Showing posts with label Dr Van. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr Van. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Annotated Bibliography; Russelly


Annotated Bibliography

Ellen Peel analyses and critiques the different characters and their actions from the short story "Desiree's Baby" This review is useful for my essay because I plan on writing about Desiree and her characteristics this as a source that proves the kind of role Desiree as a woman had in the story, and what lead her to her actions.

Peel, Ellen. American Literature. Jun90, Vol. 62 Issue 2, p223. 15p. SEMIOTICS & literature; AMERICAN literature -- 19th century; UNITED States; DESIREE'S Baby (Book); CHOPIN, Kate, 1851-1904


Denise Larrabee discusses the life of Kate Chopin. This is helpful for me because I can mention how Kate Chopin’s life somehow influenced her works of writings.  This can also help me connect the character of Desiree from “Desiree’s Baby” to something that Chopin might have experienced.


Ed. Jay Parini. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. p57-74. COPYRIGHT 2003 Charles Scribner's Sons, COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale




This article discusses and explains Guy de Maupassant's background, and how it relates to certain characteristics in his short story "The Necklace".  In this review, Madame Loisel's behavior and actions are analyzed.  This is useful for my essay because I plan on analyzing Madame Loisel’s actions, and how those actions define her character. 

Brackett, Virginia. Masterplots, Fourth Edition, November 2010, p1-3. (Work Analysis) Author Name: Maupassant, Guy de. A brief synopsis and critical analysis of Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace”.



Charles E. May discusses Guy de Maupassant’s life story and his famous works.  This will help me connect Maupassant’s work to his life story.  It will help me understand the reasons why his short story “The Necklace” is written in a certain context.

May, Charles E.; Includes bibliography Dictionary of World Biography: The 19th Century; January 2000, p1-3

Monday, May 20, 2013

short story comparison

For the short story essay I have chosen Desiree's Baby and Story of an Hour  by Kate Chopin. I chose Kate Chopin because I feel heavily attracted to her work. Through her writing she expresses the struggle of  women in the 20th century in a very delicate, sublime and unexpected way. By reading her background I came to realize where  her strong  feminism ideology comes from since she had struggled herself throughout her writing journey . Desiree's baby and Story of an Hour  portray the women in their most natural self as very sensitive, vulnerable and self conscience.The theme I am aiming to is character. in these two stories I could almost illustrate the women feelings as if they were paintings that could be drawn in detail.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Thesis: for mini research essay.

Can We Judge a Book by Its Cover? 

Through the different forms of writing, we can develop an idea of the characters, their likes, dislikes and characteristics.  Most of the time when reading, a character’s characteristics is not automatically written, in fact it is assumed by the information given; and/or throughout other characters’ thoughts, or perspectives about a person.  Information about a person is acquired by a reader through a character’s actions, especially in both  Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace” and Kate Chopin’s “Desiree’s Baby”.  In both short stories, as readers we can develop an idea of the character’s characteristics, thoughts, and actions.  In “The Necklace” we know Madame Loisel’s interests and thoughts by what the narrator tells us about her, and by her actions as well. Madame Loisel is Beautiful, materialistic, selfish, ambitious etc.. And is evident because of her thoughts and actions.  Desiree from “Desiree’s Baby” is beautiful, unlike Madame Loisel Desiree is not selfish, or egocentric, she also is not materialistic and she does not have high expectations; she is more carefree and it is visible through her actions.  That is the joy of reading, as readers we can make assumptions about a certain character but it all depends on the perspective in which the story is being told.  A reader cannot jump to conclusions or judge a character until actually reading the whole story, because not everyone is who or what they appear to be; which is seen throughout both stories.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Reflection of "The Youngest Doll"



