Excluding Hemingway, Doyle, Ellison, and LeGuin, select a short story in our Google folder. Read it, then apply a literary lens with 200+ words.
Excluding Hemingway, Doyle, Ellison, and LeGuin, select a short story in our Google folder. Read it, then apply a literary lens with 200+ words.
90 comments:
I decided to read “The Monkey's Paw” by W.W. Jacobs. I read the story focusing on the Freudian lens. After reading this story all the way through you can see that it is about the greed/desires people have and the consequences of them. You could tell that the Monkey’s paw would only cause the Whites family sadness and trouble based on how the first two owners of the paw reacted to it. When Sergeant-Major Morris told them stories of the first owner and how the first owner chose to die for his third wish gives hints about what might happen to the Whites. Morris also threw it in the fire and said that the monkey’s paw wasn’t even worth it. That was Morris being the superego of the story. He tried to warn the family but the Whites wanted the stories to be real and wished for 200 pounds. This shows the greed of the family. They were told to leave the paw in the fire and warned that it wasn’t a good idea to use it. The desire of all of the family members is the ID of the story. Mostly the wife and son are pushing Mr. White to use the monkey’s paw. Mr. White was skeptical of using the paw and was trying to decide if he wanted to wish his son back when his wife wanted him to. Of course, he did because the wants of his wife overwhelmed him. He eventually came to his senses and fixed his mistake. That is what makes him the ego of the story. He was the decision-maker and had to choose between his wants and what was the right thing to do.
I read “The Lady or the Tiger?” by Frank Stockton. When using a Freudian or psychoanalytic lens, this short story is packed with sentences to analyze. First off, you must examine the king. The king is a “semi-barbaric” man. Using a lens, the reader can dissect this to mean that the king feels that his court is a suitable way to serve justice, but at the same time, he enjoys the thrill of waiving the fear of life and death in his subjects' hands and subsequently watching them get brutally torn apart as punishment if they make the wrong choice. Semi is due to the previously mentioned belief in serving justice. To understand the ultimate question of the short story (and come up with an answer) we must first come to understand the king’s daughter. It would appear that the barbaric side is dominant in the king, the reader must question if it is the same in the daughter. She mentions that she has been anticipating this event with her lover, due to the exciting nature of the event. This comment informs the reader of her barbaric nature. While yes, she has been grieving about the event, it is only due to the decision that she must make. The fact that picking the tiger was even a choice for her shows her selfish nature. A tiger means the definite end of their relationship, the woman doesn’t (she is the king’s beloved daughter, she can have what she wants). Her lover put his full trust in her, only for her to betray it by choosing the tiger.
I read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin. I used the Marxist Lens to further evaluate this short story. In this short story, we get introduced to this society that relies on someone else's suffering in order for them to be happy. In the short story, there is a little "it" (they do not give it a gender because it "doesn't matter") who has been locked in a small closet by itself for years. It is malnourished nor fully developed mentally and physically. Everyone in the society knows that it is in their suffering, but the people of this society need it to be in there for themselves to be happy. When using the Marxist theory we know that the little "it" is the bottom of the totem pole in societal standards. Everyone else is above this little kid. We unconsciously have a sort of competition aspect when it comes to societal standards. We need to be better than the other person. This little kid is taking the runt of everything in order for others to feel worthy and happy. The narrator goes on to say that many find individuality and leave Omelas, he does not say this is good nor bad, but we do know that societal standards usually do not change, people’s instincts do not change.
I decided to read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. I read to story focusing on the Marxist lens. Before, during, and after reading this story, it is clear to see how the Marxist lens plays a major role. In this particular story, we are in the year 2081 and following the characters George and Hazel. The society they live in focuses on making everyone exactly equal, whether it be by looks, smarts, money, talent, and so on. Most notably in the Marxist lens you would try and find how the lower class and upper-class function together, but in this case, everybody is technically equal because of the physical handicaps 'better' people have to wear. In a normal society, the exceptional would be praised for new innovation, but in "Harrison Bergeron", the below-average are being praised. It shows almost a backward ideology where below-average are thought of as better while the above-average are thought as of less. While watching a ballet, George sees their exceptional son, Harrison. He was jailed for going against the handicapped but escaped and made his way to the ballerina. The best ballerina is burdened by so much but sheds her handicaps and dances a most beautiful dance with Harrison. In the end, they are both shot and killed, showing that rising on the social ladder is not possible because it will only lead to death.
I decided to read "The ones who walk away from Omelas". I found this short story to be moving in many ways. Author, Ursula Le Guin tells a story of this beautiful city and the hidden horrors inside of it. Using a Marxist lens to analyze this story, I focused on the different tiers of society and the negligence that this can cause. Le Guin starts off by describing this beautiful city full of beautiful people. They are all happy and live peaceful lives with minimal problems. As the story goes on she goes into detail on a "child" who is locked away from the city in a dark closet. This does not specifically mean a child, but it represents the unfortunate individuals within the community. Maybe those who have been shunned, homeless people, or disabled individuals. They are the people who the city relies on. They serve as a symbol in society to show that people can be happy if they know they don't have it "as bad" as someone else. Even if the "child" in this story was truly free, they would never feel true freedom becuase of the judgement they would receive.
The short story I decided to read was "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Kate Chopin. The story itself is only about five pages, but has a definite feminist perspective. When applying a feminist lens one will notice that the story is about a woman who is unhappy in her marriage and wants to get a divorce, but her family and friends think it is a bad idea because she would receive “opposition” from the community. This situation depicts feminism in a strong way because the main character being discussed is a female and more specifically she wants to gain independence and freedom from her current life with her husband. It shows that women in that time period could be independent and do not need a man in their life for it to be fulfilled. At the beginning of the short story, readers learn that her husband had left her and her two children for about six months, so she had to take care of them, “‘taking in sewing; giving music lessons; doing God knows what in the way of manual labor to support yourself and those two little ones’”. This shows the stereotypical role of women during that time period, where the women would stay home and take care of the children and the house while the man goes out to work.
I chose to read the short story “Signs and Symbols” by Vladmir Nobokov. I decided to use the Freudian Lens to analyze this short story. After reading this story the first time, it seemed like it didn’t mean anything. It feels like it is one small scene of a story cut out and labeled as the whole story. I thought that there had to be something I was missing or that there was some hidden meaning in the short story itself. A common theme in the story seems to be doom and gloom. We can tell that this family’s life has been very difficult because of how dark and gloomy they seem to all act. This could go to show why they dress really plainly and live kind of separate from the rest of their town. It could also explain some of the mental issues that their son has. It is likely that something is weighing on their minds that is never specifically mentioned in the story. But, I think that the author has his own meaning for this story. I believe that his goal was to exploit our human egos and mindgame us into over-investigating this story just like the main character’s son over-analyzes the world because he thinks it revolves around him. In a way, the author puts us into our own “Referential Mania”. I believe that the bit about their son having a “Referential Mania” was a part of the story for a reason. This whole story could just be a way for the author to play with our minds and our ego.
I decided to read Madame Celestin’s Divorce by Kate Chopin. When reading this short story a feminist viewpoint is very prominent. When applying the feminist lens one would notice that this short story is all about a woman who is unhappy with her marriage and wants to get a divorce. Her family and friends think that this is a ridiculous idea because of the reactions of other people in her community. This screams feminist because the main character is a woman that is depicted as crazy because she no longer wants to be married to the man she is currently with. She strives for independence but back in the day, a woman was never good enough without a man by her side. At the beginning of the story, her husband leaves her with the kids for six months so she had to learn new things like "'taking in sewing; giving music lessons; doing God knows what in the way of manual labor to support yourself and those two little ones’” this just goes further to show the women role in the house during the time period. Men were able to leave the kids and wife behind for however long they felt, but the women had to take care of everything back home. This short story is just another example of that stereotype.
Stockton “Lady or the Tiger?”
Throughout the short story by Stockton called “The Lady or the Tiger?” the reader will encounter many times where a psychoanalytical lens can be applied. One such time is when all of the crowds and people gather to find out if the “criminal” is going to be killed or find a wife. Each time this happens it creates a sense of excitement for everyone because every person in the world has an unconscious and conscious mind. The conscious mind of people is scared of what will happen to the criminal if he is attacked by the tiger because they know the inevitable. However, the unconscious part of everyone's mind—similar to their id—is wanting to find out and see the tiger and the criminal meet each other. This then leads into the final part of the short story. What the story is all about. Which door did the princess choose? We can infer that if she truly loved this man she would not want him to die. She would choose the door with the other girl and then she would have to love someone who cannot be with her. However, the opposite can also be stated. If she loved him so much she might not want him with anyone else so she would rather have him dead. This is where a psychoanalytical lens helps us understand.
