Analysis Of The Article What’s Wrong With Cinderella

Peggy Orenstein’s “What’s the Problem with Cinderella?” article is about Disney princesses, and their focus on gender role for girls. Peggy Orenstein has a daughter of her own and doesn’t believe in princesses. So she explains the way people relate girls to princesses. It is important to note that not all girls like pink or princesses.

This article is about Peggy Orenstein’s daughter. Orenstein’s little girl is often assumed to be a princess fan or a pink lover. Orenstein’s daughter was 3 when she went to the Dentist. The dental surgeon said, “Wouldn’t it be nice to have you sit on my special princess chair so that I could sparkle your teeth?” Orenstein lost her cool and said: “It’s not 1950. Berkely is in California. It’s not wrong to like princesses. But no one should assume everyone does just because they are girls. The article discussed the ideas of princesses. They were asked what they liked, what their room should look like, and how they should be treated. Mooney’s interviews with reporters reveal that many girls like princesses as a child, but that this phase passes and they end up being lawyers, doctors, or mothers. Pink is the natural color of girls and boys. The article discusses eras like the women’s movements which fought for reproductive and social equality, as well as economic and legal equality. It is important to note that pink and princesses restored romantic fantasies and traditional feminine privileges. The article talks about a game that is available on Nintendo called Super Princess Peach. It shows many traits that both girls and boys have. It shows that princesses are capable of being athletic, intelligent and strong. Princess Peach runs in heels. Orenstein, while at the mall, saw Tinkerbell displayed on a wall. According to the article, “Disney Fairies will begin their rollout next year.” The line is aimed at girls aged 6-9 years old, just when they are ready to grow out of princesses.

When princesses came out in the beginning, pink was the predominant color. Disney Fairies introduced more colors as the years went by, such as Tinker Bell’s dress being green. Princess Tiara is also dressed in this color. Lavender or turquoise are other colors. Disney executives have said that fairies are better for older girls because they’re more sassy and like faires. Orenstein later picked her daughter up after school. Her daughter said, “Look Mommy, Ariel!” She was referring Disney ‘The Little Mermaid’. Orenstein’s daughters asked her mom about Princess Ariel. This article highlights the history of women’s right, barbie princess dolls, Garanimals, etc. It can be difficult for a girl raised as a unisex child to like both boy and girl things, such as princesses and cars.

The pressure of telling a young girl that she could be anything or do anything at any age or to tell them they are capable of anything will only confuse her, making her feel like she doesn’t know what is best for her. She wants her girl to concentrate on real-life career choices, not only be surrounded by princesses. Orenstein, at the very end of the article, kneeled on the floor to hug her daughter. Her daughter said: “But, Mommy?” and “When im grown up I will still be the fireman.”

Cited Sources

Original: According to the study

Paraphrased: The study showed

Orenstein, Peggy. “What’s Wrong With Cinderella?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2006,

“As You Like It” And “A Midsummer Night”s Dream”: Feminine Homoeroticism

Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream as well as As You Like It present a complex interplay between passive opposition and aggressive resistance. Women reformulate the romantic love sphere, a sphere they can access despite an oppressive patriarchal system. They exclude men. In the course of their same-sex relationships with men, women take on roles that mimic the patriarchal order from which they were trying to escape. Instead of leaving the patriarchal system, women seek to create a power structure that is familiar and comfortable.

Hermia, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream specifically opposes patriarchal authority that dictates to her the terms of marriage. Her father is one of these male figures. She says, “I do not know what power has made me bold” before Duke Theseus.

It does not concern me at all.

It is a privilege to be here today and express my feelings.

Please let me know.

In this situation, the worst thing that can happen is me.

If I refuse Demetrius. (MND , 1.1.59-64)

By asserting that she is entitled to “plough [her] ideas” before a male dominated audience, she forces a man-dominated space and transgresses all the social boundaries placed on her. In compromising her femininity and modesty in front of the Duke, she negotiates her marriage with patriarchal authorities.

Helena’s memories of past interactions with Hermia reveal erotic images. She says to Hermia:

We, Hermia, like two artificial gods

Our needles have produced both a flower and a leaf.

Two samplers, each seated on a single cushion

Both songs in the same key, with both warblings

As if hands, side, voice, and mind were all one.

Had been incorporated. We all grew up together.

Double cherry: a split appearance

Yet an unification in division

Two beautiful berries molded on a stem. (MND, 3.2.204-212)

In the references to the flower, berries and fruit, the idea of life and renewal that emerges from their close interactions is introduced. Their voices, their bodies and their minds all fuse together as if they were compensating for the sexual fusion which cannot happen between two women. The images are used to compensate for homoerotic encounters that lack the fertility of a male-female relationship. The “double berry: two berries molded together on a stem” and “the double cherry: a separation that appears to be, yet is a union” are both erotic images. The color and split nature of the fruit could be a reference to the lips of Hermia or Helena, or more erotically to their genitalia. This would reinforce the sexually charged relationship between Hermia & Helena. Jessica Tvordi uses this passage as evidence of homoerotic innuendos, stating that the language used to describe their relationship is “emotionally and erotically-charged.” Tvordi refers to “head” and the “nest” being slang terms for female genitalia. The association between Hermia, Helena, and birds (“warbling of a song”) is sexualized by the focus on female genitalia.

Hermia, Helena, and their relationship as described in eroticized terms are a reflection of the past – before they entered into the forest. In the forest however, the lack of patriarchal authority causes the homoerotic relationship between Hermia and Helena to become a pseudo-patriarchy. The same-sex relation that was dependent on men oppressing each other collapses without the social order. Hermia, Helena’s equal relationship shifts to a hierarchy where Hermia is the pseudo-male while Helena is the victimized female.

Hermia is able to create a new heterosexual relationship order as a result of her subversion. Her rebellion was fueled by her boldness. She now assumes the role of a man in the pseudo patriarchy formed between her and Helena.

Helena, seeing that Demetrius and Lysander are suspicious of Helena’s feelings, accuses Hermia in a conspiracy with both men. She asserts

Are you going to tear our love apart?

