Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Consider Pip from Great Expectations and Ralph from Lord of the Flies Essay Example for Free

Consider Pip from Great Expectations and Ralph from Lord of the Flies Essay Which character do you think gives the most realistic portrayal of childhood? Both of these novels contain depictions of childhood. An important fact to keep aware of is that in Dickens portrayal of childhood, there are adults present to mould Pip through his encounters with them, whereas Golding leaves his characters free from any guiding adult hand. Pips sister being on the rampage when she felt Joe or Pip had done the slightest thing wrong, is different to Ralphs experience of childhood on the island as the closest thing he has to an adult guide is Piggy, who whilst undoubtedly more intelligent than the other boys, lacks the respect and authority an adult commands. Pip and Ralph are alike however in their longing for a lack of adults, but then the delight of a realized ambition overcame him. In the middle of the scar he stood on his head and grinned at the reversed fat boy. No grown ups! Is what Golding tells us of Ralph, and similarly Dickenss Pip calls them all toadies and humbugs. Although these views both seem to concur that a lack of adults is definitely a good thing, they do differ somewhat, I do not believe Ralph would go so far as to call all adults toadies and humbugs and this is certainly to do with their different backgrounds. Ralph is a Home Counties lad with a father high up in the navy who knows that the queen has a drawer full of maps, whereas Pip is the adopted son of a blacksmith and although Ralphs lifestyle may not necessarily have been glamorous, it was much more homely and welcoming than the one Pip enjoys. The two novels are also set over a greatly differing time span. Lord of the Flies lasts perhaps several weeks at the most, whereas Pips childhood lasts several years in Great Expectations. Obviously this will play a part in how realistic their childhoods seem as we see no more than the blinking of an eye of Ralphs, but have a much more in depth viewing of Pips. Adults mould Pip throughout his childhood, and the most important adults involved in this are Pumblechook, Mr Wopsle and Pips sister. All of these have a tendency to look down on Pip, and it is for that reason that Joe is not included in the list, as he and Pip treat each other like equals. Ralph on the other hand has no guiding force behind him throughout all the time the reader knows him. Whereas Ralph is a very expressive child, he stands on his head and laughs and looks golden, Pip is not, in the early stages of the book, free from the tyranny of his sister. So there is a crucial difference between the two novels in that Ralph and his companions are free to be children without adult ideals being laid upon them, whereas Pip is expected to be a child the way society expects him to be, be grateful boy to them which bought you up by hand being a good example of this. A key aspect of childhood is Fear, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown and fear of adults to name but a few. Both authors work this aspect of childhood into their novels somehow. Dickens does this with Magwitchs young man a boy may lock his door, may be warm in bed, may tuck himself up, may draw the clothes over his head, may think himself comfortable and safe, but that young man will softly creep and creep his way to him and tear him open. All this to scare Pip into getting him some wittles and it works, from the language in that quote, it is obviously apparent that Dickens had a very good idea of childhood and its workings, on of the few things universal to children is that they do think bed to be the ultimate haven. Pip is scared by Magwitch into stealing from his sister, who he is already afraid of, and this is significant in that it shows Dickens had a very good grasp of what childhood was about, and is thus likely to have a very good portrait of childhood in his novel. Possibly even more significant than this is that Pip steals a file from Joe his trusted friend, and this also shows more understanding on Dickens part about children, they do not discriminate between close friends and others to the extent older people do. And so we see the counter part to this in Lord of the Flies, when alone and with no adults on the desert island the children feel the need for a fire and steal Piggys glasses to light it. Piggy is Ralphs main ally on the island, and certainly Ralph is Piggys only friend, so the situation is much akin to the one in Great Expectations but we do not see the same level of remorse from Ralph. Instead of Pips fearful I held tight to the leg of the table under the cloth, with both hands, and awaited my fate in anticipation of any retribution that may be dealt out, all that Golding says of the boys remorse at leaving Piggy blind and helpless is for Ralph to hand them back when done with them, and it is here that it seems as though Golding has a better understanding