I read "The Lady or the Tiger?" by Frank Stockton. The psychoanalytic lens can help the reader further dissect what the author is trying to accomplish with the characters. The word semi-barbaric is used multiple times throughout the story to describe both the king and the process. I see this word to mean that while the two might be crazy with their ruling, it could also be seen as a fair to way meet justice. The amphitheater with the two cages is like playing with fate. The king allows the prisoner to choose their fate with consequences coming from both ends. The prisoner might die or they might be married which could be bad if they already had a family. The princess put herself in a dilemma that was answered by one quick hand gesture that was meant for her lover on trial, "She raised her hand, and made a slight, quick movement toward the right." She had to decide whether her lover lived a life with someone other than her or die a gruesome death. The author left the story up to the reader to finish whether the princess chose the tiger or the lady. This is the part where the reader gets to choose just how barbaric the princess really was. Does she let her lover die a gruesome death just so no other can have him? Does she let her lover love another and allow herself the pain of watching him every day? We are told the princess made her decision over a few days of what to do meaning that she is well-reasoned however, when it comes to a loved one, how far will one go to protect their lover or their own heart? The question could be answered in varying ways by many people, but the story ends with what the reader would decide so it is really up to just how barbaric you really are.
I read “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” by Ambrose Bierce. I decided to read the novel using a Freudian Lens. The short story’s biggest use of Freudian Lens is the fact that most of the story is not real. In the end, it is revealed that the main character dies on the bridge and the whole sequence of events leading up to that moment was just in his imagination. This is a use of Freudian lens because the sequence of events that happens are all things that he wants to feel. For example, it mentions in the story that the main character would not be able to fight for the Confederacy. So he goes to Owl bridge to do what he can. The reality is that he is caught and executed for trying to fight the Union. But in his mind, he gets away and survives multiple things that should have killed him. This dream of survival is a very masculine idea and characterizes him and someone who is strong and dependable. Along with this, he mentions his wife and kids, and how he needs to get back to them because they depend on him. At the end, before he dies he sees himself with his wife showing that they are dependent on him. This is Freudian because it follows the idea of him trying to find familiarity even though he is dying.
I decided to read "The Lady or the Tiger?" by Frank Stockton. The lens I find most fitting to this story would be was the psychoanalytic lens. With this lens, you study more of what is going on inside of someone's head and why they make the decisions they do. In this story, you are told much about the thinking of the King the father of the Princess who is barbaric, and if it isn't his way he doesn't normally like it or go along with it. The story tells you of how the king's way of dealing with prisoners is they go to the arena where they pick between two doors, one has a fierce tiger that will kill you, the other has a fair lady that you will be married to. So the story tells us that the princess's lover who is a commoner is put in prison for loving the princess, then when his day comes to choose a door in the arena the princess knows what is in each door. She tells him to go to the right but the problem is is that she hates the woman he would marry. So the story asks which door did she send him to. Applying the psychoanalytic lens we know that she both hates the woman her lover would marry and has a barbaric father so the obvious choice would be that she would rather her lover die than be with this woman. But a reader also has to wonder if she has at least enough love for this guy to make sure he stays alive so the story keeps you guessing. My belief is no matter how much she may have loved him she has too much selfishness and barbarian in her to let him go to anyone else especially someone she hates.
I decided to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. I read the story with a Marxist lens. After reading the story through, I learned that people are too greedy when given too much. The Whites wished for money and their son died because of it, unable to shake the monkey's paw, they wished for him to be alive again. It was only in the end that Mr. White finally saw the evils it would bring if their son was alive again; Eventually, he came to his senses and saved his wife from seeing their mangled son. The Whites act with such foolishness and haste because of the social class they are living in. While they are off well, they still need to pay off the house. Money causes greed and that is what they wished upon themselves. Living in the lower class adds a humble effect for the family. The humble effect comes back and Mr. White realizes what could happen from their greed after wishing their son back from the dead. Choosing between what is right and what they want is what the whole story is about.
I chose to read "A Piece of Steak" by Jack London. Tom King, the protagonist, is at a very trying time in his life. He is living through poverty and struggling to feed his wife and kids. Tom's last hope is to win a boxing match to be able to provide for the family. Tom barely has anything to eat before his match and strongly desires a single piece of steak. After walking two miles to get to the fight, Tom is matched against a much younger man. Throughout the trying match, the piece of steak unconsciously pops into King's mind. This serves as his motivating force along with wanting to provide for his family. Ultimately, the unconscious symbol of steak does not lead King to victory but can be viewed with a psychoanalytic lens. Tom's unconscious mind brings up the steak in what seems like a senseless way when it really is a driving force in the fight. Another example is when Tom looks back when he was younger. He remembers facing an older man and winning the match. He then recalls the man crying after losing the fight. This situation sits in Tom's unconscious mind as he is now the old man. The fear of the story ending the same way also motivates him to put up a strong fight. Despite these unconscious motifs, King ends up losing the fight and becomes the old man he once fought.
I chose to read “The Lady or the Tiger?” written by Frank Stockton. At first, when I started reading the short story, I could not find many instances of different lenses that I could apply to the story. After reading the story a second time, I noticed that more lenses could be applied that met the eye during the first run-through. By looking at the king, I used a religious lens to examine his characteristics and motives. I saw he liked to have a god complex in giving a choice of death or life. This later moved on into his daughter when she would tell her lover which was the “right” door to pick. The daughter grew up seeing this as a normal everyday decision that had to be made so did not think twice about her choice. She did have more consciousness of the overall impact of her lover and herself that depended on what door he picked. The woman behind the door and the tiger could both be seen as beast-like animals. This is because no matter what door he did choose the relationship between the princess and the lover would have died during the trial of innocence or guilt.
I decided to read “The Monkey's Paw” by W.W. Jacobs through a Freudian lens. This story is all about the greediness of the human mind, and how people always desire more. After the sergeant-major mentioned the monkey's paw the people around him got so intrigued by the three wishes it allowed. They did not hear anything else about how the man who had it first killed himself with the last wish. They got completely enveloped in the greed of having for themselves. The reader can see that the Whites did not care about what the side effects of making a wish are even when the soldier told them that they should not mess with it. Even though the soldier seemed grief-stricken because of it and threw it in the fire, Mr. White still reached in and grabbed it to have it for himself; eventually using it to wish for 200 pounds. This shows the greed of the family. The desire for this monkey paw to work is the ID of the story. The entire family believes they will have money now and whatever they want. Mr. White finally coming to the realization that he does not want his wife to see their mangled son makes him the ego of the story.
I chose to read Kurt Vonnegut's, Harrison Bergeron. This story is a social commentary on the effects that a far-left totally equal society would have on the world. People are completely equal and are handicapped if they have advantages. For example, a man with strong physical prowess might be weighted down with a "handicap bag" that is filled with weight. Someone extraordinarily beautiful will be handicapped with a mask that is hideous. We see in the story two main characters: Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron. Mr. Bergeron is very intelligent and therefore is embedded with a mental handicap that disrupts his thoughts every so often. The Bergerons son is blessed with strength, speed, intelligence, and good looks. He is thrown in prison. Eventually, he escapes and the Bergerons watch on TV as their son breaks into the live program that is being played and proclaims himself emperor. He is eventually taken down and the Bergerons are very upset. Suddenly they forget about what just happened because Mr. Bergeron's mental handicap kicks in. This is a social commentary on both sides of the extremes of the political scope. Far-right and Far-Left are both bad.
I applied a feminist lens while reading Kate Chopin’s “Madame Celestin’s Divorce”. I believed this lens was more useful when reading this story because it focuses on a lady who is in a bad, most likely abusive, marriage. A lawyer is trying to convince her to get a divorce. During this time period—1893— divorces were severely frowned upon, especially in a religious family group. The idea of a divorce is appealing to Madame Celestin, however, every person she discusses it with—her mother, her confessor, her bishop—encourages her to stay and endure the abuse. Through each conversation, Madame Celestin is unwavering in her decision. The feminist lens illuminates how advanced this concept is: a woman thinking for herself despite what everyone around her saying and choosing what is best for her. And her decision is a divorce, no less! It is also interesting to note that her decision is changed only when her husband returns and says that he will try to be better. Once he comes back into her life, she slips back into her role. She goes from a strong, independent woman to a submissive housewife. Perhaps Madame Celestin truly loved her husband. But I believe that the overall point Chopin was trying to make was that, even in that time, women should have options and support through their decisions. Her life and her kids’ lives would have been better and safer away from the abusive man they called father and husband.
I decided to read the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula Le Guin. While reading this short story I focused on evaluating it by applying the Marxist Lens. I focused on the different tiers of society and how it affects different people. Most people tend to compete against each other in order to see who is better. People tend to try and have nicer things than other people because it makes them feel better about themselves. This story starts off by talking about how beautiful this city is that everyone lives in. All of these people are happy and do not have any problems or things to worry about. They are at the top of the tier in the society standard. As I kept reading I was introduced to this little child. The author goes into detail about this child they call “It”. This child is locked away from this beautiful city in a dark room. It is malnourished and is lower in the tier. This shows that It lives a different life that is not as fortunate as the others. It serves as a symbol for those who are not as fortunate as others and almost get forgotten about in society.
After reading the short story, "Madame Celestin's Divorce" written by Kate Chopin, I soon realized I could apply a Marxist lens to the text. The wonderful short story is about a woman, Madame Célestin, who is in a struggling marriage with her husband and a single man, Lawyer Paxton, who is searching for love. Throughout the whole text, Madame Célestin is contemplating the fact of divorcing her abusive husband because he has not been around in six months. Fantasizing about his future with Madame Célestin, Paxton is a huge supporter in her getting a divorce. However, her family does not support it with her religion. Yet, she decided to go through with the divorce anyway. Knowing this Paxton starts planning their future and thinks about moving to a different area because the town may not agree with the divorce and remarrying right away. But, sadly for him Madame Célestin's husband returns and promises to never leave her again. She does not go through with the divorce. I can easily see Madame Célestin's husband being the one in charge and holding all the power because even when he was not there he still had control over Madame Célestin. After she stayed loyal to him for six months and in the end still stayed with him.