How dare you insult your friend in the same way as men?

It isn’t friendly.

You may not like it but I will.

The injury is not only mine. (MND, 3.2.116-220)

Helena substantiates Hermia as a key player in the relationship. Hermia, in Helena’s eyes (and in her pseudo-patriarchy), joins a group of men to objectify females and degrade them. Hermia is alienated from all females by Helena, who says that “sex” may criticize Hermia for her relationship with men. Hermia also questions Helena, saying that her scorn is “not maidenly.” (MND, 3.2.286). Hermia’s willingness to give up her femininity to negotiate with the Duke is reflected in these questions. Hermia does not have the trait of “modesty”, nor can she claim to be “bashful”, since she admitted that she was bold in the first scene (1.1.59), and she stated she would oppose and argue against Demetrius’ marriage no matter what “how modesty [she] may feel” (1.1.60).

Hermia Helena’s homoerotic relationship is a prime example of patriarchal tendencies. As a result, the women cannot help but return to their heterosexual couples and patriarchal society. The play’s text secures the restoration in a way that is almost frightening and silences the women. Hermia answers Demetrius when he asks if the Duke has just told them to follow. Hermia says, “Yea. My father too” (4.1.192). Hermia’s response is “Yea, and my father” (4.1.192). Helena was not as dangerous to the patriarchal system, so her silence must have been more severe.

Titania portraying herself as dominant male while her female counterpart, her voss, represents a similar trend towards pseudo-patriarchy. Their relationship is not portrayed as a masculine oppression and degradation, like Hermia’s and Helena’s, but patriarchal concerns of progeny. We must first look at Theseus’s threats against Hermia, which occured at the start of the play. Theseus tells Hermia that if she does not marry Demetrius he will make her a nun. Theseus portrays women as being in a tight space, sexually frustrated, and bored with their religious duties. “In shady convents, she mewed…a barren sister her whole life,” (1.1.71-2). His depiction of a sterile convent in early modern England raises ironic questions about homoerotic activity. Although it is hard to believe, Judith C. Brown has written a book entitled Immodest Acts – The Life of a Lesbian nun in Renaissance Italy.

The threat by Theseus to “wither on a virgin’s thorn” is rendered meaningless if homosexual activity occurs within the walls of a convent. Hermia is technically a virgin but can engage in creative erotic acts with other women. Since nuns practice homoeroticism and sexual activity is not restricted to human reproduction, Theseus’ comment about barrenness becomes irrelevant. Women who choose to only consummate with others of the same gender have accepted barrenness. The choice of women to only consummate with those of the same sex is already a sign of barrenness.

She describes their time together saying, “We spent a lot of time together. She says, “It was a wonderful time together.”

The night air is filled with the aroma of Indian spices

She has gossiped a lot at night

I sat next to you on Neptune’s Yellow Sands.

Marking the merchants who have flooded onto the river

We laughed when we saw the sails come into being

The wind is a big-bellied wind.

This woman with a pretty gait and swimming

The womb of my young squire was then filled with hers.

Would you imitate…? (2.1.124-132)

It is interesting to note that Hermia’s description of Helena and Hermia’s time together, “On faint primrose beds they were wont into life/Emptying [their] breasts of sweet counsel”, (1.1.215-16) rings true. After the description of how they spent time together, the picture of Titania’s enlarged womb suggests that the lesbian relationship between her and her voss was responsible for her pregnancy. Titania does not mention the voss’s sexual relations with other men, but she describes them in great detail. This leads one to believe that Titania is the father of the child.

Titania obliterates the biological basis for men’s role in reproduction by describing her voss’ womb as “rich with [her] young squire” (2.1.131). Titania destroys the biological basis of men’s reproduction role by describing [her] jeune squire’s womb (2.1.131). She does not acknowledge the biological role of men in creating the child when she refers to the child inside the voss’ womb as “my young Squire”. Her claim on the child “render[s] (Oberon] temporary superfluous”(Traub Lesbian Desire 159). Oberon’s challenge to Titania, who has displaced the male out of the social and reproductive reproduction, is to gain access to and adopt the boy. This will engraft the boy in the patriarchal system. Oberon restores the patriarchal system of family that Titania shattered through her homoerotic sexual relations with her voss.

Oberon claims that his restored control of reproduction is not just in his marriage, it’s also in marriages for all couples in the show. He stated that

Then until dawnbreak

This house is the home of every fairy.

The best bride’s bed is ours!

We shall bless you,

The issue is that there are two sides to the story.

Never shall you be unlucky. (5.2.31-36)

The use of “we”, by Titania, confirms their intention to bless couples’ beds together. They may also be planning on blessing themselves, without the unwanted attentions of Titania.

Celia is the dominant female in their pseudo-patriarchy. Rosalind may be the Ganymede of public life, but Celia still dominates them in their private lives. Celia has the same level of authority socially over Rosalind as Duke Frederick did in the beginning. Rosalind hears her say, “And indeed, after [Duke Frederick] has died, thou will be his inheritor, and I shall return my affection once again.” By my honour I shall” (AYLI 1.2.15-17). Rosalind’s only chance to become Duke Frederick Frederick’s heir is through Celia and her honor. This places Rosalind under Celia’s authority. Celia, writes Tvordi, “impersonates the authority of her father to control Rosalind.” She does this by assuming a masculine personality.

Celia verbally challenges the authority of males in front of a men’s court, defying their conscripted roles. In Celia’s case, she challenges her father to expel Rosalind. Hermia also claimed authority within her pseudo-patriarchy. Rosalind’s role as Ganymede and Celia hers of Aliena do not supplant Celia; their private interaction affirms Celia authority.