When I read "The Youngest Doll" I pitied the aunt due to the struggles she had gone through with that prawn in her calf. I was surprised and angered by the doctor's actions because he could have cured the aunt's calf from the beginning but chose not to, the son clarifies“ ‘You could have cured this from the start,” (Ferre, Rosario 247).  The doctor recognized, and admitted to his actions but continued to take advantage of the aunt’s condition; even after she had fully trusted his words just to make money off of her bad condition “ ‘but I just wanted you to come and see the prawn that has been paying for your education these twenty years’ ” (Ferre, Rosario 247).  With that being said, I truly saw what a monster the doctor is.  As I kept reading towards the middle of the story, I became shocked, and more angered by the son’s actions. I could not believe how ambitious, materialistic, and so obsessed with the idea of being wealthy he was. The son wanted to outsmart his wife by selling the parts of the doll, however it was she who outsmarted him.  The wife after being asked where she had placed the doll by her husband, answered “Since its hands and face were of Mikado porcelain…They must have thought they were made of sugar..” (Ferre, Rosario 248).  The wife referred to the ants for the disappearance of the doll. The wife knew her husband’s intentions with the doll and lied to him about what had happened to it.  I was so sad in the end because I couldn't believe the fact that the niece was replaced by a doll and the doctor's son hadn't noticed a thing for years. “ ..He was aging, the youngest still kept that same firm porcelained skin she had had..at the big house on the plantation” (Ferre, Rosario 248-9).  Throughout the years the son never noticed his wife, nor did he notice that a doll replaced his wife.  I think that the niece deserved a better life than the life she lived by her husband, because of his lack of attention in her.  I was definitely surprised in the end because, one would think that being married to a person would make one notice everything about their partner; however the son did not notice anything about his wife being replaced by the doll.

After reading “The Youngest Doll” background, it had helped me comprehend more why the male’s sudden interest in wealth.  It had also made me understand why the doll’s materials were worth so much.  When I read it, it helped me portray women’s role and their obligations at that time.  It’s no wonder the doctor’s son was so obsessed with showing off his wealth, that’s what was mostly admired in that time.  The background information helped me comprehend the role of men and how they acted in society.  In the story, the son becomes extremely materialistic and starts to sell parts of the doll to treat himself with overpriced objects “One day, he pried out the doll’s eyes with the tip of his scalpel and pawned them for a fancy gold pocket watch with a long embossed chain” (Ferre, Rosario 248).  The son started to show off his things to give people the illusion of his wealth.  At that time women were being replaced with men, and older men were replaced by the new generation of men.  The son was just a beginner at his profession so he wanted to let everyone know he was also wealthy, and his trophy wife was the proof; since women were not allowed to work, they had to stay at home and be a "trophy" wife “ Each day he made her sit out in the balcony, so that passerby would be sure to see that he had married into high society” (Ferre, Rosario 248).  The background story made me realize the significance of the doll, the portrayal of society, and of men and women.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

King Lear Essay; Loyalty Over Power


Loyalty Over Power

Throughout William Shakespeare’s work one common theme is "loyalty" which calls upon the audience's attention, due to its misinterpretation throughout most characters in King Lear.  Loyalty is very hard to find among people, it is something that is demonstrated not just throughout words but throughout actions as well.  Loyalty is seen throughout the characters of Cordelia, Kent, and the Fool.  They have truly shown and demonstrated loyalty to King Lear in both his good and bad conditions. King Lear misreads most of the loyal people’s actions, for dishonor and disrespect; when truthfully those same people are those who help him and are loyal to him.  King Lear in the end of the play realizes who had been loyal to him all along; too bad it took a bad situation to make him see people's true intentions. 

One character who had remained loyal to King Lear is Kent, Lear's servant, he remained by King Lear's side even though Kent was banished from the land forever, and was to be killed if found in the land after a week.   Kent has never been afraid to speak his mind if King Lear is wrong, and for that same reason is why King Lear banished Kent, thinking that he had dishonored and betrayed him. In fact, Kent would rather speak the truth to King Lear about his actions, rather than lying to him and letting him make a mistake "Royal Lear, whom I have ever honored as my king, loved as my father, as my master followed, as my great patron thought in my prayers../ Let it fall rather, though the fork invade the region of my heart. Be Kent unmannerly when Lear is mad....Think'st thou that duty shall have dread to speak when power to flattery bows? To plainness honor's bound when majesty falls to folly. Reserve thy state..." (1.1. 139/ 144).  Kent's exile gave him even more reason to betray King Lear, however he did not, he disguised himself remained loyal and followed King Lear throughout the entire play "If but as well I other accents borrow, that can my speech diffuse, my good intent may carry through itself to that full issue for which I razed my likeness.  Now, banished Kent, if thou canst serve where thou dost stand condemned, so may it come thy master, whom though lovest, shall find thee full of labors" (1.4.1-7).  Kent didn't have an obligation to help King Lear, but his love and loyalty towards his King is too strong to lead him towards betraying his King.  When King Lear is homeless, Kent helps him find a temporary shelter "...Gracious my lord, hard by here is a hovel.  Some Friendship will it lend you 'gainst the tempest. Repose you there..." (3.2.59-61).  Kent not only remains loyal to King Lear, but he also remains loyal to Cordelia, by informing her about her father's condition and by leading her to Lear's location. 