I read the short story, "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. After reading this wonderful short story I decided to apply the Freudian lens. This story explains humans' greedy nature and what is to come of it. The first part of the short story essentially shows the reader that there isn't something right about this paw and that they better not wish for anything. However, even after being warned multiple times the old man does end up falling to the Monkey's paw. Looking into the minds of the characters during this chapter was quite easy. They seem to brush off what the soldier warned them about and they really seem to think of this as some joke. In part two we begin to see why the soldier warned him not to place any wishes. Subconsciously the old man was quite worried after the monkey paw shook in his hand and he can now see what is coming to fruition. In part three we see that humans will never have enough. The husband tries to beg his wife not to place another wish; however, she cannot resist and in the end, her husband must use his third wish to stop her.
I elected to read John Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums”—a marvelous short story about a woman struggling with her sexuality and gender role in society. Elisa is an attractive, strong, smart woman who, in the time period, was not given any opportunities. While speaking with the tinker, she mentions how she wished she could travel around in a wagon, and the tinker responds that it is too dangerous a world for a woman. If we apply a feminist lens, we can see that the refrainment from doing as she pleases is suffocating Elisa, yet she submits to the societal expectations. She is great with plants but is only allowed to attend to her flowers. She has no passion for her marriage—no children, no passion for her husband—so she pours her attention into her flowers. When the tinker arrives, she gains confidence during the conversation, especially when she is asked about her flowers. She is able to demonstrate her knowledge and strength without seeming overly masculine. She ends the conversation by making a comment about her ability to sharpen scissors and fix pots as well, a task that was viewed as far too masculine for a woman, thus defying the expectations of women at the time. She returns to the house empowered and confident, primming herself for dinner and her husband. As the couple drives into town, Elisa notices the flowers she gave the tinker thrown in the middle of the road, abandoned. She resorts back to her submissive ways. The flowers symbolized the respect she gained from a man and the confidence she held. As the flowers were thrown away, Elisa’s confidence returned to a state of sad submission, accepting that she would not gain any genuine respect or admiration from men in her time and world. Applying a feminist lens would reveal that the story is calling out the unjust treatment and subordination women are faced with within the time period. It was unusual for such a topic to be discussed in 1938, so John Steinbeck most likely faced lash back for speaking against gender norms and societal norms with his short story that appears to simply be about a woman with a green thumb.
I chose to read "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Chopin. This story, set back in 1893, gives readers a look into the life of a man who begins to like a married woman as he speaks with her every day. Through a feminist lens, one may notice the roles right away. The woman in the story, Madame Celestin, is very stereotypically cleaning for the majority of the story. All throughout the text, she is either sweeping or gardening (both of which are very stereotypically feminine jobs). The main male figure in the story, Judge Paxton, is a lawyer. Stereotypically, this is how the roles should be. Women work at home, while men go to work and bring in the big bucks. Gender is once again stereotypically portrayed in the instance of Madame Celestin's husband. He was the one to go off, drink, and work with other women. His character and actions are often associated with males. At the end of this short story, Madame Celestin decides to trust her unfaithful husband once again. This acceptance can be viewed as very stereotypical to women because acceptance and forgiveness are often associated with femininity. In general, the roles within the short story are relatively "regular". The woman does her job, and the man does his. For this time frame, this was just the way that things were done. In this day in age, we are able to analyze these stereotypes.
I selected “Signs and Symbols” by Vladimir Nabokov for my short story. Initially, after finishing the story, I was tempted to just pick a different short story because the story left me in a whirlwind of confusion, due to Nabokov’s choice to end the story without actually concluding the plot and tying up the loose ends. After finishing, I decided to look over the story with a psychoanalytic lens, partly because the son is mentally ill, but also because I think the psychoanalytic lens can be applied to beyond just the boy and his condition. Initially, the son appears to be the only one experiencing any kind of mental struggle, which is in this case is referential mania. However, I would argue that the parents seem to suffer mentally as well. When the mother is looking at old photographs, Nabokov informs the reader, “she had accepted, for, after all, living does mean accepting the loss of one joy after another, not even joys in her case, mere possibilities of improvement.” We can gather from information given while she digs through the photographs that they have lived a difficult life. We learn they are Russian jews who went into exile after the revolution, that they had several family members die in the holocaust, they moved to the US, they financially depend on the old father’s brother, and that the old father is in poor health. With all of these tragedies added onto their son being mentally ill, the wife has simply chosen to view life with sadness. The old couple could choose to try to live happily, but instead they just live plain, depressed lives in silent sadness. Additionally, I think the reader experiences a sort of mania when reading the story. In the end, the story finishes with the reader asking a bunch of questions such as, “who was calling on the phone?” and “Who is charlie?” among many others. Trying to find the answers to these questions causes the reader to just meet more frustration as even more questions arise. I think Nabokov intended for the reader to feel the same way both the boy and his parents feel: overwhelmed, frustrated, and possibly even in a state of mania.
I read “Vonnegut” by Harrison Bergeron looking at this short story through a Marxist lens allows the reader to see the power struggle of people who are gifted vs ordinary people vs the Handicapper Generals by focusing on how the different class interacts with each other. The Handicapper Generals hold all the power they decide the punishment if you remove your handicap, the sounds that are produced, the loudness of those sounds, and who lives. The ones that are the ordinary people get some benefits they are not held down by bonds and are able to avoid pain from the handicaps but they do forget some things. The gifted people who have to wear handicaps, they are on the bottom of the pole because they can’t express who they are, or use all of their brainpower to do some good or keep their thoughts for very long; sometimes the sounds that get played are painful. For example, Harrison is jailed for breaking the rules set forth to prevent him from using his brain to the full extent he could. So when he interrupts the ballerina’s dance he is showing the breaking free of his class in an attempt to move up to one of better standers however this backfires on him when he gets killed by someone who is in a higher class showing that there is no hope for to advance in classes the same way there is no hope for that society to advance as they are purposely disabling people who could help make the advancements.
I choose to read “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs, and I looked at it with a Freudian lens. The characters thrive by the greed that they have for money and all the riches that they can get. When the character wishes for money the greed took over and the repercussion was they lost their son for the money. The people who had it before probably used the wishes for greed too and end up regretting what they did but they had to live with it. The ones who had it before like the guy that wished to kill himself so he could be relieved from the paw shows that greed took over for them. You also had the Sargent that tried to warn them and threw the paw into the fire to try and get rid of it. Sadly they had to try and wish for some money so you can say even though they knew something bad was going to happen they still had the greed for the money. In the end, greed starts to take over someone even if deep down they know something isn’t right, and it can take over a person's thoughts and actions.
When reading Stockton’s, “The Lady or the Tiger?”, there are multiple ways that you can analyze it. The lens that I chose to use was the psychoanalytic lens. There is so much present in this short story that you can apply to this lens. The first thing that made me use this lens was when they used the description of “semi-barbaric”. This can really make you look at the King and how others think of him. Also, another big part that you can look at is when the princess has to decide whether she should choose the tiger or the lady. This can really dive deep into her mind and look at how she is deciding what to do. She has to pick if she wants her love to die and never love anyone else or letting him live and have to watch him love someone else. Every choice that she is making is coming from what her conscience is telling her. When looking closer from the psychoanalytical lens we can start to understand some of the reasons on why she might make one choice over the other or what parts are swaying her to make her decision. This is how the lens is present in Stockton's short story.
After reading "Harrison Bergeron" a story about a society where everyone is equal I decided to examine the short story through the Marxist lens. I choose this lens because this story is all about the government having complete control over people. By looking through this lens you can see that people have no say in anything they do, if someone is better at something than someone else, the person who is better has to be handicapped up to the point where everyone is the same as the "worst" person. I chose this lens because in this story there are no "classes" of people. They are all the same, and everyone in society is the same strength in everything they do. You could see by looking through this lens that years of protest about not everyone being equaled to where the people are at now where they are all the same. People living in this society had a choice to either consume and embrace the new ways of living or they would be put in jail. When someone steps out of line they get shot and killed. The Marxist lens will help people to understand that it is a society completely run and regulated by the government to ensure that everyone is the same and no one competes with anyone.
After reading "The Monkey's Paw", I chose to look at it through a biblical lens. In the short story, you see the enchantment and wonder that surrounds the seemingly magical monkey's paw. Even though the sergeant warned those in the white family about the dangers of the monkey's paw and what happened to the one who had the paw before, Mr. White paid no attention to his warning and fell madly in love with the thought of a magical paw that can make their wishes come true. This even overtook Mr. White to a point where he reached into the fire to rescue the object that held so much supposed value. In the end, greed makes Mr. Whtite regret that he has chosen to use the paw because he caused both him and his wife much distress from his wishes. I think that the biblical or religious lens allows the reader to see a correlation between the monkey's paw and the temptation of sin or greed. There is an obvious correlation in the fact that the man who had the paw before and used it died on his last wish. As written in the bible, it is shown that those who sin or fall into the temptation of sin are known as "dead in sin." Another way to view the paw is as the snake in the garden of Eden. Like the snake, the monkey is an animal that is acting as a tempting figure. Overall, "The Monkey's Paw" was a fascinating story that could be looked at through many different lenses but has undertones of the temptation and prominence of Greed in man.
