro murderer, a black murderer. He had killed a white woman. He had to get away from here”(Wright 87). Bigger knew that he had done wrong, and would be seen as a murderer. However, his murder was only a technical one, one that would certainly not be punishable by death if a white man had done it. Knowing that he had to avoid anyone discovering his “murder”, Bigger chopped up Mary’s body and threw the pieces into a furnace. While this act is certainly more heinous than the actual murder, it is easier to justify. Bigger was simply doing what he could to continue his life, as his death would not fix anything.
The other Murder Bigger committed was the murder of Bessie, his girlfriend. The act of killing Bessie was done for the same reason as the act of burning Mary’s corpse; to cover his tracks. He needed to keep Bessie quiet in order to avoid being put to death. She had to die for him to survive. It was simply survival of the fittest.
After murdering Mary, Bigger created a ransom note and sent it to the Daltons, claiming to have kidnapped Mary and offering her return in exchange for riches. While a despicable act when seen through the eyes of the “good”, one must consider Bigger’s position in the world he was living in. As a black citizen(and I use the term loosely), Bigger was given nothing. He was forced to live in a confined area of poverty, and taunted with the images of the world on the other side; the white world. He had done nothing to deserve the lousy hand life had dealt him. The only crime he had committed to end up there was the crime of being black. It is only natural that Bigger would feel entitled to some of what the white people had. So, with Mary’s death and word out of her disappearance, Bigger saw the opportunity to make a better life for himself. He knew that the Daltons were rich enough to gain back whatever they had lost, so they were the perfect target. They would not suffer for having lost money, and Bigger would thrive for having gained money. The only though Bigger had in his mind while writing the ransom note was getting out of the hell that he called a home, and entering something much greater.
When all signs of Mary’s murder pointed to Bigger, Bigger went on the lamb, even going as far to fire his gun at police in order to avoid his capture. While certainly an illegal act, one cannot say that the thought of doing so would not enter their own minds, if placed in that situation. Bigger attempted to kill in order to avoid being killed. Once again, survival of the fittest. While it can often be viewed as a barbaric principle, keep in mind that Bigger was uneducated, and had to work on instinct alone. No one should have been surprised by that.
Bigger’s actions led to his downfall, but they are not without reason. Everything he did, while performed rashly and without thinking first, is understandable. He did what he thought to be the wisest choice, which I’m sure anyone would do in a similar situation. In fact, it is clear that had the “white world” given Bigger more in life, none of these tragedies would have taken place. In a way, the “white world” is just as much at fault for Bigger’s crimes as Bigger, himself. Bigger’s view of right and wrong would not have been so contradictory to their own if they would have treated him properly. Bigger cannot be blamed for thinking what he did to be right. His views were forced on him the moment he was born.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Native Son 4/15/09
Quote: "Back in his cell, Bigger tumbled lifelessly onto his cot. Soon it'll all be over, he thought. Tomorrow might be his last day; he hoped so. His sense of time was gone; night and day were merged now."
Significance:
This passage shows that Bigger has more than accepted his fate; he's now hoping for it. Although he is not happy, or even content with what will happen to him, he still wants it to happen. It will be interesting to see what happens if there are any sudden twists in his fate. Will he be able to accept it as fast, or will he still long for death?
Question:
Will Bigger give the white world the satisfaction of killing him?
Significance:
This passage shows that Bigger has more than accepted his fate; he's now hoping for it. Although he is not happy, or even content with what will happen to him, he still wants it to happen. It will be interesting to see what happens if there are any sudden twists in his fate. Will he be able to accept it as fast, or will he still long for death?
Question:
Will Bigger give the white world the satisfaction of killing him?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Quote: "'I didn't like it. There was nothing in it. Aw, all they did was sing and shout and pray all the time. And it didn't get 'em nothing. All the colored folks do that, but it don't get 'em nothing. The white fols got everything."'
Significance:
This quote shows Bigger's feelings to wards religion directly, coming straight from his mouth. He sees know point in Religion, as it has failed to change his world. No matter how much people prayed, nothing ever got better for them. Bigger's resistance to wards Religion has logic in it, as he focuses on what he can control rather than what he cannot. It leaves me wondering if he has no faith at all, or a faith against faith.
Question:
Did Bigger ever get anything out of prayer?
Significance:
This quote shows Bigger's feelings to wards religion directly, coming straight from his mouth. He sees know point in Religion, as it has failed to change his world. No matter how much people prayed, nothing ever got better for them. Bigger's resistance to wards Religion has logic in it, as he focuses on what he can control rather than what he cannot. It leaves me wondering if he has no faith at all, or a faith against faith.
Question:
Did Bigger ever get anything out of prayer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
