It
is a truth universally acknowledged that a man who decides to marry must prefer
to have a loving and obedient wife. If he does not have such good fortune, he would try all means to reform his
woman into a wife he wishes her to be, although this task may often prove to be
an impossible mission. Set in Italy during the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare’s The
Taming of the Shrew dramatizes the comic way Petruchio, a smart and ambitious
young man from Verona, comes to “wive and thrive” in Padua. While all other men
in the play are too afraid even to come close to Katherine, a hostile,
ill-tempered and sharp-tongued girl who has a wealthy father, Petruchio manages
not only to marry her but also ‘tame’ her by manipulating her psychological
tendencies and physical needs in a highly tactful manner.
Psychologically, Petruchio wins the battle mainly through
his ruthless and effective attacks on Katherine’s intellectual and emotional
weaknesses. When Petruchio initially meets Katherine, also known as Kate, he recognizes
her as a true shrew overly proud of herself and bitterly hostile to men in
general. As though to beat her at her own game, Petruchio is ready to match, if
not to outmatch, Kate’s intelligence with his quick wit. For example, when Kate
warns that “if I be waspish best beware my sting” (2.1.212), he immediately replies
that “my remedy is then to pluck it out” (2.1.213). In so doing, Petruchio is
able to undermine her sense of pride and win her respect to a certain extent.
This result becomes evident when Kate asks him where he has learned “this
goodly speech” (2.1.264). Shortly after this duel of words, Petruchio announces
to Katherine’s father Baptista that the two have “’greed so well together/ that
upon Sunday is the wedding-day” (2.1.299-300) without actually gaining her
consent beforehand. It seems surprising that the shrew makes no rebuttal to the
wedding and remains quiet even when Petruchio dresses himself up like a clown
and arrives late; however, considering the way the shrew is waiting tearfully at
the altar, afraid her groom could be someone who “never means to wed where he
hath wooed” (3.1.17), one realizes that Kate’s response is quite predictable,
since Petruchio is probably well aware of Kate’s deep-rooted fears and intends
to humiliate her by taking the advantage of these fears. Indeed, if she
refuses, she might lose the chance and remain a maid forever. Having won this
crucial battle, Petruchio certainly has a good reason to declare himself to
have been “born to tame… Kate” (2.1.278).
To reinforce his psychological victory over the shrew,
Petruchio continues to ‘tame’ her in a physical sense. After the wedding is
over, the newlyweds come to live in Petruchio’s home, where the husband starts
to maltreat his wife intentionally. When Kate feels hungry, Petruchio denies
her of food, saying that he does not want her to eat anything that is not good
enough for her; when she needs to go to bed, he does not allow her to sleep on
a bed that is too poorly made. Although Kate grows increasingly hungrier and
wearier, Petruchio still tries to make sure that “she eat no meat…/ …last night
she slept not…/that all is done in reverent care of her” (4.1.184-191). As Petruchio
gives all kinds of excuses in the name of love, Kate has to yield to his will
and way until she cannot endure her physical suffering anymore. If she wants to
live a normal life as a wife, she has to, in other words, submit herself to her
husband’s authority. When she finally tells him that “sun it is not when you
say it is not/ and the moon changes even as your mind/ what you will have it
named…/ and so it shall be still for Katharine” (4.5.19-22), Kate makes it
clear that as long as she can have some food and rest, she does not care
whether her husband becomes her master or absolutely controls her universe. Through
this physical maltreatment disguised in love, Petruchio is thus able to
consolidate his position as the dominator within their relationship.
As a result of Petruchio’s effective use of his taming
tactics, Kate goes through a whole process of transformation both in words and
in deeds. When the drama unfolds, Kate appears to be a truly shrewish girl,
whose very name is “a title for a maid of all titles the worst” (1.2.127). Even
when her father orders her to stay, she sarcastically asks: “shall I be
appointed hours, as though… I knew not what to take and what to leave?”
(1.1.103). Rude, violent and stubborn, she refuses to accept the role she is
expected to play in her society. However, as Petruchio tries to tame in one way
or another, she changes dramatically. If her question about Petruchio’s quick-witted
speech signifies her initial change in her attitude towards her suitor, her
agreement to marry Petrudhio is the first major change in her behavior pattern,
suggesting that she is ready to commit herself to a serious relationship with a
man even without any verbal protest. This process of transformation becomes
complete at the end of the play when all the new husbands have a bet on whose
wife would come first upon command. Not surprisingly, it turns out that Petruchio’s
wife is the only one to respond willingly. More significantly, she makes a long
and unexpected speech about marital harmony, stating that men go through many
hardships for “love, fair looks and obedience-/ too little payment for so great
a debt” (5.2.158-159). This dramatic moment clearly demonstrates that Kate has
become a wife completely tamed in words as well as in deeds, who not only embraces
her social role, but also defends it readily.