of children, he appreciates that their consciences are not yet fully developed as they are unable to grasp the implications of what they have done. The fear that grows apparent on the island however is not the same kind of fear as Pip experiences. One of the little-uns complains of a beastie, nonsense is the response he gets from Ralph, and yet The vivid horror of this, so possible and nakedly terrifying held them all silent. And it is here where the crux of the argument begins to form for Dickens having the better portrayal of childhood. The Beastie is in fact symbolic of the horror humans will create on the island, and the rest of Goldings novel is also mostly symbolic, whereas Great Expectations isnt. The natural reaction for Ralph and company to have is to try and ward of the beastie somehow, and thus the fire begins to become more than simply a rescue beacon. The relationships between characters is also a major part in the views we are offered of childhood. Golding uses the views of others to reveal aspects of the main characters, and so influence how we feel about them, Piggys view of Ralph and the others Like a crowd of kids - is supposed to make the reader feel that Piggy is far more mature, and that in turn Ralph is excessively immature, and childlike. Dickens however uses Pips perspective throughout the novel, and the language he uses differs greatly at the start as compared to the finish for the purposes of showing the transition between child and adult. For example I religiously entertained that they had been born on their backs with their hands in their trouser pockets is clearly not the impression an adult would get from having dead brothers or sisters, and most likely not the way they would describe them. However at the end of the book the language use has progressed to statements such as Oh, Joe, you break my heart! Look angry at me, Joe! Strike me, Joe! Tell me of my ingratitude. Dont be so good to me. This is a statement the younger Pip would have been incapable of making, ti shows the complex differences in language that Dickens appreciates children use as compared to adults. In Great Expectations Pip is not treated as an adult, he is treated as a particularly worthless child, and as such he forms negative opinions of the adult world he will have to grow into, that ass Pumblechook being just one example of the way Pip views this world, however Dickens also understands that childrens attitudes change very quickly, as does Golding, and so when Pip obtains Great Expectations and Pumblechook starts acting up to him, then he decides that maybe Pumblechook was a practical, sensible, good hearted fellow. This is also shown in Lord of the Flies because although by the end Ralph and Jack are literally at each others throats, when making the fire at the start Ralph finds a log that looks too heavy, but gets the reply of Not for the two of us! And so Golding shows the reader a glimmer of hope that the two may get along well, but they dont, and this demonstrates the inconsistency of children. Ralph has responsibility for the other boys on the island, and this causes him in many aspects to grow up. Instead of being completely child like and swimming, diving and running about, he gets worked up because the shelters havent been made and the other are incapable of concentrating And they keep running off. You remember the meeting? How everyone was going to work hard until the shelters were finished? This is not a very childlike statement, children get frustrated because they dont get their own way, Ralph is not saying Im the leader and they dont obey me but instead worrying that the community is beginning to tear apart, a concern more voiced on tabloid letter pages than childrens conversations. Pip however has no such responsibility, admittedly while he does some chores set him by his sister, or his lessons under Mr Wopsles great aunt that preposterous female, he is nowhere near as empowered as Ralph who has been voted to care for a few dozen boys. And so this also affects the childhood of the two we see, while Ralph had the easiest growing up previous to the novel (with his parents) as opposed to Pips dead parents and harsh sister, he is given a far more demanding role to play. And the way he deals with it is not very childlike; in fact it comes to eventually represent the way a tired adult may feel, worn down, beginning to despair and wondering why on earth hes taken the responsibility at all. And this is another key point to consider, Goldings children are literary metaphors for mankind, whereas Pip, although he teaches the reader about aspects of the human character, is not supposed to be representative of the whole human race, and so more likely to represent childhood better. Yet another fact to remember is that Golding and Dickens were writing in very different times. Dickens was writing in what was the height of Victorian England and was teaching about society in those days. Whereas Golding was writing after the World Wars and so was trying to