I chose to read "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Kate Chopin. It is a story about a woman who works hard for herself and her two kids while her husband drinks and wastes himself away. She talks to a lawyer about getting a divorce and says many times that she is going to get one. However, in the end, she decides to stay with her husband because he promised her that he would "turn over a new leaf". I will be applying the feminist lens to this short story. This lens is very easy to apply to this story because it is about a woman who is trying to be independent and strong for herself and her children. She constantly talks about how she is going to leave her husband because she knows she deserves better. then she talks about defying her family's wishes even though they say she will be a disgrace and an outcast. Her family even gets the church involved and she still wants to get a divorce because she knows that it is what is best for her. However, in the end, she chooses to stay with her husband which tears down the strong, independent, smart womanly power that she has built up.
I decided to read "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Kate Chopin. This story is about a woman who works hard and a man named Paxton (a lawyer) tells her that since she is a woman she should not be working hard with her hands, rather she should be doing more womanly things. Looking at this through a feminist lens, it is clear to see that this is a much different time period than today. Today, saying something like this to a woman might get you slapped across the face or worse. Later in the short story, it says that Paxton would only listen to what the woman had to say if he had the time to do it. I think you can also apply a feminist lens to this because it is very rude to say that you would not listen to a woman unless you had extra time, but this was a different time period. It reveals not only the problem we truly have with society, but also reveals how much progress we have made over time. The woman in this short story is obviously trying to be as independent as she can for herself and for her children because her husband has failed as a father and as a man.
I read “Madame Celestin’s Divorce” by Kate Chopin. This story starts out with a woman who is working very hard at cleaning. Then appears a man who is a lawyer, who tells her what a great job she is doing. He mentions how she is doing quite well without the support of her late husband, who she is thinking about getting a divorce. I read this with an emphasis on the feminist lens. I noticed the lawyer made some comments that implied that the woman is not capable without her spouse. He goes, "taking in sewing; giving music lessons; doing God knows what in the way of manual labor to support yourself and those two little ones" (1). This is saying how she shouldn't have to do such "masculine" things and that she should be in the house doing sewing or whatnot. This was written in a time where women were the housekeepers and did not pursue a career. This is important to note because this was very custom and traditional. Now, the times have completely changed and this is putting women into stereotypical boxes. But, with these strict boxes put on women back in the day, she does a great job at being independent and raising two kids without a husband.
I analyzed “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut with a Marxist lens. Obviously, this story revolves around a dystopian future in which all people are “equal”, but in the worst way possible. Upon doing some background research on Vonnegut himself, I discovered that he was thought by many to be a socialist and in his acceptance speech of the Carl Sandburg Literary Award, he discusses socialism lengthily, pointing out its admirable qualities and defending it. With this knowledge, it is surprising to see that he would write a story in which a “socialist” society (of sorts) fails so miserably. The society in the story accomplishes the primary goal of socialism: everybody is equal in every way. Only this is taken completely literally; there is no race (although there does seem to be gender) or talent or independent thought. Those who are more intelligent are made to be dumber so that they are equal to those who are less intelligent. Those who are more athletic, handicapped to make themselves equal to everyone else.
The story points out that there is no Capitalist “competition” but one could also say that there are no classes, no rich and no poor, just average. Because of this, there is no progress. There have to be dancers who are better than others in order for dance to improve, there have to be musicians who are better than others in order for music to improve, there have to be salesmen who are better at selling products than others in order for business to improve. While racial and gender equality are obviously really good things, this story shows why you need to have classes and competition to improve society as a whole. People need to be better at certain things than other people, and the people who are better typically make more money and form the “upper, successful” classes or the middle class, while people like Hazel who don’t necessarily excel in one specific area will end up being the lower class.
Despite the front that everybody is equal, there does seem to be an upper class in the story: The United States Handicapper General. The USHG kills Hazel and George’s free-thinking son, Harrison, and have complete control over the entire country, controlling the noise-making machine in George’s head and imposing strict punishments (such as several years in jail and hefty fines) for crimes as simple as removing beads from their handicap weights while they’re at home. It seems to be that “middle-class” America is lowered to the bottom of the lower class while the height of the upper class (that is, corporations and the government) is raised even higher. They rule with an iron fist that prevents anyone from stealing their power, as most upper-class ruling people typically do.
I read "The Monkey Paw" by W.W. Jacobs and used a Freudian lens to decipher the story. This story is all about greed and how as humans we are always longing for something more, even if it means someone or something will be harmed. In the beginning, the sergeant-major tells them that the first person to use it asked for death as his third wish. This extreme case does not stop them, however, and they wish for two hundred pounds. The couple brushes out with the soldier says, and uses the paw to their own benefit. The monkey's paw twists in the man's hand and gives him a fright, but even this doesn't stop them. Their greed is too much. it continues on after their son dies, and they realize that something bad happens to get the wish they wanted. The Freudian lens allows us to look inside of these people's minds, and it isn't that hard. We know that they are greedy people and don't care about the consequences of their action, even when it kills their son. They know the paw is evil but still use their second and third wish bringing their son back and taking him away.
I chose to read Kurt Vonnegut's, Harrison Bergeron through a Marxist lens. After finishing this short story it is quite evident that the people in the year 2081 are living in an overly extremist communist nation. Everyone is forced to be equal in this story through physical and mental handicaps that are given to people who are "above average" in any way. If someone is stronger or prettier than what is presumed as average they are given weighted bags to hang around their neck and masks to cover their faces. If they are smarter than someone else they are forced to have their thoughts to be interrupted by radiofrequency every 20 seconds. The lower class people, in this story the average people, are held above others because they are not given handicaps but instead are the symbol for what everyone else should be like. Harrison in this story is every form of superior when it comes to physical and mental capabilities so he is jailed and given bigger handicaps than anyone else. Obviously, Harrison escapes and he is shot and killed by a leader who is just as "good as anybody else". No one will remember any of this happening because that would be unfair. This shows that any attempt at not being equal to your peers is literally impossible.
I read Chopin's "Madame Celestin's Divorce" and decided to look at it using a feminist lens. In the story, Lawyer Paxton would come and comment about how hard she is working, almost trying to tell her that she is not allowed to work this hard. She almost seemed unbothered to be working this hard, but the lawyer was very concerned for her. He seemed to want her and her husband to get a divorce but was confused when she stepped up to do the dirty work. Later in the story, after Madame Celestin talked to the bishop and was still determined to get a divorce, it said that Paxton "discarded his work-day coat and began to wear his Sunday best to his office" (4). It is almost ironic that Paxton is dreaming of a wife when he almost scolded Madame Celestine for working so hard on her own. It was attractive to him how hard she worked. She made a point not to rely on men, which was very odd back in that day. As Paxton built up the courage to finally go talk to Madame Celestin in a different way, she told him to forget about the divorce because her husband came home and he said he is going to turn over a new leaf.
I chose to read The Monkeys Paw by W.W. Jacobs. Viewing this story through the Freudian lens reveals the greed that they have and their lust for money. When the characters wish for two hundred pounds they unknowingly end up killing their son who dies in a freak factory accident in the process and the family ends up receiving their two hundred pounds as hush money from the bosses of the factory to keep them quiet. The people before the family who used the monkey's paw also used It for greedy self-centered purposes and end up paying the price for it. In fact, the person who had the paw before the Sergeant Major used his last wish to kill himself. Even though the family was warned repeatedly by the Sergeant Major they still made a wish due to greed consuming them. This shows that in the end greed will overcome even the most morally sound and consume all of their thoughts and actions.
Kate Chopin’s “Madame Celestin’s Divorce” was written in 1893 in the midst of the women’s suffrage movement. During this time period, women did not have the right to vote yet and were still seen in the traditionalist view of being housewives. In this short story, Madame Celestin is in this housewife role. Her husband was not great to so when Lawyer Paxton suggests a divorce she takes it into consideration. However, when her husband comes home and promises to change, she changes her mind and decides to stay with him—disappointing Paxton who has come to like her. Madame Celestin has the opportunity to escape her marriage and her role as a housewife, yet chooses to stay with her husband where her traditional housewife role will not change. She continues to follow the traditional gender roles. From a feminist lens, this is bad since she is staying with her bad husband and is following her gender stereotype. However, with the time period in mind, this was quite common since women did not have equal rights yet. Even how she dresses and acts is traditionalist. She wears “doeskin gloves” and is “taking sewing.” With her housewife role, she has to sew, give music lessons, and take care of her two children.