Loyalty is also demonstrated through the character of the Fool, who is also full of wisdom, and is not afraid to tell things how they are and how he sees it.  The Fool is another character who does not care about the consequences of his words nor actions; he simply speaks his mind and stays by King Lear’s side through his bad experience.  The Fool’s purpose is to lighten up the mood, but in reality, through his bluntness he opens King Lear’s eyes about the wrongs he had done by giving up his kingdom and power “…Nay, an thou canst not smile as the wind sits, thou’lt catch cold shortly. There, take my coxcomb. Why, this fellow has banished two on’s daughters, and did the third a blessing against his will. If thou follow him, thou must needs wear my coxcomb” (1.4.87-92).  Since King Lear did not want to listen to everyone else’s warnings the good way, the Fool harshly tells him his mistakes in order to make Lear see and hear his actions.  “Fools had ne’er less wit in a year, for wise men are grown foppish. They know not how their wits to wear, their manners are so apish” (1.4. 149-152).    Later on, the Fool decides that he is better off being with King Lear, and accompanies him through his miserable journey to help guide him.  The Fool shows his loyalty and appreciation through his bluntness, but he speaks and acts with good and true intentions towards King Lear.  He is fully loyal to King Lear, even though his economic status is not as high as the royalty, the Fool is so full of both wisdom and knowledge, and eventually his loyalty to the King leads him to his own death.  Having power means nothing compared to loyalty and King Lear in the end realizes that.  The Fool’s character is an example of that, because he is not royalty, nor does he have any money, but his loyalty towards King Lear is highly more appreciated than those who have power with no good intentions.

In King Lear, King Lear believes that his two daughters Goneril and Regan are his only loyal children since their spoken speeches said so, as for his third and youngest daughter, Cordelia is disowned because of her lack of speech."...by all the operation of the orbs from whom we do exist and cease to be here I disclaim all your paternal care, propinquity, and property of blood, and as a stranger to my heart and me hold thee from this forever" (1.1.111-116).  Although Cordelia is disowned as Lear's daughter, she has all the reason to hate Lear, but does not; instead she chooses to demonstrate her love and loyalty towards her father throughout her actions. As Lear's daughter, Cordelia is a great example of how loyalty is portrayed in the play; having all the reasons to ignore and hate her father, she chooses to pick him up from his tragic misery and insanity and says: "O you kind gods, cure this great breach in his abused nature, th' untuned and jarring senses, O, wind up, of this child-changed father!" (4.7.12-15). Without taking advantage of Lear's condition, she tries to restore his sanity and clarifies to Lear “no cause, no cause" ( 4.7.74).  Cordelia demonstrates her loyalty by actions and words, by saying that she does not hate him nor does she have a cause to.  Instead she chooses to help, clothe, and shelter her father rather than banishing him like her two sisters did.  Cordelia is one of the people who care for King Lear after giving up all his power, his land, and his home.  That is the true meaning of loyalty, to provide help to another in their time of need, and standing by them forgiving, and forgetting the past. Cordelia’s actions speak for her; she does not hold any grudges against her father and still honors Lear as her father, and as royalty.  Loyalty does not have a price, or economic status, nor can it be replaced with power. 

In the end, "loyalty" is a common theme of King Lear, Shakespeare throughout the play shows that loyalty does not just mean saying kind words, but by also demonstrating it.  Shakespeare also emphasizes that those who King Lear thought less of, were those who were truly loyal to him until the end.  Throughout many characters, Shakespeare shows that through the thick and thin situations, those who King Lear had banished were the ones who stuck by his side until the end.  No matter if King Lear had power or not, that did not change the loyal people around him, in fact those people helped him in Lear's time of need. Loyalty is very rare in some people, which is why it has no price, and why it is greater than any kind of power.