Celia is silent and obeys “Ganymede”, the pretend wedding ceremony of Rosalind (as Ganymede). She also agrees that they should “marry”. Celia shows a bit of impatience when she says, “Go there,” (AYLI.4.1.111). However, Celia doesn’t take over her role as dominant until Orlando leaves. Then, Celia rebukes Rosalind because “she misused [their] intimacy in [her] romantic prate.” Celia accuses Rosalind of being too affectionate, which is in line with her refusal to accept femininity. Rosalind’s excessive adoration of men offends Celia in her attempt to present herself as unaffected and unconquered by men. Celia’s pseudopatriarchal power is not threatened either by Rosalind’s assumed masculinity in the form of Ganymede, because Ganymede says bold things that contradict Rosalind.

Oscar Wilde’s Portrayal Of The Faustian Pact As Described In His Book, The Picture Of Dorian Grey

What would one person do to remain young forever? Would they make a Faustian Pact? Faustian pacts occur when someone gives up their soul in exchange for a thing they think they cannot survive without. In Oscar Wildes, The Picture of Dorian Grey Dorian Grey agrees to a Faustian deal by saying he will exchange his soul for a painting in order to be forever young. He struggles with his decision whether to keep or break the deal throughout chapter VIII. Dorian makes the deal because he wants to be young forever and he fears losing it.

Dorian Grey makes the first move to seal the agreement, mainly because he wants to remain young. This is a time when youth is incredibly powerful. Beautiful people are idolized and they get whatever they want. Dorian was determined to keep this. Dorian thought to himself, as he struggled to make a decision: “Who in the world would risk losing this opportunity of being forever young? Dorian’s temptation to stay forever young is strong. “Nobody would ever give up this chance to be young forever if it was possible.” Today, people pay large sums of money for botox injections and pills to stay younger. You are respected by others because you’re young. Lord Henry advised Dorian to keep his youth as long as he could because it was not something that can be reclaimed. If you lose youth, you’ll also lose the ability to be talked about and wealth. Dorian wants to keep his youth. He worries that if his youth is lost, nobody will want to talk about it and he’ll become a nobody. Dorian does NOT want to be unimportant. His youth is what makes him who he truly is.

Dorian battles with himself to determine whether he will keep the agreement or not. Dorian signs the agreement because he wants to be young forever and is afraid of losing it. He wants always to be young in order to commit evil deeds. He is afraid to lose his youth as he will become a nobody. Dorian can’t decide whether living a normal life or remaining young forever is worse. Dorian is forced to decide between his soul and his youth.

Overview Of ‘Bud Not Buddy’ By Christopher Paul Curtis

Bud Not Buddy is set in the 1930s during the Great Depression. The 1930’s were a time of hardship in the United States. Poverty was prevalent and people would wait up to 4 hours to eat. The racism and segregation of blacks was also a major problem. Black Americans were marginalized despite the abolishment of slavery. Black Americans had a hard time getting access to housing, education and many other facilities.

The great depression lasted until the end of 30s, which means that the protagonist had already suffered a good part or better say a BAD part, since his early childhood. Bud Caldwell was ten when his mother died at age six. Bud Caldwell was not like any other ten-year-old. A normal ten-year boy would be thinking about playing with toys, running in the back yard, or whatever else a kid of this age used to do. Bud had a goal in life. He knew exactly what he wanted to achieve at that age.

Bud’s personality is strong, determined, stubborn and imaginative. Bud used to lie to everyone he met, but he had no problem doing it. He was taught by life to never be confident around adults of any color, let alone white ones. He wrote a journal titled? ?Bud Caldwell?s?? Rules for having a better life and making yourself a better liar.

His mother didn’t tell him who his dad was, but he had a clue. She gave him flyers that advertised Herman E. Calloway’s famous band, The Dusky Devastators. Bud thought that these flyers could help him locate his father. He decided to set out on his journey to find him and nothing stopped him. Not hunger, fear, or vampires.

Bud spent the last four-years of his life in an orphanage. It wasn’t easy, but Bud could handle it. At breakfast, one day the manager told Bud and Jerry Thomas that a temporary foster house had been found for them. Bud would go to the Amo?s Family and live with their twelve-year-old son, while Jerry would go to a home with three daughters. Jerry was six years old and was afraid of being the doll of three young girls. Bud had been to foster homes three times in the same year, which means he was more experienced than Jerry. The manager didn’t wait to give them breakfast. He handed each of the two a potful of fruit.

Todd was Todd?s name. Todd is a young violent boy. Todd beat Bud when he first came to live with the Amos. Todd has a problem with violence, as well as temperament issues. Todd couldn’t stand to watch Bud suffer. The scene that I read was horrifying. It hurt me to see how Bud had been kicked without any mercy.

Todd was stopped when Mrs. Amoses entered. Todd was shocked to see Mrs. Amoses begin to act like she was in great pain. He began to yell, and lie that Bud had started fighting him. Bud believed that Mrs. Amoses was fair. However, her ears only listened to what her son said.

He was told by his mother not to allow anyone to use the name Buddy as it wasn’t his real name. So, whenever Bud had to introduce himself, he would always say My name is Bud and not Buddy.

This book is a great read because it tells about Bud, an adopted orphan, and his three adoptive families. The Amos’ family was the third. He speaks a lot of the realities that many orphans are adopted into families with children and treated differently.

Bud’s name means “a flower awaiting to open”. This caught my interest. I liked the story’s message, which suggests that we must continue to move forward despite all the challenges that life throws at us. Even though he decides to stop searching for his father Herman E. Calowar repeatedly.

He learns how to survive by himself. Bud is angry when he finds out in the final scene that Herman Caloway who was supposed to be father to him, actually happens to be his grandfather. A band takes him away to stay with him for some days.

Bud Not Buddy won some awards, and I thought it was a great book. It teaches you to not give up when life is difficult.

Unveiling The Concept Of Tough Love In Sula

The concept is common in African-American fiction. Toni Morrison’s Sula, a book about African-American parents and children, is a good example of how tough love can manifest itself. This can be confused with contempt, selfishness or carelessness. Tough love is characterized by the unspoken or acted concern for the child. Eva’s selflessness is evident in the cases of Hannah as well as Plum. The relationship between Eva’s children, and in particular Hannah, is a key example of tough-love, which is often misunderstood as a result of ‘the battle’.