tell a more global message. So his Ralph is, although a child, not necessarily entirely representative of one. Pip however is forced to be a child by the constraining presence of his sister, Pumblechook and eventually the bond apprenticing him to Joe, all things that represent Victorian society, and yet things that still apply today even if in a different form, such as parental control and discipline and mandatory education. Childhood on Goldings island is also not really something enjoyed particularly by Ralph and his peers, instead it is the littleuns who are the children, Ralph and the other bigger boys find themselves in the positions of adults simply because they are the biggest ones on the island. Perhaps because they are not completely mature at the time this does not help them deal with the events that happen on the island. There is possibly a case for saying that Pip too, is no ordinary child and has to grow up very fast in his attempts to impress Estella and grows up even more rapidly once he has his expectations laid upon him. However this is most likely a part of his childhood akin to the beginning of school and as this has been a part of life for every child in the last hundred years and more, this is not something that can be argued as not being a part of childhood. And most certainly at the start of the novel Pip is a child plain and simple, with no more worries than his sisters rampages. Another aspect of childhood to consider is trust and loyalty. Children are usually trusting unless something happens to make them otherwise. In Lord of the Flies, loyalty is shown by the twins and Piggys dedication to Ralph and their faith in him to get them through. Ralph however displays a special kind of loyalty, a loyalty to the good side of human nature and a deep trust in fair play. Pips trust however is in Joe and his own learning, but the trust is very temporary with Joe, it is more of a mutual agreement to be equals. And Pip is more than happy to trade his oldest friend for some money and a life in London. Here again we see that Dickens understands children are rarely consistent, whereas Golding is trying to use children as a metaphor for something much bigger. To conclude I believe that Pip is by far the better portrayal of childhood. Childhood does not generally involve the lack of adult presence to so huge an extent as it does in Lord of the Flies, however the battles of child against adult and adult society such as are seen in Great Expectations do occur almost universally. I think that some qualities the reader sees in Ralph, such as the headstands, do display the kind of innocent glee a child might express, but other than that Ralph and is peers are all examples of the human race and so representative of those who rule the world, adults, and not of children who merely inhabit it. Goldings book is a political message of its time, whereas Dickens was writing a novel, but his was free from the idealism that contaminates Goldings work. Dickens novel still had a point, but this point was made about the way in which his society worked and in particular his belief that money is a great corrupter. Therefore I believe that Dickens Pip is the most realistic portrayal of childhood as he behaves like a child, his expressions and attitudes are all those common to children. Dickens also displays a deep understanding of how children work, and this comes across in Pips actions. Goldings children however are only just recognisable as children, they could easily be replaced with full grown adults and still the story would work just as well.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Under The Spell :: Creative Writing Short Stories Traveling Essays

Under The Spell "The great advantage of having an ancestry like that of a mongrel dog is I have so many ancestral homes to go home to." We caught the ferry from Le Havre, France to Ireland, land of my ancestors. Every since I was a wee lad, my mind has been used as a canvas by every Irishman who has been displaced from the Emerald Isle. A picture of quaintness bordering upon myth. Cute I thought it would be, but never as much as the tourist hype I had read. I donned my suit of armor constructed of cynicism, forged by age. Protected thus from the hype, I the ancestral child would see Ireland as it really is. Mind you, no tourist hype for me. The ship pulled in to Rosslare Harbor near Wexford and lowered its gangplank. I made it most of the way down before I was sucked clean out of my armor into, head over heels, and under the spell of the Emerald Isle. We had arranged for a rental car, to be picked upon arrival at the harbor. I thought perhaps we would be shown how to operate it. Instead the attendant said in his sweet Irish brogue, "It's the wee red one over there," and handed me the keys. Still dazed by the sudden entrance in to "The Spell" we sped off in our wee red Ford Fiesta. Every so many hundred yards along the road signs reminded us to "Drive to the left." On the open road it was no problem, however