To conclude, Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew
is a powerful dramatization of how Petruchio successfully tames Kate primarily
through his effective manipulation of her psychological tendencies and physical
needs. As he kills “her with kindness/ and thus… curb[s] her mad and headstrong
humor” (4.1.195-196), he accomplishes his mission to bring her from “a wild
Kate to a Kate” (2.1.279). It is true
that other factors may also have contributed to Kate’s transformation – for
instance, she may have developed a genuine love for Petrechio; it is also true
that Kate’s change may have more to do with her own self-awareness or fears;
however, it is obvious that Petruchio plays a particularly important role, as
he manages to accomplish a mission impossible for other suitors. While his
accomplishment may be fantastic, it clearly shows that one’s personality is transformable
after all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||
|
Winston Smith:
A Discussion of His Character Traits
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Allen
Yuan
|
|||||||
|
Ms.
Lin
English
12
Block
2-1
November
11, 2012
|
|
[Word
Count of the Text: 1017]
|
An internationally-acclaimed dystopian novel, Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four vividly portrays an oligarchical collectivist society where
life in the “Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war,
omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a
political system named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged
Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking” (Wikipedia).
At the beginning of the novel, its protagonist Winston Smith is presented as a
physically frail 39-year-old man, who has to walk “slowly, resting several
times on his way” (page 3) when he climbs the stairs. However, as the story
progresses, one recognizes Winston to be an psychologically strong character, whose
most important personality traits are his independent mind, rebellious
tendency, and courageous spirit.
Although he is a member of the Outer Party and a civil
servant of the Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith does not blindly subscribe to the
doctrine of Big Brother and the Party as he is expected to. It is true that
under the totalitarian rule of the Big Brother who is both omnipotent and
omnipresent, all individuals can see or hear only what the Party allows them to
see or hear; it is also true that with the Party’s tight control of the human
mind through language (Newspeak and Doublethink), technology and spying agents,
all citizens may even tend to think the way the Party wants them to; however, Winston
has an independent mind. Probably from his job experience in changing
historical records as the Party sees, Winston has developed a deep hatred
against lies and a strong passion for the truth. While he disagrees with the
Party’s slogan that “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” (page 18), he firmly
believes that “it is impossible to found a civilisation on fear and hatred and
cruelty” (page 281). When reflecting upon the censored media and great offences
like Thoughtcrime, Winston hopes for “a time when thought is free… a time when
truth exists and what is done cannot be undone” (page 32). Unlike his
brainwashed comrades who would be always ready to absorb the Party’s teachings
like a sponge, Winston refuses to accept the Party’s ideology. For him, true
freedom is the freedom to seek and express the truth, or “the freedom to say
that two plus two make four” (page 84). That is to say, Winston’s independent
mind is closely related not only to his job experience but also to his pursuit
of truth and freedom.
Given
his independent mind, it is not surprising that Winston has a strong tendency
towards rebellion. As he functions to adapt Big Brother’s persona and using
Newspeak to alter the past for the Minitrue, he hates the Party and engages
himself in a whole series of rebellious acts against Big Brother. Winston even
dislikes those who work hard for the Party or remain loyal to it, such as
Parsons and Syme who obnoxiously praise Big Brother and Newspeak. Winston knows
well that possessing a diary is already a punishable act, but he actively keeps
one; additionally, he consciously commits multiple Thoughtcrimes by scrawling
“DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” (page 21) repeatedly. Also, he challenges the
regulations of the Party by falling in love with Julia, thus striking a “blow [struck]
against the Party… a political act” (page 133). This relationship is
particularly significant in a political sense, since Julia likes Winston
because he is “against them” (page
128), specifically the “Party, and above all, the Inner Party” (page 128). Another
even more significant rebellious act Winston performs is his secret meeting
with O’Brien to formally join the anti-Party Brotherhood. Winston pledges to do
“anything that [he] is capable of” (page 179). When he starts reading Emmanuel
Goldstein’s book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism,
he is practically committing treason because the author is the greatest threat
to the Party and Big Brother. Such actions clearly demonstrate that Winston has
a persistent rebellious tendency against the Party and Big Brother.