I read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. I decided to use the Marxist literary lens. When Mr. and Mrs. White were given the monkey's paw, they did not believe that it could possibly make all of their wishes come true. Once they realized they had that power they took full advantage of it no matter the consequences. Just like with the Marxist lens, power can sometimes be dangerous to certain people who take advantage of it. Just like in the case of Mr. and Mrs. White they got their consequences from their greediness and power. At that moment when they were thinking about the money they would receive and they were not thinking about how it would harm themselves or their family. The moment they received the money they asked for, they realized that their greediness had been a huge mistake. I believe that Mr. and Mrs. White would take it back and listen to the advice that was given to them and not mess with it. Even though the last guy that had it ended up being dead, they still saw the money part of it and not the other side of the spectrum of terror that it could cause them.
The short story I analyzed was "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Kate Chopin. The whole story can be best analyzed with the feminist lens. Thinking of the way Madame Celestin is presented, it is clear that she was supposed to embody the average, stereotypical woman, at the time. She is seen everyday cleaning, gardening, teaching music lessons, sewing, and raising kids. These are all traditionally woman-like jobs. She is trapped in an unhappy marriage, with a man she last saw six months ago. She starts talking with a lawyer about getting a divorce (as a Catholic woman, this goes against all social norms). However, just as she is about to start the process, her husband comes back home promising he will be better. She, of course, unquestionably believes him and is sucked into the same cycle all over again. The story is representative of women of the time never thinking for themselves and living their lives around a man. We don’t even know the actual name of Madame Celestin, only the name of her absent husband. The story was written in the midst of the feminist movement as a call to women to change their lives. To depend less on the men in their lives and to live their own life.
I decided to read Chopin’s “Madame Celestin’s Divorce”. This story has many examples of your stereotypical gender roles, so applying a feminist lens is very easy to do. At the beginning of the story, Madame Célestin is cleaning, which right away shows a stereotype for women. She does all the work at home while her husband is off at his job making money for the family. The lawyer that she is talking with acts as if she needs her husband to support her, and that shows how much of a different time it was back then. Women couldn’t make the money; they could only clean and care for the kids. The way Madame Celestin is portrayed in this story is disappointing because she is constantly doing “womanly” tasks. Just as the lawyer starts to like Madame Celestin, she decides not to get the divorce. By not standing up to her husband and doing what’s clearly right for her, she is submitting to her husband. Again, this is another stereotype for women to just do what men say and not have a mind of their own. He promised that he will be better, so of course, she should stay with him. Also, this story has two men and a woman, like many other stories where a woman is seen as a prize. This short story overall has many themes that were acceptable at the time, but they definitely aren’t now.
I read Madame Celestin's Divorce by Kate Chopin. I applied a feminist lens to the short story. The short story starts off with Madame stopping her work to talk to the lawyer when he mentions that it is not in a woman's nature to work. He discusses the work she does to provide for her two children as though it is a very uncommon thing for a woman to do. When this short story was written, it was uncommon for women to provide for their families. Right away in this story, stereotypical gender roles are displayed with the men supposed to be doing the work/providing for the family and the women taking care of the house and doing garden work. Madame's husband had left her for more than six months and at times abused her too. Madame wanted to get a divorce but her friends and family were very against it as it was very frowned upon back then when it came to religion. Throughout the story, Madame was set on getting a divorce until her husband came back and promised he wouldn’t do it again. This is a stereotypical feminine thing to do as it portrays women as being not as strong-headed and very forgiving.
I chose to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. I also chose to view this story through the Marxist lens. The Marxist lens is based around Karl Marx's teaching and the idea of Communism. Mr. and Mrs. White were told to be careful when receiving the monkey's paw. The White's thought that there was no way for this paw to make all of their wishes become true, but just like communism greed and power corrupts people. A good example of this is their first wish. They ask for money, not taking into account how they would actually get that money. After that one event, it sets in on Mr. White about what he has done. This is why for their second wish to bring their son back, he realizes what is going to happen by not taking into account their own personal greed to bring him back. This is ultimately why he uses the last and final wish to basically "cancel" the second wish. This short story proves how much greed can take over a person. Always thinking they can do better than anyone else who tried. By also viewing the story through a lens, the reader can get a better understanding, in this case the growing greed of the White family.
I wanted to analyze W.W. Jacobs's "The Monkey's Paw" because it is truly one of my favorite short stories of all time. In many ways, one can apply the orientalist lens to the storyline. The monkey's paw, acting as a figure of dismantlement to the character's lives, brings fortune but also a fatal mishap. In this story, an old man and woman take the monkey's paw from the sergeant in hopes of wealth and prosperity to come out of it. Upon the retrieval of the paw, they are warned of the consequences it may bring—playing into the orientalist lens that a foreign object appeared and wreaked havoc on innocent people. The couple's first wish is for their mortgage to be paid off. Mysteriously, their son, Herbert, dies in a machinery accident and his family is compensated $200 in return for his death, the exact amount to pay their mortgage. The old woman begs her husband to wish Herbert back to life. In doing so, Herbert comes back but seems to have an evil presence. Before the old woman can unlatch the door, her husband wishes for Herbert's death once more. She then opens the door and is overcome with disappointment. We can assume that the old woman knew her husband wished for his death, and in doing so he potentially ruined their marriage. Similar to the postcolonialism effect, the monkey's paw destroyed these people's lives.
John Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums” is a short story filled with feminist wishes. Elisa Allen wishes to prove her abilities to her husband Henry. She brags about her ability to raise plants and her beautiful garden but she really wants to help Henry with the business of their land. When the tinker rolls up to the property, Elisa is drawn to the man. He asks about her chrysanthemums and gives her attention in doing so, which is more than Elisa was getting from her own marriage. She is fascinated by the way that the tinker lives—moving from place to place and experiencing new things. However, once again she is put in her place as a woman. The tinker tells her that the road is no place for a pretty girl like her. The stereotype of a home working woman is also seen in the way that Elisa is fooled by the tinker. She gives the tinker some of her chrysanthemum seeds and some pots to fix because she thinks that the tinker actually cares and understands her. When he takes off later though she sees that the man just threw out the seeds and only tricked her to get a little work and pay out of the deal. Elisa then starts to place herself back into the role of a perfect wife. She convinces herself that she doesn’t want to go on an adventure or see the men fight. She has to fit back into the perceived world of a woman.
I chose to read a short story by Poe titled “The Black Cat”. After reading this story I was able to analyze it through a deconstruction lens. Through this lens I was able to uncover that it is not just a story about a man turning mad and killing his cat, there is much more to it. The cat in this story is named Pluto. This is quite ironic because Pluto is the name of a god of the underworld that is in charge of witches. This is important because the narrator's wife believes that black cats are witches in disguise. Pluto plays a major role because he represents the narrator's dark part of his soul. In this case, it would be the narrator's fight with alcoholism. The cat (alcoholism) brings about great change in the narrator. He becomes more irritable and violent. As the story goes on the narrator begins to hate the cat and keeps showing up and causes him to do very traumatic things. This demonstrates the effect of alcoholism on people. It causes them to be in denial of their actions and to act out in ways they normally would not. When his house burns down because of the cat he is left in poverty. This is because he gave everything away to feed his addiction. Overall, this whole story symbolizes the effects that alcoholism has on a person.
I chose to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. I chose to read this book through a Freudian lens. Through this lens, you are able to tell that the family is in the middle class. We can see the greediness pouring out of the White family especially when first introduced to the Monkey's Paw. Even though the soldier told the family that the last person to have the monkey's paw used the third wish to kill himself, they pushed it aside and focused on what they could do with it. Trying to be smart with their wish, the father thought of the family's greed and wished for 200 pounds. When nothing happened they were slightly disappointed but did not think much of it. The next day they got the news that their son had died at work and they got compensated 200 pounds for his death. Instead of learning from their greedy mistake, they chose to make another one. This time it was not the father but the mother. She insisted to wish back their son even though the father had a slight idea of what would happen if he came back. Forced into it, he wished their son back. When Herbert, their son, shows up, the father wishes him away so they would not have to see him after his accident. This means the desire for the monkey paw to work as it should is the id of the story while the father is the ego of the story because he learns from his mistakes and tries to make up for it.
I chose to read Edgar Allan Poe's "The Black Cat" because I own a book full of his stories so I might as well put the book to use. I chose to use a psychoanalytic lens for this very disturbing story. Poe and his short stories usually are very dark and the charters are very disturbed people. Looking through this type of lens I tried to break down the mental state of the narrator. His alcoholism definitely played a part in his actions and thoughts becoming more and more aggressive. I think that he was struggling with plenty of things in his life, but he decided to focus all of his anger on his cat as if the cat was a safety valve. He had a lot of built-up aggression and he chose to take it out on the cat by taking out its eye and then eventually hanging it. After being overcome with the guilt I think he started imagining a cat. His wife saw this cat however and that is the reason she stopped his ax from taking out the cat. I think the narrator was imagining this and was about to kill one of his other pets and his wife was trying to stop him from doing so which ended up getting her killed. So overall the narrator was overcome with the guilt of killing his cat that he pushed all of his alcoholic rages on and then ended up being so angry with the "cat" returning he ended up killing his wife to make anything calm him.