moments later in the congestion of Wexford I was near panic, yelling at Travis to help remind me what side of the street I was on. It didn't help that he often mixes left and right up in his mind, some sort of hereditary functional disorder. I almost broke out in sweat when I had to make my first right turn feeling as though I was going head on into the oncoming traffic. By the time we got through Wexford I was in desperate need to stop for a wee pee. I saw a small side road and took that hoping to find a secluded spot to relieve myself. I discovered that when you leave the main roads in Ireland you are almost immediately secluded. We stopped in front of an old abandoned barn made of stone with an unusual door shaped like a horseshoe. The earth smelled wet and fresh and was a bit boggy, more so when I departed. It was only a few hundred yards before we learned our first rule of driving in Ireland. Under The Spell :: Creative Writing Short Stories Traveling Essays Under The Spell "The great advantage of having an ancestry like that of a mongrel dog is I have so many ancestral homes to go home to." We caught the ferry from Le Havre, France to Ireland, land of my ancestors. Every since I was a wee lad, my mind has been used as a canvas by every Irishman who has been displaced from the Emerald Isle. A picture of quaintness bordering upon myth. Cute I thought it would be, but never as much as the tourist hype I had read. I donned my suit of armor constructed of cynicism, forged by age. Protected thus from the hype, I the ancestral child would see Ireland as it really is. Mind you, no tourist hype for me. The ship pulled in to Rosslare Harbor near Wexford and lowered its gangplank. I made it most of the way down before I was sucked clean out of my armor into, head over heels, and under the spell of the Emerald Isle. We had arranged for a rental car, to be picked upon arrival at the harbor. I thought perhaps we would be shown how to operate it. Instead the attendant said in his sweet Irish brogue, "It's the wee red one over there," and handed me the keys. Still dazed by the sudden entrance in to "The Spell" we sped off in our wee red Ford Fiesta. Every so many hundred yards along the road signs reminded us to "Drive to the left." On the open road it was no problem, however moments later in the congestion of Wexford I was near panic, yelling at Travis to help remind me what side of the street I was on. It didn't help that he often mixes left and right up in his mind, some sort of hereditary functional disorder. I almost broke out in sweat when I had to make my first right turn feeling as though I was going head on into the oncoming traffic. By the time we got through Wexford I was in desperate need to stop for a wee pee. I saw a small side road and took that hoping to find a secluded spot to relieve myself. I discovered that when you leave the main roads in Ireland you are almost immediately secluded. We stopped in front of an old abandoned barn made of stone with an unusual door shaped like a horseshoe. The earth smelled wet and fresh and was a bit boggy, more so when I departed. It was only a few hundred yards before we learned our first rule of driving in Ireland.

Monday, January 13, 2020

Mel Gibson vs. Kenneth Branaugh as Hamlet Essay

The recent â€Å"box office rebirth† of England’s favorite bard has left Hollywood with much to do about interpreting Shakespeare’s classic dramas. The characters of Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the gravedigger, and of course Hamlet himself take new life, as the greatest actors of our time assume these timeless roles. Produced in 1990, Mel Gibson’s â€Å"Hamlet† is a more straightforward, highly edited version of the original text in comparison to Kenneth Brannagh’s lavish rendition of the same tale. At only 135 minutes, Gibson’s â€Å"Hamlet† might be considered â€Å"Shakespeare Light,† the cinematic equivalent of Cliff’s Notes. However, although Brannagh should be commended for sticking to the text, be forewarned about this â€Å"Hamlet†-by including every line of the original play, this movie clocks in at exactly 242 minutes. The setting chosen for Brannagh’s and Gibson’s â€Å"Elsinore Castle† are as different as day and night, quite literally. And these bright and dark castle settings symbolically reinforce the specific â€Å"mood† or themes each director emphasizes. For instance, the lugubrious Gibson feels perfectly at home in his dark and dank mansion, an ideal place for a grieving soul to maintain its ruefull descent. Conversely, the introspective Brannagh is continuously catching glimpses of himself and others (and into their true souls) in the mirror-lined ballrooms of his glistening castle. Since Hamlet is, in its essence, truly a ghost story (so apropos for Halloween week!), each director has handled these â€Å"special effects† quite differently. Gibson gives a more stage-like handling of the ghost of  Hamlet’s father, using only lighting to cast an eerie glow or flickering shadows on its actors. Brannagh, on the