Eva’s depiction of the African American struggle helps to understand the concept. Readers are shocked when Hannah asks Eva the childish “Mamma? Did you ever love me?” question. The edge of tough love comes from this reaction. Hannah, along with the reader, are shocked by Eva’s reaction. Morrison has created tension with this scene, starting when Eva commands the deweys “Scat!”. The command was followed by “stumbling and falling” as they left the room. Eva responds, but not before she makes sure that she understands the questions correctly. Not in the way you’re thinkingin’.” (67). Eva’s beginning of her explanation demonstrates Hannah’s apparent contempt by asking Hannah a similar question. Eva’s response suggests that Hannah’s question is a slap on the face. She uses vile language and short sentences to show that her goal is to’slap Hannah in the face.’ Eva has just given Hannah a scolding for her question. Things were bad. Niggers were dying as if they were flies. “Ain’t it?” (68). Eva wants Hannah to know that she’s out of her element by even asking the question about love. Eva continues to make the rhetorical claim “…Pearl is shittin’worms and i was supposed to be playing rang-around -the-rosie ?…Notime. There wasn’t any time. Not one. Just as soon as one day is done, another night follows. While you were all coughing, I was watching to make sure TB didn’t knock you out ….”. After hearing Eva’s disgusted response, Hannah decides that she wants to ask about Plum, who died at the mother’s hands. What was Plum killed for, Mamma?” Morrison has a clever way of narrating this scene. She takes the attention away from Eva, Hannah and the dialogue and puts it on the events around them. Eva finally replies after a while: “He give me a certain time.” It’s a long time. Looks like he wasn’t born for him. He’s come out. It’s hard to deal with ….” (71). She continues to describe how Plum, after becoming addicted, returned to his childlike state and wanted to “crawl into [her] womb”. Eva defends her actions with the statement, “I’ve got enough room in me, but I don’t have any more in my womb.” I birthed him once. I wouldn’t have done it again ….” (71). These last words show a type of tough love, as Eva is explaining her reason for giving up her child’s life to ensure his peace. Eva’s killing of Plum was to prevent him from further self-destruction and save his soul. Even though she didn’t want to deal her addiction, Eva made the ultimate choice by killing her son. Morrison’s portrayal of Plum was romanticized, and it also represented the theme “tough love”. Eva’s decision to burn Plum’s body before holding him represents her struggle to choose between a life filled with suffering or one that brings peace. Eva chose the second option, demonstrating that she is willing to go to extremes for love.

Eva’s tough love is shown again in this chapter after she has a long talk with Hannah. She jumps off a second-story window to try and save her daughter, even if it means losing a leg. The action of Eva’s jump from the second story window to save her daughter’s life, with one leg and all, clearly dispels any contemptuous feelings that were arising in their earlier discussion. Eva sacrifices once again her own livelihood for the sake of her child. This goes to prove that Eva will do anything, even if she had a bad experience with Hannah during a time when she was angry and in tension, to save her children. Morrison takes special care to remind Eva and the reader that the blood from Eva’s facial cuts had filled her eyes, so she was unable to see. Instead, she could only detect the familiar smell of roasted flesh. Both children die by being burnt, a tragic irony that shows Eva’s love for her children and ability to accept the fact that each child must be let go.

Sula is full of tough love. It is expressed by either an act that is tough, like Eva sacrifices her son, and/or loving, like Eva jumping from the window to Hannah’s body, which was on fire. Though contempt and selfishness are often factors, they do not determine the motivation behind tough words or actions. These are the only ways to show love in difficult times. Eva’s’struggle’ as an African American mother is what reveals tough love.

Earth Goddess Rhea In The Greek Mythology

Rhea was a goddess of the Earth. Rhea a Earth God, was responsible of fertility in the soil, for women and motherhood. She inherited most of her mother Gaia/Gaea’s responsibilities. Rhea, the “Mother Of The Gods”, was named after the Greek words “flow” or “ease”. Rhea, the goddess motherhood was not just about saving her children. Rhea’s parents are Gaia the goddess of Earth and Uranus the god of sky.

Rhea’s portrait shows her as a motherly, beautiful woman. She was a sibling of Cronus and Hyperion. She married Cronus God of Time and had six kids including Hesita Demeter Hera Haides Poseidon Zeus. Rhea has many similarities to her mother. She was married with Kronos who also goes by the name Cronus. Kronos feared that he would lose his son and be replaced as King as the Gods as he had been with his own father Ouranos. Rhea was tired of losing children this way, so she convinced Kronos that a wrapped stone would be taken instead of Zeus. Zeus grew up in a Crete cavern by Almatheia. A group militants called kouretes protected him by covering his cries. Zeus fought against his father to free his siblings. Rhea, a matronly goddess with a turret-crowned crown is often shown standing between two lions on a chariot or standing in front of a pair of lions. Her role as a goddess of fertility is also represented by the moon. Her sacred animals are a lion and a fruit-bearing tree.

As cronus’ wife, she represented eternal time and generations. As with everyone, she had her own strengths and weakness. Her strengths included being a fertile Mother Goddess and her ability to be crafty and brave in order to defend her child. She was weak because she allowed Cronus to eat her children for far too long. Rhea, the goddess motherhood was not just about saving her children. Rhea, a powerful goddess of importance, did what else? Rhea’s mother is Zeus, god of thunder and lightning. Rhea also father to gods.

Destiny, Guilt And Acceptance In Macbeth

William Shakespeare’s Macbeth is a play that focuses on the protagonist’s willingness and ability to accept fate. Macbeth’s attitude towards the witches’ prophecies changes depending on whether he finds them to be accurate. When the prophecies predict that he’ll die and have no heirs after he becomes king, Macbeth tries to change fate. He has bloody methods and must confront or ignore his morality throughout the play. Macbeth’s guilt is reduced as his actions move from working towards fate to against it.