No less noteworthy than his rebellious tendency is
Winston’s courageous spirit, which can clearly be seen throughout the novel. Writing
“DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” (page 21), he is certainly aware of his Thoughtcrime. More
courageously, Winston leaves his diary open, not wanting want to “smudge the
cream paper” (page 22), since the “Thought Police would get him just the same”
(page 21). Furthermore, as his relationship with Julia develops, Winston goes
so far as to rent a hidden room in Mr. Charrington’s shop which appears to have
no telescreen, although the Thought Police could persecute him simply for
avoiding surveillance. In the face of danger and death, the man is brave enough
to do whatever he finds is the right thing to do, whether it is expressing his
true feeling or living together with his love. Later on, when he is questioned
about his memory and the past of Oceania during his interrogation, Winston defiantly
shouts: “you have not controlled mine” (page 261). While O’Brien attempts to force
him to recognize that two plus two equals five, Winston repeatedly answers
“four” (page 262) despite the great pain of the electroshock. Believing that
the totalitarian regime is doomed to collapse, Winston tells O’Brien that he is
the “spirit of Man” (page 282) who will oversee that the Party is overthrown
and people are set free. These and many other similar episodes are explicitly
illustrative of Winston courageous spirit, which is deterred by neither pain
nor death itself.
Physically weak as he is, Winston Smith turns out to be a
true hero. Throughout the story, he
shows himself to be a psychologically strong character with an independent
mind, rebellious tendency, and courageous spirit against all odds. Unlike other
citizens of Oceania, Winston refutes the teachings of Big Brother and the
Party, and sticks to his own convictions in spite of all possible consequences
he would have to face. As he refuses his “duty to the Party” (page 139) and fights
for true freedom, Winston exemplifies the way anyone who seeks truth and
freedom in a society under the totalitarian rule can and should define oneself
as an individual.
Works
Cited
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 1989. Reprint. London: Penguin Books,
1990. Print.
“Nineteen Eight-Four.” Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four>
“The Theory and
Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.
Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Lottery” and The Holocaust
|
|
A Comparative Discussion of Two Types
of Public Murder
|
|
|
|
Allen Yuan
Ms. Lin
English 12
Block 2-1
October 7th, 2012
|
|
[Word Count: 723]
|
Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery,” which is set
in a small rural community on a summer day, vividly portrays the way Mrs. Tessie
Hutchinson is tragically victimized when participating in the village’s traditional
“lottery” which commands the stoning of the individual who draws the
black-dotted paper. With killing as one of its central themes, the story can
closely be related to The Holocaust. It is true that the genocide during World
War II and the killing in “The Lottery” are different in terms of cause,
process, and result; however, both the story and the Holocaust reveal that in a
given social setting, innocent people can be brutally murdered in a public
manner.
When comparing the Holocaust and Jackson’s story, one
initially finds that the causes of the homicides are very different. While
Hitler aimed to create a pure Aryan race by exterminating disabled people, homosexuals,
Gypsies, and the Jews, the lottery conducted in the village represents
superstitious tradition which dictates “Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon”
(page 48). In other words, the Holocaust was carried out for the sake of purification
of a race while the lottery drawn is for a good harvest. Another important
difference between the two cases lies in the killing process. In the story, it
is very simple: Mr. Summers, the village leader, reads out the “names… and the
men come up and take a paper out of the box” (page 47). Whoever has the
black-dotted paper is stoned to death by the others. However under the Nazis
rule, the targeted groups were first isolated, then forced to work in concentration
camps or participate in medical experiments, and finally murdered in a
systematic fashion. As a result, Mrs. Hutchinson being the only unlucky person
killed supposedly benefits the whole village in the story; by contrast,
millions of Jews were massacred during the Second World War in order to fulfill
Hitler’s evil plan.
Much more noteworthy are the similarities between “The
Lottery” and the Holocaust. For one thing, in both cases the killings are
murderous in nature. Tessie Hutschinson has committed no wrong; she just
happened to draw a slip of paper with “a black spot on it” (page 51). In “The
Lottery”, the stoning is very brutal since all the villagers, including
Tessie’s family and friends, join in on the stoning. “Someone gave little
Davy”, who is her son, “a few pebbles” (page 51) and her friend “Mrs. Delacroix
[had] selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands” (page
51).