other hand, seeks to use every filmmaker’s device possible, including the light blue glowing eyes of Hamlet’s father and the â€Å"dry ice forest,† (both of which stretched the limits of viewers’ imagination). One special effect that worked very effectively was the use of â€Å"flashbacks† in a character’s memory, specifically in scenes which show Hamlet and Ophelia’s romantic (yet clandestine) relationship developing. The greatest aspect of watching the Gibson and Brannagh films together is noticing the subtle differences between each actor’s expression of the same character. Both versions address, or evade, some of the most controversial issues in interpreting this play: Hamlet’s possible madness, his seemingly Oedipal relationship with his mother, and Ophelia’s suicidal demise. Mel Gibson portrays a brooding, sullen-browed young Hamlet–moody, miserable yet clever and cunning, and always lurking in the dark corners of this ever-somber castle. By contrast, Brannagh commands the screen with a Hamlet more brash and emboldened than Gibson’s, a determined young man whose bright and opulent surroundings reflect a very intellectual, socially and politically astute strategist (not to mention pretentious snob!). Both tiptoe the line between sanity and madness, without ever fully crossing over into a psychological abyss. With Glenn Close playing Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, Gibson intensifies the Oedipal overtones between the queen mother and her son. Beautiful, elegant, and intensely emotional, Gertrude exudes an exuberant yet refined sensuality throughout the early scenes of the film. Does she linger a little too long on the lips of Hamlet, or is this merely a joyous display of affection for her only son? The famous, and perhaps infamous, bedroom scene eventually shows the glamorous duo of Close and Gibson struggling against one another, and the final fencing scene also emphasizes this pair, their constant awareness of the other’s situation. By casting the ethereal Close alongside the handsome Hamlet, Gibson focuses  on the mother-son relationship versus the Ophelia-Hamlet romance, as Helena Bonham-Carter presents an overly passive, almost prepubescent and one-dimensional performance of Ophelia. Too young, too much manipulated by her father, Ophelia in her insanity scene merely shows a weak young woman overcome by her own pitiful plight. Because her relationship with Hamlet is never developed in Gibson’s â€Å"Hamlet,† Ophelia’s suicide is a merely an action that furthers the plot of Hamlet’s fate–it is not given consideration as the fate of Ophelia herself, a complex, passionate, and â€Å"three-dimensional† character in the play. Brannagh’s casting of â€Å"Shakespeare’s women† gives an entirely different interpretation. To begin with, Julie Christie (as Gertrude) is downright homely in comparison to Glenn Close (check out the differences between the early â€Å"consoling scene† of each film in which Gertrude tells Hamlet that death is â€Å"common†). Thus, Christie is perfect for Brannagh’s interpretation–Hamlet seeks to avenge his father’s death not because of his Oedipal attraction to his mother (which would be too emotional and adolescent for this prince), but rather for some higher sense of truth and justice (perfect for the philosophical Brannagh). Christie is not the amiable, all-loving (or sensual) mother that we saw Close to be, and thus Gertrude’s â€Å"motivation† to marry the brother of her dead husband seems more about politics and power than pure passion. Her role in the movie and the sympathy she evokes in the viewers diminis hes greatly as we view her (and her second husband) with suspicion and even aversion. Yet Kate Winslet (also starring in â€Å"Sense and Sensibility,† â€Å"Heavenly Creatures†), cast as Ophelia, is simply breathtaking. Her presence on the screen commands the full attention of viewers, and Brannagh uses her charisma to create perhaps the most fully developed representation of Ophelia to be brought to any film. She is shown as a strong-willed, intelligent and independent young woman who is passionately in love (and lust!) with her eccentric prince. If you have seen and heard her grief expressed in â€Å"Heavenly Creatures,† then you will know that her â€Å"insanity scene† is the most harrowing display of a heart’s devastation that you might ever see. Her ethereal voice, her song of sadness, will be hard for viewers to forget. With a cast of characters including Billy Crystal, Charlton Heston, Robin Williams and Jack Lemmon, Kenneth Brannagh’s â€Å"Hamlet† is a sure-hit among devoted â€Å"Shakespeare-philes.† Yet, the dynamic performances of the characters in Gibson’s â€Å"Hamlet† guarantee that both movies are even better appreciated when viewed, and compared, together. One of the greatest aspects about Shakespeare’s plays is the never-ending interpretations and expressions that can be made–not only by film makers with their elaborate scenery and all-star casts, but also by each of us as viewers and, hopefully, as readers too.