Macbeth may have thought about killing Duncan even before hearing from the Witches that he will be King, but it is clear that this was his first thought after hearing them. Although he often thinks about it, he does not acknowledge the crime. Macbeth wants to both fulfill his destiny and avoid it. He wants Banquo to “wink” at him. He is only prompted to act by the prophecies, not the actual deed. Even the idea of killing Duncan “doth fix [his]hair.” He is against the killing for a number of reasons, including that it disturbs the natural flow of things. As Duncan’s hosts and thegns, he has a strong objection to the act. Macbeth is afraid of his own fate, not because of moral qualms. Macbeth is afraid of his punishment for killing Duncan, a noble king. Cawdor’s fate also represents his potential on earth. Knowing that he could not escape divine punishment, he decided to stay away from the fate that was predicted by the three witches. He has to choose whether he wants to be a king or go to Heaven. He prefers the action, not the result. Lady Macbeth has convinced him.

Lady Macbeth is a tool of fate, and she does so without being prompted. She immediately invokes spirits that are prone to mortal thinking, putting herself in the category of the fate serving witches. She refers back to the witches’ prophecy by calling it “the all hail hereafter”, believing that what Macbeth believed could not be good or bad, was unambiguously good. Macbeth makes many protestations but she does not give in and answers them all. She makes him act by following destiny.

Macbeth’s guilt is overwhelming when he finally decides to murder Duncan. He imagines an airborne bloody dagger directing him toward Duncan’s house. He worries that the paving blocks will reveal his plans, he hears noises, he fears a lost relationship with God. The murderer “needed a blessing, with ‘Amen stuck in [his] mouth.” He’s done the deed. At this point, he’s lost all hope of being saved. After the murder, the drunken porter who thinks he is the gatekeeper to hell mocks Macbeth’s state. Macbeth constantly talks about Hell and anachronistically refers to an equivocator: “who committed Treason…yet had no equivocation for heaven.” He chose his fate and was carried to it by the witches. He has lost his way, and the guilt he feels is actually the fear of the possible consequences.

Sleep deprivation is the first of his consequences. Macbeth is deprived of peace of mind because of his lack of sleep. Sleep, though “innocent,” has many positive health benefits. As a result of his “murdering sleep”, he is forced to live in fear. Macbeth realizes that sleeping is “death’s fake” as it reminds him of his inability to experience a peaceful or happy death. Lady Macbeth scoffs at Macbeth’s fear, comparing the dead to pictures and the devil as “painted”.

Macbeth’s attempt to alter his destiny is not surprising. He realizes his damnation has been for nothing. The witches predicted that Banquo’s descendants would become kings. Not his. He fights against his earthly fate and not the one he will eventually face. This decision is a double-edged sword: the “blood” he has spilled will be the reason for his inability to regret it. Macbeth’s guilt is “the initiate fear that wants hard use” and will soon vanish once he has killed enough. His guilt will disappear as soon as he is done killing. In order to escape his fate, he kills and attempts to alter it. He freely decides to do something impossible. In the past, he tried to fulfill his destiny. Now, he makes it impossible.

Lady Macbeth reverses her attitudes to killing when she sees her husband change his mind about fate. Macbeth’s fight against fate has caused Lady Macbeth to turn on him. The murder was suggested by her and he gave reasons against it. But now, he is talking about killing. He ignores his objections. The murder is not acceptable to Lady Macbeth who believes in vindicating destiny. She does not fight fate, she accepts it. So, she is filled with fear and anxiety. It’s not about hell, but something bigger. A plot to undermine the natural order or God’s laws, like Duncan’s murder.

Macbeth is defeated in his efforts to bring about the death of Fleance, who will become king of Scotland. Fleance does not die. He is the future king. Banquo is killed, despite the witches’ predictions that he would never become king. Macbeth remembers this when he sees Banquo. He is most afraid that other guests may see it and realize that he did it. The witches will tell him about the fate he has chosen. He is ready to know “By the worst, the worst.” To learn that changing his destiny is futile, he will go along with the evil and take him further down its path.

At this point, he is willing to do anything in order to discover his fate. He will do anything to find out his fate. He wants the spirit to tell him the truth and not his weyard sisters. The witches cannot do this. He speaks directly with them. In his speech, he asks the spirits to tell him things, but the witches say he’s not allowed. He tries learning more about himself than he is capable of. He wishes that he hadn’t known the information he received when he demanded it. He had been told the answer by witches before, but now he has to look at a picture of Banquo and his descendants. Macbeth says that the sight “sears his eyeballs.” Macbeth then pretends he did not see it.

Macbeth now is blind to the fate that awaits him, and he is blind to guilt. Macbeth can only kill his son and wife, even though he orders Macduff’s murder. Macbeth is trying to change his fate by killing a woman, a young child, and even Banquo. Macbeth is not as vocal about his guilt in this case, nor does he express fear. He had already set out to change his fate and is now slowly realizing it’s impossible.

Macbeth, at the beginning Act V, believes so firmly in his invulnerability that he is almost deceived. Macbeth is apprehensive as soon as Birnam arrives in Dunsinane. Birnam’s arrival would be the proof that Macbeth was immoral. Fate mocks him, causing unlikely things to happen before he can change his destiny. Macbeth gives up on fighting when he realises he cannot alter his destiny.

Macbeth becomes aware of the grimness his destiny when Lady Macbeth kills herself. Lady Macbeth is a strong believer of prophecies. She has realized that her husband’s fate is bleak and has killed herself. Macbeth may be blinded to his own guilt, but Lady Macbeth sees it. The guilt she feels is not one of fear; if this were true, then she would have hardly committed suicide. Rather, it’s that of a simple inability to live despite the blood on your hands. She cannot accept the crimes that Macbeth and her (she blames Macbeth for the murders, but she was not involved in the killing of Duncan or Lady Macduff). Fate has stopped supporting Macbeth because he cannot accept his guilt. Lady Macbeth admitted to her sins and took her own life out of guilt. Macbeth, however, refused to surrender to Macduff in the end. Although he may realize that fighting his fate will be futile, he fights it anyway.