I chose to read "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Kate Chopin through a feminist lens. I chose the feminist lens due to the fact that there is only one female while the rest fo the characters are male. In the second paragraph Madame Celestin met with her divorce lawyer and it says that he would "criticize or admire her rosebushes" (Chopin 1). The minute I read that sentence, I immediately thought that her divorce lawyer was secretly admiring her physical beauty. Moving on to the way he spoke to her; Madame Celestin's lawyer spoke to her in way that seemed inappropriate and he took advantage of her by filling her up with confidence in order to get her to look in his direction. When the judge almost insults his work and almost how she is handling this divorce. At the end of the short story you get a glimpse of how the lawyer wants her to be his wife. The lawyer has known Madame Celestin for a short while and he wants to get married to her, that's outrageous. I believe that he was only physically attracted to her which is extremely disrespectful and I am glad that she did not fall in love with him. Concluding the short story, she informs the lawyer that she went back to her toxic husband, again, this is implying that women aren't strong enough to support themselves. They need help from men in order to have a successful life, that is what is being shown throughout this short story.
The short story I picked to read was "Madame Celestin's Divorce" by Kate Chopin. I chose to read this story with a feminist lens not only from the title but the fact there is only one female character in the story surrounded by men. The story starts with Madame Celestin meeting with her lawyer to discuss a potential divorce. Her lawyer kept filling her with confidence trying to get her to see everything his way. Her lawyer talks down her decision to work saying it is not a women's place to work. However, the work she does provides for her and her two children which in the time period this story was written in was very uncommon for women to do. Throughout this entire story, stereotypical gender roles are shown. Madame Celestin as mentioned before is seeking a divorce, her husband had left her for six months and frequently abused her. This decision of hers is highly looked down upon by her friends and family. Throughout most of the story, she stays strong-willed in her decision until her husband reappears promising he would not abuse her anymore, she crumbled with his promises agreeing to come back. The ending implies that women aren't strong-headed and aren't strong enough to support themselves. It hints that women need the help and support from men to lead successful lifes.
I read John Steinbeck's "The Chrysanthemums" through a Feminist lens. Henry Allen, Elisa's husband, recognizes her strength and masculinity. He compliments how talented she is in growing flowers and jokingly says he should take her to a fight. At the beginning of the story, Elisa is wearing clothing that makes her look masculine. For example, she wears leather gloves that hide her pretty, feminine hands. She wears a man's black hat and her apron covers her beautiful, feminine dress. Despite her masculine appearance and the way her husband regards her, she longs to be recognized as a woman. In the 1930s, when this short story was written, women were perceived as dainty, helpless things. Elisa doesn't like how she must be recognized in a masculine way in order for her to be referred to as strong. She wants to be recognized as a woman, but a strong, capable one. The chrysanthemums symbolize her desire to have children. But, she can not have children if her husband doesn't see her in a romantic, feminine light. She cares for the chrysanthemums just like she would her children—destroying what may harm them. Once the ticker arrives, he recognizes her feminine qualities. Elisa even "tore off the battered hat and shook out her dark pretty hair" for him to see (Steinback, 9). She took off her gloves and revealed her pretty, feminine hands. When Elisa gives the man some chrysanthemum sprouts, they represent her growing hope that one day her husband will see her in a feminine way and will want to have children with her. Once the ticker leaves, she washes all of the dirt (masculinity) away. She puts on a dress and admires her feminine qualities in the mirror. Once her husband sees her, he notices something different about her but doesn't tell her she looks pretty. He doesn't recognize her efforts in looking beautiful. Instead, he tells her that she looks "strong enough to break a calf over [her] knee" (15). As Henry drives to the restaurant, Elisa notices that the ticker threw the flowers on the ground, crushing Elisa's hope of ever having children. She began to cry. Overall, Steinbeck's purpose of the story was to get the reader to mesh "strong" and "woman" together. He wanted the audience to see that a woman can be feminine and want children, but still work hard and be strong.
I chose to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. After reading through the story and thinking about its deeper meaning, I decided to read it again using a Marxist lens. In doing so, I discovered that when people are given too much, they tend to become greedy and want more. The Whites desired more money and their son ended up dead because of it. Unable to get rid of the monkey's paw, they wished for their son to be alive again. When Mr. White saw the evil that would be brought upon them if their son was alive again, he saved his wife from seeing their mangled son. Because of the social class the Whites live in, they act out of greed and foolishness. Money can cause good people to become evil. Living in the lower class had a humble effect on the family, which makes Mr. White realize what would happen after greedily wishing their son alive again. This story teaches us about how the line between right and wrong can be crossed when one is given an excessive amount of wealth. No matter how wealthy someone becomes, it is important to not lose themselves in the process.
I decided to read "Madame Celestin's Divorce," by Kate Chopin. I was intrigued by the title and chose to read this story through a feminist lens. The story revolves around Madame Celestin and the powerful men that surround her. Madame is a very independent woman due to the fact she has not seen her husband in months. She has to care for herself since her husband does not. Every day she tosses and turns about whether she should divorce her husband or not, even though it seems that he does not treat her very well. It also seems like her lawyer is trying to sway her decision to get divorced. In a way, he is grooming her to make the decision he wants her to make. Whether his motive is good or bad. Every time she sees the lawyer she says "you know judge, about that divorce," yet she never comes to a conclusion of leaving him or not. After many discussions, she caved to the man. Even though she has been on her own for quite some time having to fend for herself she still tries to see the good in others and believes that he is going to turn over a new leaf.
I applied a historical lens to "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. This short story is political commentary for the time period, especially Vonnegut's fear that the civil rights movement would go too far. This short story was written in 1961, directly during the heated social battles of the civil rights movement. More rights were being given to African Americans when some, possibly Vonnegut himself, thought that they were already equal. Vonnegut wrote this shocking left-critical short story as a warning for what would happen if society kept giving those less fortunate leg-ups in life. Obviously, Vonnegut believes that not everyone is created equal. In the story, George has above average intelligence while Hazel has average intelligence. Also, George and many other characters are required to wear heavy weights because of their physical ability. Vonnegut believes that this left wing expansion will eventually, after 120 years, hinder life significantly. Also, Vonnegut can be seen disagreeing with this equality movement by describing the dance between the very above average Harrison and the ballet dancer as beautiful, even saying that they jumped thirty feet to kiss the ceiling. This is all ended when the Handicapped General literally shoots them with a ten-gauge. Knowing that this story was published during the harsh fight for social justice during the sixties gives the reader a better understanding of Vonnegut's intention with the story. For that reason, the Historical lens is extremely valuable when analyzing Vonnegut's work.
I decided to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. I chose to look at the story through a Marxist lens. It is a little interesting looking at the story this way considering there are not many characters or real developed class system type ideas. However, through the whole story, the monkey's paw holds this ultimate power over all the characters in the book. At the beginning of the short story, Sergeant-Major Morris arrives at the White house and conclusively shows the White's the monkey's paw and tells them about it. At this point in the story, Morris holds some sort of power over the Whites as he is the one who holds this talisman and the Whites are sitting back and hearing the story in awe. After Morris attempts to destroy the monkey's paw in the fire, that power of the paw is put into the hands of Herbert White. Herbert wishes his own wish and it is here when the monkey's paw demonstrates it's power over everyone else as it grants this wish, but in the terrible way of killing his only son. The Whites then realize that the monkey's paw holds much more power than them and try to leave it alone until Mrs. White gets Herbert to use the paw again to wish her son back to life. Mrs. White, delusional to the reality of what had been done, waits feverntly, meanwhile, Herbert fumbled around to find the paw to wish the final wish of making the revived son disappear. In turn, this puts a little twist in the power as it shifts from the paw to Mr. White a little as he uses the paw to go against itself.
The story I read was "Madame Celestin's Divorce," by Kate Chopin. It felt obvious to analyze this story with a feminist lens, as that is the main topic of the story. Madame Celestin is just like a lot of women from this time period: cooking, cleaning, raising kids, and doing the typical housewife activities. Her husband is not around the house often, but she still does not want a divorce. Celestin's lawyer is taking advantage of her, trying to get her to leave the marriage for his own gain. He is exploiting women and is showing the inequality between men and women of this time period. Celestin reveals that her husband abuses her, and she is intrigued by the lawyer's promise of a better life through a divorce. However, she gets a message from Mr. Celestin, saying that he is coming back and will be a better person. She believes him without a doubt, showing the idea that women are not intelligent and they are gullible. She does not stand up to her husband's reign over her, continuing a cycle of submission to her husband. This story is showing women as inferior being that need to bow down to men, and it gives a new perspective to modern day feminism as well.
I read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. While reading this short story I analyzed it using the Marxist lens. Right off the bat Mr. and Mrs. White didn't think anything of the monkey's paw. They thought it wasn't anything special. They especially didn't believe that it would actually grant them their wishes. Once they realized that it did things started to change. All of a sudden the monkey's paw began to corrupt the White family. Just as communism and other power, when given to someone, is abused. The White family was very greedy.
I also took a look at "The Monkey's Paw" through a Biblical lens. Using this lens I realized that having the power to wish anything and have those wishes granted could represent human sins. The White family, just as Adam and Eve, sinned and ended up using the monkey's paw for their own good (or so they thought). If they only would have just denied the temptation and not used the monkey's paw their lives would so much better. Just as if we humans were to avoid sin we would be much better off. I learned to not be greedy from this short story.