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Modest Proposal Is An Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 704 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/05/08 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: Modest Proposal Essay Did you like this example? The art of confrontation can be handled in many different ways. Some may use a passive aggressive technique to make others know they are offended or something needs to change. Few people use a direct confrontation technique by approaching the person with the opposing view and having an outright dispute with them leaving nothing unsaid. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Modest Proposal Is An Essay" essay for you Create order There are others who avoid confrontation at all cost because they are scared of the outcome or afraid of disappointing the opposing party. A Modest Proposal uses a confrontational language called satire. Satire is used in several literary works to point out flaws by using sarcasm, irony, and ridicule. This type of approach has often been used by writers to shed a light on necessary political or social change, or to prevent such change. A Modest Proposal is an essay about a concept to help prevent poor peoples children from being a burden to the country and their families. The goal of the proposal is to find an idea to help these children better the community and stop this from happening in the future. In order to grab the attention of the audience the author, Jonathan Swift, used a satirical writing style for his essay. He jokes on previous ideas other people have proposed to solve the big problems in their society. The other ideas are almost as absurd as the actual proposal by Swift. Although these proposals are unusually dramatic, they do cause leaders in government and other spheres to take a closer look at the true problems in their society. A proposal to eat infant babies should never be considered a rational proposal but its motives should be evaluated. In his essay, Swift made a comment about the carcasses of the infants being used for ladys gloves and gentlemens boots. When he presented this idea it dehumanized infants and made them comparable to animals whose bodies are utilized for numerous different products. This is an example of Swift using sarcasm to attract the readers and hold a mirror to the face of the community so they see there is a real problem which needs to be fixed. Swift goes on to insert proposals from his friends, one of which suggested fourteen year olds could be eaten as well. This statement is satirical but goes into detail about concerns people had about the taste compared to infants and the fact it would limit the number of breeders. This idea in particular had a conflicting argument because the problem was overpopulation in the first place. Swifts last proposal was him saying he had nothing to gain economically from this proposal. This statement alone mocks the other individuals who gave proposals to fix the problem of overpopulation because they were serious about their proposal even though it was just as absurd as Swifts. Jonathan Swift had to choose a satirical method of confrontation in his writing simply because he would not have received a response if he expressed his true beliefs. If he would have written his opinion and true beliefs about the state of the lower class in Ireland which truly felt was shameful and something must be done to help them, the essay would not be read around the world like it still is today. He would have had little success because there were several other straight forward proposals circulating at the time. It was hard for anyone to write a piece addressing societys issues which had a lasting effect but Swift realized people like to criticize and they like to laugh. A satirical parody had a greater chance of getting the publics attention in a way a standard essay could not achieve. A Modest Proposal surprised people and got them thinking about the condition of the poor in Ireland and what should be done about it. Swift realized when addressing and critiquing very sensitive subjects such as the nations religion and its authorities it is much safer to us a satire rather than directly challenging authority. The audience is entertained by the sarcasm but still able to see through the sarcasm to the real issue. A direct approach may be the obviously best choice but its not always the most effective as shown by A Modest Proposal.