The Shoah’s countless
victims are like the lottery’s “winners” since they are both innocent; however,
they are slaughtered as a result of the Nazis’ or the villagers’ blind actions.
Similarly in the Holocaust, the Nazis had followed Hitler for a preposterous
and controversial purpose. Essentially, they are ordered to kill distinguished
groups of people who have committed no crime; the Jews and others are also the
ill-fated victims of unwarranted bigotry. The genocide also had been very
ruthless. The Nazis had slaughtered an estimated eleven million people through
a variety of tactics, such as gas showers, chambers, bomb raids, shooting,
torture, and physical abuse.
Although the foundation and progression is obviously
contrasting to great extents in “The Lottery” and the Holocaust, both scenarios
share parallel natures and deep lessons. There may be a time in one’s society
when something unfair and insensible occurs, such as public murder, but do not
be afraid to be that single voice retaliating from the masses, shouting
something simple as “it isn’t fair, it isn’t right” (page 51).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph
VS Jack: A Comparative Discussion
of
Two Different Leadership Styles
Allen Yuan
Ms. Lin
English 11
Block 2-3
December 12th,
2011
Nobel Prize winner William Golding’s Lord of the Flies,
which is set on a remote island during the Second World War, tells
about a group of young British boys struggling to survive after a
plane crash. In this compelling novel, Ralph and Jack Merridew are
vividly portrayed as two leaders of the boys. As such, both try to
play their roles well and develop a higher degree of authority in
their own cliques. However, they embody very different leadership
styles: while Ralph is a rational, sensible and responsible leader,
Jack tends to be impulsive, dictator-like, and irresponsible.
At the story
unfolds, Ralph initially demonstrates his leadership by assessing the
boys’ situation and determining their survival needs. Seeing that
they are all stranded on a small uninhabited island, Ralph decides
that they need “people for looking after the fire” (page 42) so
that passing-by ships can spot the smoke signal. Also, recognizing
that they “need shelters” (page 52), he begins to address this
issue by leading the boys to construct shelters with whatever
resources available. After listing out the problems and priorities
the group faces, Ralph organizes the kids for higher efficiency to
achieve these objectives. He cleverly turns the blood-thirsty Jack
and his choir member into hunters, and attempts to preserve hygiene
by telling all the kids that they should strictly use “‘those
rocks… as a lavatory… The tide cleans the place up’” (page
85). This instruction is particularly noteworthy because it reveals
Ralph to be a sensible leader who makes logical choices. With a
rational mind and strong common sense, Ralph is also able not only to
articulate his thoughts but also to persuade others to listen to him,
and make them follow the rules. A perfect example takes place when
Ralph talks about how his “father’s in the Navy. He said there
aren’t any unknown islands… so… sooner or later, [they] shall
be rescued” (page 36). To cheer up his group members, Ralph tries
and succeeds in convincing them about the importance of keeping a
smoke signal. Even in times of terror, he manages to calm the kids
down with logic: there “‘couldn’t be a beastie… on an island
this size… only in big countries’” (page 34). These examples
clearly show that Ralph’s leadership style is characterized by the
way he first sets a realistic goal, and then works his way to it by
using logic and persuasion to motivate his group members.
Unlike Ralph, Jack
tends to act on his impulses rather than to try to meet the group’s
real needs. In general, food is a basic necessity for survival, but
meat is not, because there are other foods available on the island.
Jack refuses to accept this notion, stubbornly insisting that they
“‘want meat’” (page 51). For him, impulses are more important
than reasons. With this mentality, Jack naturally avoids doing
essential chores, like building sturdy shelters or fetching drinkable
water. What he wants is simply to hunt wild boars all day to satisfy
his limitless blood-lust. This irrational behavior causes Ralph to
chastise him angrily, “‘Don’t you want to be rescued? All you
can talk about is… pig!’”(page 55). As a leader, Jack also acts
like a true dictator. When he leaves Ralph to form a new group, Jack
instantly declares himself the chief, but to kids like Piggy, Jack is
not a good leader since “he’d have all hunting and no fire. [They
would] be here till [death]” (page 100). More importantly, Jack
treats all his underlings cruelly and shows no mercy. For example, he
“‘got angry and made [others] tie Wilfred up’” (page 176) for
a random and harsh beating. Power-abusive as this young supreme
dictator is, Jack is also irresponsible. When he is assigned the
simple task of watching the fire, Jack fails to perform his duty; as
a result, the fire is out and they miss the hard-earned opportunity
to be rescued. Such episodes strongly suggest that Jack’s
leadership style is characterized by his impulsive, authoritarian and
irresponsible tendencies.