Macbeth accepts his guilt by choosing to fight Macduff. He fights the inevitable end fate has foretold. Macbeth is not going to consider Macbeth’s actions as coincidence. A man born without woman and a forest have moved. He must accept the fate that awaits him. Macbeth must face his fate. He doesn’t cry, but he is in hell at the end. Macbeth has combined his fight against fate with his fight against sin into a single fight, which he lost.

Macbeth’s struggle to achieve his destiny was one he couldn’t have lost. He could not win the battle. While his actions are insignificant on a grand scale, they are extremely important for the fate of Macbeth’s soul. Macbeth has no control over his destiny, which is why it’s not predetermined. Macbeth is the one who determines his ultimate fate, even if he may be crowned by chance.

The Context Of The History In Frankenstein

“Art without a matrix or culture is impracticable…it is impossible without history”

Stephen Cox’s comment expresses the poststructuralist viewpoint that meanings of texts always stem from their context. Frankenstein, Mary Shelley’s novel, is a clear example of her historical context. Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is set after the Religious Reformation, Industrial Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment and even Feminism. Shelley’s Creature provides her readers with the best perspective on society’s injustices and problems. Judith Halberstam suggests that the Creature may be interpreted as Mary Shelley herself. It is a symbol of class struggle, industrialization, and all social struggle. The Creature helps to highlight current issues by illustrating how the historical context of Frankenstein is expressed in the novel.

Religion is the first significant context that shaped Frankenstein. The nineteenth century witnessed significant changes in attitudes and beliefs towards religion, following the advent of Protestantism, as well as the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution was an important force behind these changes. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen had enabled religious and civil freedom. In the early 19th century, people were looking for philosophical answers that didn’t come from religious institutions. They also questioned traditional dogma. Frankenstein’s central theme of challenging God’s role as Creator, is an example of this questioning. This theme underpins Frankenstein’s egocentric quest to find man-made procreation. Shelley is however deeply critical. Frankenstein was addressed by the Creature. These allusions make Frankenstein seem like a spiteful, irrational creature. Shelley’s view is strongly influenced by Shelley’s view that Frankenstein represents a dangerous challenge to accepted order of life, God’s only Creator, and God’s unique role in it.

This is further supported in the 1818 edition’s preface. It begins with a Paradise Lost quotation: “Did he ask thee Maker/ To mould me man?” Did I solicit you/ From darkness for me to prosper?– Shelley uses this to establish the beginning idea of his novel. Shelley is likely to be interested in exploring the idea that man may possess the ability to create life and not just God.

Shelley appears to be using the Creature to show the revolutionary audience – an audience that questions the church doctrine – the devastating effects of confronting family acceptance of religions, including God’s role, in order to promote science and technology that eventually leads to society’s destruction. Shelley appears to be directly opposing the challenges of conformist Christianity. Shelley’s criticisms regarding a society questioning the natural order and life’s consequences are quite plausible. Again, she uses her critiques of the Creature through Frankenstein. It is human society – God created civilisation – that makes the Creature into an evil monster.

Shelley’s critiques and worries about science’s destructive consequences are closely related to all this. These worries were common at the time, both after the development Erasmus Darwin’s theories and The French Revolution. Norton Garfinkle says that “when The French Revolution raised concerns about an anarchistic society built upon an atheistic science,” religious opinions began to fear the social consequences. The novel presents the tragic story of a scientist’s scientific project. However, it is also visible in certain details.

Humphry Daavy, Luigi Galvani, and Adam Walker, all modern scientists, explored the possibility of manipulating the universe by human interference. Shelley explains the dangers involved in this technique through his novel. Tim Marshall points out that cadavers were more in demand as medical technology advanced. Marshall mentions a ‘Patent Coffin’ that was registered in 1817 before Frankenstein was published. While this was intended to provide easy access to the afterlife, it also pointed out the lucrative market for grave robbing. Anne Mellor notes that Frankenstein’s introductions to chemical biology at the University of Ingolstadt are based on Davy’s famous lecture titled “An Introduction to Chemistry.” All of this supports Shelley’s awareness of new science and scientific methods, which suggests that she considers the possible outcomes of Frankenstein.

Shelley criticizes contemporaneous ideas, practices, once more. Shelley also uses the incredibly ironic phrase “a Godlike Science” to describe Frankenstein’s feelings about his creation of the Creature. This only adds to the cruelty of this kind scientific project. Many readers will immediately see the inhumanity of such an endeavor. Frankenstein is unable to see that he has crossed moral and acceptable boundaries. Shelley’s potential fate may mirror that of her own society, which continues science development and discredits religion to a certain extent. Shelley, however, shows the destructive nature and hubris of Frankenstein’s evil microcosm. Shelley refers to Frankenstein’s (and her macrocosm) punishment for taking the light of reason, or manipulative scientific knowledge, from the gods.

Frankenstein illustrates two other important contexts. Shelley’s novel was written in 1833, which meant that feelings of white supremacy and slavery were still strong.

Britain sought to expand her empire by competing with other nations, which led to a stronger sense of racial superiority. “Eugenicists” believed that people with disabilities would reduce racial and national competition and could therefore improve their ability to selectively breed. It became more common for disabled people to be sterilized or placed in institutions. Frankenstein’s intolerant attitudes to the Creature are a reflection of current attitudes regarding foreigners. Shelley uses the Creature’s rejection and mistreatment to gain sympathy from the audience and magnify prejudices in her social context by using him to highlight the persecution of the persecuted. The Creature’s statement that he was the “monster that I am” is an example of this.

The Creature tells the story and the Creature sees the events through his eyes. It allows the reader to understand his human nature and compassion. By referring to himself as a monstrous being, the reader is able to see that his rejections are actually from humans. Frankenstein is blind to the Creature’s suffering because he feels superior and has an intolerant view of all things ‘queer. This is reinforced by the fact that the Creature’s tale allows the reader to feel and understand the Creature’s pain. The Creature is trying to teach the modern reader the same lessons he learned. Shelley is trying to demonstrate that humans, through greed and selfishness, are not enlightened when it comes to equality. After studying several books from the De Lacy household, the monster asked: ‘Was mankind, indeed, simultaneously so powerful, virtuous and majestic, yet so viciously und base?’ This questioning of ideology leaves Shelley with a poignant and relevant question.