The story I read was "Madame Celestin's Divorce," by Kate Chopin. It felt obvious to analyze this story with a feminist lens, as that is the main topic of the story. Madame Celestin is just like a lot of women from this time period: cooking, cleaning, raising kids, and doing the typical housewife activities. Her husband is not around the house often, but she still does not want a divorce. Celestin's lawyer is taking advantage of her, trying to get her to leave the marriage for his own gain. He is exploiting women and is showing the inequality between men and women of this time period. Celestin reveals that her husband abuses her, and she is intrigued by the lawyer's promise of a better life through a divorce. However, she gets a message from Mr. Celestin, saying that he is coming back and will be a better person. She believes him without a doubt, showing the idea that women are not intelligent and they are gullible. She does not stand up to her husband's reign over her, continuing a cycle of submission to her husband. This story is showing women as inferior being that need to bow down to men, and it gives a new perspective to modern day feminism as well.
The story I decided to read was Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron.” Using a Marxist lens, we can clearly see the government is the highest-ranking even though everyone is supposed to be equal. In the year 2081, everyone had handicaps put on them to make sure no one was better than anyone else. There were not only physical handicaps but mental handicaps. This would put everyone at the same level of talent and intelligence. That was until Harrison Bergeron broke out of jail. He took off his handicaps and became dangerous or moved up in importance in his society. While on live television, he asked who wanted to take the throne with him. A ballerina stepped up and Harrison relieved her of her handicaps. She moved up in importance as well. The government did not approve of this and they had to put an end to it. If Harrison could be different, everyone would also have to be different and that would not be okay because everyone must be on the same level to make sure life is fair. After Harrison and the ballerina got their lives taken away from them, everything went back to normal. The government had control again and everyone was back to being on the same level and many forgot about the death.
I chose to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. I chose this book because I remember reading it in the past. This time when I read it I decided to criticize it through a Marxist lens. The story starts off with the White family. The White family is a pretty common family in the middle-to-lower class. When they came upon the Monkey paw, they did not think much about it. But eventually, Mr.White became very intrigued about the suspected magic that it held within, so he bought it. They later found out that it granted 3 wishes. Since they were struggling with money, he decided to use his first for money. Little did they know that fate played a huge factor in this story because the wish came to a tragedy: their son tragically died. Foolishly, Mrs. White wished for her son back, but Mr. White knew that it was not a good idea to do that and that each wish came with a very costly price. Social rank was also a big factor in this story. They were somewhat poor and desperately needed money. After reading this short story, I have learned while looking through a Marxist lens that the power of money can have on people. That people can become evil just for some wealth. When in reality, all that is important in life is your happiness, and the White family only needed each other for their happiness, not money.
I decided to read "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs; I remember reading about it in 8th grade, but this time I chose to apply a Freudian lens to the text. This story is about the consequences of people with overwhelming senses of greed and desire. In the first part of the story, the reader learns that there is something wrong with the monkey's paw and that it would be best to leave it alone. Even after listening to the sergeant-major tell about the monkey's paw and how it led to the death of the man who first used it, the Whites were too enveloped in the fact that it could make their greedy wishes come true. They eventually used it for themselves; their first wish was for 200 pounds, the father thought this would be a smart choice. At first, the family was disappointed because nothing had happened, then they received 200 pounds the next day after finding out that their son had died at work, the money was the compensation. Rather than learn from their mistake, the mother insisted they wish to bring their son back. Although the father had an idea of what would happen, he was forced into wishing for it. In the end, the father wishes away the son, Herbert, when he "comes back." The father realizes that he doesn't want his wife to see their mangled son, so he quickly uses their last wish to wish the son away. In this story, the overall desire for the monkey's paw and its powers is the id of the story, the father learning from his mistakes and trying to make up for it is the ego of the story.
While reading "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut, I applied a literary lens of Marxism. In a society that was supposed to be perfect, everything was equal, the government possessed the power to alter their citizens. Placing handicaps on them so that no one could be better than others. Using earpieces, glasses, and other forms of devices, the government gave people mental and physical handicaps. When Harrison became abnormally large in size, the government assumed he would be a threat to a perfect society. They dressed him in "heavier handicaps", using large earphones, thick and wavy glasses to give him a headache, and scrap metal hanging him down. Harrison was viewed by the people as something horrible and scary, but he represents breaking away the chains of oppression. When Harrison walks into the studio and rips off all of his handicaps and takes away the handicaps of another person, it represents the freedom that government should not take away from people. The people in the studio got to witness and feel was it was like to be different and free, not oppressed by their government. Harrison, the emperor, and his empress would have started a movement of free will, and joy. When they both get shot by the Handicapper General, the government's control takes over again. This is not a perfect society or an equal society, it is a power-hungry society where the government gets to possess full control.
After reading "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs I decided to apply a religious lens to the short story. The story teaches a lesson about how people's desires turn into greed and there is no stopping this powerful greed from overcoming them. When the Mom and Dad start to use the monkey's paw for shortcuts in life they becoming unknowingly greedy. The wish for 200 pounds in which they received but consequently it was due to the fact of their son dying in a tragic accident. The mother doesn't realize the true nature of the situation and wishes for her son back. The son comes back but again choices have repercussions and the son comes back as a monster. This teaches us of the 7 deadly sins. Each choice they made was only made for the betterment of their lives and they didn't realize it. The monkey's paw is also a symbol of power as many religons have a main all powerful symbol.
I chose to read “The Lady or the Tiger?” by Frank Stockton. I decided to apply the psychoanalytic lens specifically to the princesses. To start off her id, letting the tiger maul her lover; her superego, letting her lover marry the woman she despises; and her ego, at the moment having to decide which door to choose. When reading this story, the reader gets a clear picture of the princess battling with her id and superego. A couple of nights before the trial she is up all night contemplating which door she wants her lover to open. She lets her id talk about letting the tiger maul him and then him waiting for her in the afterlife. But she also lets her superego talk about letting him marry the woman she despises because she is barbaric and jealous. The day of the actual trial is a challenge for her ego because she has both sides whispering into her ear. In the end, Stockton never reveals which door she chooses leaving the reader to imagine. Having the reader imagine which door also brings out their superego and id just like the princess. Do they choose the tiger or the woman? I don’t know, I guess it all depends on the reader.
I chose to read Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Black Cat”. An overall interesting yet horrifying story made more interesting by the use of a Freudian and deconstructive lens. The narrator of the story immediately tells readers he is to die tomorrow (by hanging to be exact). Later we find this is because he has murdered his wife. The events which have led up to this moment are rather puzzling and filled with cruelty. The narrator begins his tale by mentioning his lifelong penchant for animals. He and his wife have collected a number of pets one of which is a large black cat named Pluto-an important detail since Pluto is the Roman god of the Underworld-who quickly becomes a favorite of the narrator. His entire life, the narrator has been in control of his id and has instead acted through his superego. However, this begins to change and the narrator becomes irritable and moody, acting out of rage and annoyance. One night, while under the influence of alcohol (a more and more frequent problem), the narrator impulsively gouges out one of the cat’s eyes. Soon after he resolves to hang the cat from a tree. The narrator notes his lack of guilt and remorse in doing so and seems to suppress what little of his id is left. As the story continues, the narrator adopts another cat. But he soon grows to resent this creature as well. In a moment of anger, he attempts to kill the animal with an axe. His wife gets in the way and, out of rage, the narrator kills her instead. It is well known Poe had his own troubles with drinking and so the story is made all the more peculiar. The narrator of the story knows what he has done is wrong and therefore cannot be called a psychopath. So what else could turn a compassionate person into such a monster? Well according to Poe, alcoholism. Thus the entire story can be taken as a dramatization of the dangers of overindulgence.
I’m looking at Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” through a Marxist lens. At the beginning of the short story, there is a festival and it talks about adults and children who are always happy, a perfect society. However, a person who wasn’t given a name has to live basically in isolation while it’s suffering, they are not fed well and they're mentally not fully developed. Their suffering keeps their society happy. If the “it” was to get help, their society would get destroyed and basically go to hell and chaos. This is why his cries for help are ignored. The whole social structure revolves around “it”. “It” is at the bottom of the social structure and everyone rests on top of “it”, yet everyone depends on “it” to keep them happy. Looking through a religious lens the boy can be seen as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put on the cross to die for our sins. Just as the boy has to suffer for the people of his society to achieve happiness. If the “it” didn’t suffer society wouldn’t be “saved” as a metaphor for happiness. If Jesus didn’t die for our sins, we wouldn’t be saved from them.
I read "A Piece of Steak" by Jack London. Tom King is introduced in the very first sentence. He used to be a prodigious fighter in the ring but now is struggling to feed his family. In order to keep his family from dying, he takes another fight. He is now old but feels he has no other choice. Before his fight, he asks for a piece of steak because he is hungry. This thought is his motivation for him to win the fight. Through a Marxist lens, Tom can be seen as the spoiled rich kid in life. They get what they want because they are blessed with something. Once these kids go to college and are separated from their parents, they have no idea how to live because they typically depend on their parents for everything. Tom used to have everything being a great fighter, he took advantage of the situation which led him into poverty. He didn't control his blessings as well as he should have and now he has to fight for his life, literally. His kids in this would represent the poor. They don't get to choose the life they are born into and they go to bed without eating. Some day that will be able to work their way out of this situation but for now they just have to deal with it.