Given all the
differences between them, one may well prefer Ralph’s leadership
style to Jack’s. For one thing, Ralph’s rational leadership
focuses upon the safety and well-being of every group member. Also,
his sensible decisions on matters like keeping a fire are for the
benefit of the whole group in the long run. In addition, the way he
tries to persuade others into appropriate actions demonstrates that
his leadership is both democratic and efficient. By contrast, what
Jack wants to do as a leader, such as hunting boars all day, is often
just for fun, or to satisfy his irrational desires only. Furthermore,
Jack relies mainly on physical force and enjoys taking brutal actions
as revealed by the way he would “‘close in and beat’” (page
99) the mysterious beast to death. In an uncivilized society, Jack
may function to be a strong leader in some sense, but in a civilized
world, Ralph’s leadership is undoubtedly much more proper and
desirable.
To conclude, Ralph and Jack represent two strikingly different
leadership styles in William Golding’s famous novel. While Ralph
proves himself to be a democratic leader, Jack turns out a dictator.
This great discrepancy is significant in two major ways. On the one
hand, it serves to reflect and emphasize the different personality
traits each leader has, thus contributing greatly to the novel’s
characterization of the two rivals. On the other, the difference
gives a contemporary meaning to the story as a whole, since it calls
attention to two basic kinds of leaders in a given human society.
Indeed, as we read the book, we readers are constantly reminded that
whenever there is such occasion, we should try to choose people like
Ralph to be our leaders rather than those like Jack who would place
their own personal impulses before the well-being of our entire
society.
9-19-2011
Discrimination: A Thing of
the Past and Present
M. Senesi’s short
story, “The Giraffe,” and C. Castagna’s article, “Two dead in
shooting at dealership”, both tell of the unspeakable horrors of
bigotry. In addition to historical references, such as the CPR, it
can be inferred that discrimination has existed for as long as a
society has been established, and that it occurs in a variety of
situations and forms.
To begin, in the “The Giraffe”, discrimination is apparent since
the villagers reject the giraffe that is innocent and only needs to
be taken care of. The boys curse the village “where giraffes can’t
live, because there’s room only for the things that are already
here” (pg.104). The village people refuse to accept new things and
are skeptical of taking care of an entirely different species. In
this short story, prejudice exists in a deprived surrounding and is
against an entirely different species. The church and its priest
refuse to provide shelter for the giraffe whereas the church is
generally known to be a place of acceptance. This irony contributes
to the overall level of discrimination demonstrated within the story.
In Castagna’s article, racial discrimination rises to a vicious
level in a place supposedly free of racism: Canada. In Edmonton, a
white man takes the lives of two co-workers over racial conflict. The
process describes the person as someone who came “’with a
vengeance and a rage’” (Castagna, 2011). Generally, western
society is believed to be civil and now devoid of racial
discrimination. However, it is evident that this is the contrary. For
example, prejudice takes place in a common workplace and expands to a
brutal extreme, creating bloodshed in its wake; much unlike in
Senesi’s “The Giraffe”. In other words, discrimination not only
happens in a hypothetically “equal” place, but also appears in
its most cruel form: violence.
In Canadian history, there were other instances of discrimination and
prejudice. For example, a great injustice was against the Chinese who
diligently worked on the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Caucasians
believed the Chinese were inferior and deserved fewer privileges;
thus, they were paid low wages, given less food and had to work more.
Along with having to live in sub par conditions, the Chinese also had
to work in equally dangerous conditions. In this case, bigotry is
clearly being committed against the Chinese. Although it is not
violent discrimination, like in Castagna’s article, it deeply
affected the Chinese and their identity in Canada. Despite occurring
over 120 years ago, this also transpired in a workplace full of
racial conflict like in the Edmonton shooting.
In summary, Senesi’s “The Giraffe” and Castagna’s article
both contribute to the fact that discrimination, bigotry, and
prejudice can be harsh and varied to different degrees, as
demonstrated in the Chinese’s case, but ultimately both exist
anywhere and everywhere. Whether it is against a co-worker or an
animal, or in a village or modern workplace, it is still a spiteful
act that mankind should aim to vanquish. Although it is a disregarded
truth, it is still the truth; and the truth hurts.
Works Cited
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2010/03/12/13206586.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