English society in the first century was markedly marked by racial, physical, and ignorant prejudices. It was also markedly marked by ignorance regarding sexuality and certain taboos. Michel Foucault’s’repression hypothesis” highlights this. Foucault asserts that sexuality has been a taboo topic in society. He warns us that it is difficult to talk about sex without taking a different position: We are conscious of challenging established power. Frankenstein’s implicit homosexuality in her novel defies all conventions. Shelley even presents sexual repression. It is possible to argue that Frankenstein’s attempts to create life were motivated by homosexual fantasies.

Halberstam suggests Frankenstein’s reclusiveness in his attempts to create life, followed by his refusal to allow the Creature-to-mate to be born, is indicative of his sexual pursuits and the underlying homoerotic tension. She suggests that Frankenstein’s plan to create a ‘being like him’ is a combination of masturbatory as well as homosexual desires. Frankenstein actually feels ‘delight, rapture’ while creating his’man. Frankenstein’s creation and subsequent sex relationship could be interpreted as Frankenstein’s attempt to discover his sexuality, which is often hidden or not acknowledged in society. Shelley may be engaging with her society’s sexual taboo, though it is veiled. Shelley also criticizes such sexual projects and desires, warning readers that the result of such a curious person, or society, are the unleashing a monster in the world.

The consequences of unleashing such a monster are not limited to the individual. Anne Mellor notes that Frankenstein’s love affair with his monster indicates an implicit desire in him to create a race and a genderless world. Shelley uses Shelley’s implicit desire of man to illustrate how a world that does not have women will lead to destruction, misery, and freedom for new ideas, such as exploration of sexuality and human reproduction.

Frankenstein’s final historical context is the gender norms and women’s role. The novel has a strong theme of the passive nature of women. The only purpose of all female characters is to be victimized and used. Frankenstein views Elizabeth in submissiveness and says of her: “I considered Elizabeth my own – mine to cherish, love, and protect.” She was praised so much that I made her my possession. Yet, he continues to fail to protect her. Justine, who is also presented, states that she is innocent of her own insubordination and passivity. I am not pretending that my protestations should excuse me. Instead, I trust the facts and rest my innocence.

In the end, she is just another victim of women and does not fight for justice. She is only there for the purpose of being framed. Shelley also describes her silence during Lord Byron’s 1831 preface. These aspects are typical of the attitude toward women in this time period. These aspects reflect the traditional views of women in patriarchal culture at this time. Shelley’s mother Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her Vindication for the Rights Of Woman (1792), which discusses the women’s situation. Shelley was left with resonating questions about gender roles. This led to Frankenstein’s exploration of women’s procreation roles. Shelley’s novel suggests that society and families are ruined by the complete inaction of women when it comes procreation. Frankenstein’s male counterpart in the role of female reproducer is not only an aberrant behavior, but it also results in an aberration.

It is possible that Shelley’s male-centric novel suggests she resents the biological roles of the female sexes and not her submission to men’s superiority. Ellen Moers refers to Frankenstein as a “female birth myth”, which suggests Shelley’s incontinence about maternity. This plot, which revolves around the intervention of man in procreation, suggests that there is some resentment about women having to give birth. Also, it is the responsibility of women to nurture and care for their child. Shelley lost her mother in childbirth and had miscarriages. Shelley made the Creature a metaphor for satire misogyny. William Duff said that women were’monsters’, not just human but not animal. Mary Wollstonecraft is the hyena in the petticoats’ as she broke the natural and proper limits for a women’s rights announcement. Shelley uses this Creature to decry these insolences. Shelley’s most ambivalent views are about women. Frankenstein, however, does indeed reflect modern views.

We can see that Shelley used the Creature in order to expose the dangers of modern ideas. It is an effective way of presenting the novel’s historical context. Shelley is critical of the Creature’s current discourses and attitudes, as well as those that relate to religion, science (racial/physical), sexuality, and gender. Frankenstein is a poststructuralist who believes that texts are always connected to circumstances, time, place, society.


BFI, Unspecified author, ‘The History of Attitudes to Disabled People’ [accessed 8.05.12]

Stephen Cox is quoted by Mark Tully in No Full Stop in India (London, Penguin Group, 1991), page 58.

Duff. William. Jenny Newman cites Duff. Lucie Armitt (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 87

Foucault Michael. The History of Sexuality. Robert Hurley (London/New York: Penguin Books. 1978).

Gagnier. Regenia. Subjectivities. History of Self Representation in Britain, 1832-1920. New York: Oxford University Press. 1991. P. 8.

Norton Garfinkle. Science and Religion, England, 1790-1800. Critical Response to the Work of Erasmus. Journal of the History Ideas Vol. 16, No. 3, June 1955 (Pennsylvania University Press, 1955), P. 377.

Halberstam Judith. “Making Monsters” Skin Shows: Gothic Horrors and the Technology of Monsters. Durham NC: Duke WP, 1995. p. 29.

The History of Birth Control, written by Kathleen London, offers an in-depth look at the practices and history of contraception. The Yale Newhaven Teacher’s Institute provides educational opportunities to instructors. Retrieved 10/05/2012 from

Marshall, Tim. “Frankenstein and 1832 Anatomy Act” In Gothick Origins and Innovations. Allan Lloyd Smith (Amsterdam; Atlanta, Rodopi, 1994), pages. 57-64.

Mellor, Anne Chapter 6 in Mary Shelley’s Life, Her Fiction, and Her Monsters (New York, Methuen 1988), pp. 115-26.

Mellor Anne K.: Frankenstein: A Feministcritique of Science (1987).” in One Culture. Essays in Science and Literature. George Levine (Madison University: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1987), page 288.

Moers Ellen, “Female Gothic”, The Endurance of Frankenstein. Ed. George Levine (Berkeley Los Angeles, London: University of California Press in 1979), p.

Rose, Ellen Cronan. “Custody Battles.Reproducing Knowledge about Frankenstein” in New Literary History Vol. 26, No. John Hopkins University Press published an article in Autumn 1995, which was reported on page 811.

Said Edward The World and the Critic (Harvard University Press Cambridge Massachusetts 1983), P. 35.

Shelley (Great Britain: Penguin Group 1995)

A&P By John Updike: Sammy And Queenie Character Analysis

John Updike’s short story “A&P” explores the theme reality. The story centers on Sammy, a nineteen-year old grocery store worker. Queenie is a beautiful young girl. Sammy sees her as attractive and she entices Sammy to make an opportunistic decision. Unfortunately, it ends badly for him. His entire life is turned upside-down. Updike shows Sammy’s disloyalty, impulsivity and thoughtlessness in “A&P.”

Sammy’s choice to choose Queenie’s physical appearance, and her initial impression that she is a sweetheart, can be seen as typical of a young boy. Sammy said, “I’m not going to quit Lengel fast enough to make them hear…their undiscovered hero.” Sammy is clearly trying to impress girls with his decision to quit. He is unable to think clearly and this makes the likely consequences of him making this decision more difficult. You can see his disloyalty in leaving behind a job that was meaningful to his family. Lengel, his store manager is also there. Lengel, the store manager. Updike’s Sammy says that it is fatal to abandon a gesture once it has been initiated. Queenie’s friends and Sammy end up leaving. Sammy then realizes that his decision of quitting was futile. Lengel tries then to get Sammy to give up by reminding Sammy about the feelings of his parents. Sammy realises that Lengel is correct and that he is feeling guilty, but his pride is not allowing him to change his decision. He accepts that he made a gesture for the “my girls” and that it was wrong. Sammy has become irritable and it is starting to show in his behavior. Sammy makes the right decisions and realizes that Queenie’s initial task was not a success. Sammy says that he felt the pain of the future. Sammy quit, and Sammy came to terms with the things he had done. Sammy looks around the shop and sees Lengel performing Sammy’s work. Sammy is caught between his secure, comfortable past and his uncertain, spurned future. Sammy’s unconsciousness is revealed when he realizes his true intentions. However, he was not trying to harm anyone or himself. His abrupt decision-making has lead him to an unnoticed, conclusively unemployed place. Readers will be able to see Sammy’s personality traits as impulsive, disloyal, and thoughtless through the eyes of Updike. Sammy ends up homeless and invisible to Queenie, her friends and family. This shows readers and Sammy how one choice can ultimately impact your future. Sammy’s hidden talents can be seen by those who judge him based only on their first impressions.

Biographical Discourse Of Krakauer’s ‘Into The Wild’

There are many similarities in the content of biographies. There are many differences in the features of these biographies that make them different from each other. These conventions are used to enhance the reader’s enjoyment. This is all done exceptionally well in Jon Krakauer’s biography Into the Wild. Krakauer tells the story of Chris McCandless’ liberating journey through North America. It is told in a disjointed but compelling timeline. Krakauer uses original sources to create his biography. He also includes an explanation of his personal life experiences in each chapter to enrich the reader’s reading experience.

The book follows biographical conventions in that it retraces Chris’ steps using original sources. Krakauer 3, for example, is able to recall Gallien’s first encounter with Chris McCandless as a hitchhiker. Krakauer is required by law to interview Chris’s family and friends in order for him to have more credibility as a biographer. Krakauer also refers to Chris McCandless’s writings and includes his journals and letters throughout the entire book. Krakauer, for instance, includes Wayne Westerberg’s letter in which Chris mentions his arrival in Yukon Territory. He declares that “I now enter the wild” (3). Krakauer uses the title quote in the beginning chapter. This echoes Chris’ bold tone and creates a dark, foreboding atmosphere for the rest. Krakauer’s usual use of primary sources to collect information for his biography enriches both the reader’s enjoyment and also his credibility as an author. Krakauer places the title quote at the beginning of the first chapter. Most notably, maps are placed before chapters start. For example, the map that appears before chapter 9 depicts the area surrounding Davis Gulch at the border of Arizona and Utah (86). This map allows readers to visualize the contents of the chapter and gives them a sense of Chris’ journey. The map is not the only thing that Krakauer uses to start each chapter. He also includes epigraphs from Chris and other writers to complement any image Krakauer has aligned with it. Everett Ruess is the one who emphasizes this. He writes in a letter (87) that he “asks when I will see civilization, it may not be soon…I do not tire of the wilderness, but I rather enjoy its beauty. This refreshing departure from the standard paragraphs that describe Chris’ story and other books adds to the reader’s curiosity. The letter also juxtaposes Everett Ruess’ philosophies and ventures. They were both influenced by transcendentalist beliefs, approximately sixty years apart. Krakauer wanted to illustrate the message and subject matter of the chapter. He also wanted to let readers draw their own conclusions about Chris’ uniqueness and compare the adventures between them. This book’s minor differences in structure and genre, which almost resembles a written documentary about Chris is what adds to the reader’s fascination and retention throughout.

Krakauer’s evident authorial bias also deviates from standard biographical conventions. Krakauer even dedicates chapters to discussing his own personal experiences. Krakauer makes a blatant confession in the Author’s Note: “I won’t claim that I am an impartial biographer” explaining how he was personally affected by Chris’ story. It made it impossible to “dispassionately render the tragedy possible”. He is honest about his admiration and bias towards Chris and establishes trust with his readers by being open about it. Two chapters in the book deal with Krakauer’s connection to Chris. This unusual convention allows readers to see Krakauer’s authorial view of Chris’ story. It focuses on Krakauer’s personal connection to Chris and their experiences in the wildernesses. This second distinction provides readers with an additional perspective of Chris McCandless, the book and Krakauer.

Many conventions can be used in different biographies or other books with similar genres. They each have their own distinctive features and conceptually overlap with others. Jon Krakauer uses biographical conventions to tell Chris’ story across North America in Into the Wild. Jon Krakauer creates an intriguing and compelling biography of Chris using conventions. These include using primary sources for information, formulating unique chapters, and including personal experiences that he shares with Chris McCandless.