After reading The Monkey’s Paw by W.W. Jacobs and applying a religious lens to it, it teaches you a lesson about playing the role of God. God is an all-powerful being, and when you are given something that just makes wishes come true, maybe think twice about taking on that role because you are not God. Because with this monkey's paw the White’s try and tempt fate and they get greedy. This leads to the killing of their son in an accident after they wish for 200 pounds. The wife really pushes to bring back the son, but the husband is very reluctant. Seeing what the first wish had done, he was terrified to see what may happen if another wish was to be made. But finally, the grief-stricken wife won and he made the wish. They later come to regret this when the son returns as a monster and the husband then has to use the last wish to get rid of him. These actions go to show what happens when you try to change fate and play the role of God. Trying to do these things and change the outcome of their lives without putting in the work and trying to cheat their way through life shows that playing the role of God never turns out well.
I read the short story "Signs and Symbols" by Vladimir Nabokov. After reading, I felt that the best lens to apply to the short story was a Marxist lens. Considering that the story is very dependent on the time period in which it is set in, I think that understanding the time period (1947) is important when discussing the immigrant characters in the story. As they are Russian immigrants, they are seen in poor light by Americans during this time period. They do not live in a good area of NYC, and their lives are not necessarily the best. The epitome of their suffering comes in the form of their son, who is dehumanized by society. All of these moving pieces relate to the Marxist theory because of the suffering from different systems the characters go through. They fled Russia for a better life from the oppressive system, just to have an equally oppressive and difficult life in the "free world". Readers can use all these facets to understand the struggle of the main characters. All they desire is a better life for themselves. Between social oppression, financial difficulties, and family problems outside of their control, the main characters are a victim of the times.
After reading An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, I noticed a large yet fluid gap between reality and fantasy. For this reason, I decided to study it through a psychoanalytic lens. In Ambrose Bierce's story, a young and aspiring Southern sympathizer named Peyton Farquhar is desperate to help the Southern cause during the Civil War. Born into "an old and highly respected Alabama family," Peyton wanted to support the oppressive system that had been so generous to him and his family. However, "circumstances of an imperious nature" had prevented him from joining the Southern army. This rejection was likely an embarrassment to him and his respected family. While studying through a psychoanalytic lens, it is important to study the overt (conscious) and covert (unconscious) motives for every action. In the case of Peyton Farquhar, his overt motive for helping the Southern army at every opportunity is to further the Southern cause. However, his covert motive for helping the Southern army is to prove his ability to serve in the army and bring back honor to his family name. This covert motive could also be fuelled by Peyton's id, or the instinctive side of Peyton that is motivated by basic urges, like acceptance and praise. Peyton's id is his driving factor that ultimately leads to his death. In addition, Peyton is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. When the Federal soldier came to his home and sent him on a mission that led to his death, he was unable to see beyond the possible satisfaction that the mission could bring. Peyton could not realize that he was being tricked because he only saw the chance for acceptance. Once Peyton was hanged, he dreamed of a fantasy land in which he escaped and went back to his wife. However, this was the opposite of the reality in which he died. This dream can be interpreted to show that Peyton had the inability to see beyond fantasy. Peyton was controlled by his id into a world of delusion that ultimately led to his death.
I read the short story "The Monkey's Paw". I chose to look through a freudian lens while reading. The short story gives a look into the humans natural greed or feeling of always wanting more. Seargeant-major Morris arrives to the White's home and talks about his travels, Mr. White talks about wanting to go to India but Morris says he would be better off staying home and pulls out a mummified monkey paw. The Paw has a spell on it where 3 men/women can make 3 seperate wishes. After being warned multiple times not to make wishes, Mr. White wishes away; when he wishes for 200 pounds to pay off the house the paw shakes in his hand, this is when he realizes it could be dangerous. The son of Mr. White, Herbert, is pronounced dead soon after the wishes as he was caught in machinery at work. This shows humans true greed, after not listening to Morris the karma caught up to them.
I read "The Monkey's Paw". Overall I thought it was a very good story and I believe that I have read it once before. I used a Freudian lens because I thought that it would be the most fitting to the story. In the story, we see that the White family is consumed by the power of the monkey's paw. Their animal instincts show which I believe is linked to the Id. They have no regard for the consequences that could come with using the paw even though they have been warned. They become very greedy and don't understand that their actions can really affect their future.
I decided to pick “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs. After reading this short story you could apply a Freudian lens. This story is showing how greedy humans are, no matter what we have in our life we always want more even if that means harming others for self-betterment. Also shows the consequence you pay for being greedy. You can apply a Freudian lens to this short story because throughout the story the reader can automatically pick up on the greed of the couple. Sergeant-Major Morris told the couple the story of the first owner of the paw and explained how the owner chooses to die to use his third wish. This was major foreshadowing to the whites because something in that realm will happen to them more than likely. When Sergeant-Major also threw the paw into the fire and told the family to not touch the paw. This was a big warning sign for the whites, Mr.White was not so sure about using the paw but his wife talked him into it. Knowing that the paw is evil the couple still use their second and third wish resulting in their son coming back and then passing away again.
I chose Stockton's "The Lady or the Tiger." I decided to chose something that I haven't read before and found interest in the title. When a king is described as barbaric and his daughter being described as strong willed, it is only logical to place a feminist lens on the story. The king doesn't consider the feelings of the women he places behind the door, he only gives them a man he thinks they deserve. Inherently, that is sexist. HE is making decisions for women. But the daughter goes out on a limb, and decides to have an affair with a man of her own liking. The relationship is strong and he is everything someone could look for in a woman. Her love is described as fierce and ferocious. So when pitted with the decision, "lose my love or lose my life" the author gives the readers the question "was it the lady or the tiger?" My answer to this question is she is the tiger. The woman is a tiger behind the door. This is because she is a fierce lover and a strong woman, especially of her time.
I chose the short story written by Harlan Ellison called “‘Repent, Harlequin!’ said the Ticktockman.” A quite simple lens that you could implement upon this story could possibly be a feminist one. In this story you can see a dominance of male characters within it. There is one named female character in this story and that would be the wife of Harlequin also known as Everett. Alice’s role in the story is substantial but it is not as substantial as the other male characters. Everett the husband of Alice is the lead focus. He is the Harlequin, the one that causes all of the torment towards the Ticktockman which is another male. So in their own minds they are doing right by what they believe in and depending on who is looking on they can either be the good guy or the bad guy. However, Alice is not so simple. By either way you look at it she did something wrong at some point. To the Ticktockman she was wrong because she knew he was the Harlequin and did not turn him in sooner. To Everett, she betrayed him and turned him over to the Ticktockman to be punished. So in either view, she was wrong. Another great lens that you could put onto this story would a Marxist one. Throughout the story, there is a constant struggle between the all-powerful Ticktockman and the plebeian known as Harlequin. The Ticktockman is using everything in his power to keep his power above the lower class.
After reading "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs I decided to go with the religious lens to the short story. The story teaches a lesson about how people's desires turn into greed and that there is no stopping this powerful greed from overcoming them. When Mom and Dad start to use the monkey's paw for shortcuts in life they become unimaginably greedy. They wish for 200 pounds, which they received, but consequently, it was due to the fact of their son dying in a tragic accident. The mother doesn't realize the true nature of the situation and wishes for her son back. The son comes back but again choices have consequences and the son comes back with several changes, basically monster-like. These connect the 7 deadly sins. Each choice they made was only made for the betterment of their lives and they didn't realize it. The monkey's paw is also an artifact of power as many religions have a main all-powerful symbol. This one was just used in the wrong way.
I read the short story “Harrison Bergeron”, written by Kurt Vonnegut. Applying the Marxist lens allows readers to focus on total equality based on physical appearance, talents, and intelligence. Those who are more talented than others are punished and handicapped by wearing heavyweights to make it harder for them to perform and ear devices to interrupt their thoughts. An outstanding boy is placed in prison, as he had an incredible I.Q. score, along with staggering good looks and strength. He wears a helmet to cover his face, headphones to deafen his thoughts, and heavy chains to weigh him down. Similarly, a ballerina wears a hideous mask to disguise her beautiful face and is forced to speak roughly because she has an alluring voice. Harrison escapes this prison and takes this beautiful, talented ballerina as his mate. The purpose of Vonnegut writing this story in the extreme is to highlight that a world of completely equal people would be horrific and dull. People are born with special talents that help to improve the world. The story is less about equality of individuals based on race, gender, and class, but rather forcing people to be less than they are to protect other feelings of inferiority. Society can not be organized to be absolutely, perfectly equal.
I have chosen to read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin. By applying the Marxist Lens I was able to seek out the different types of society and how neglected people can feel. Le Guin starts the story off by describing a beautiful place where beautiful people live. Those people are usually really happy and have no care in the world because they have everything that a person could possibly dream of. As opposed to this child who is locked away in the dark. This represents people who are unfortunate when it comes to living conditions and do not have much. And people probably do not even know that they exist. This "child" also symbolizes those who are homeless and shunned away from everything. If the child was actually free, they probably still would not be as happy because people are always going to judge them.
I read the short story "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. Using the Marxist lens to analyze this story, you can see that the monkey's paw has complete control over the family. From the moment that Sargent-Major Morris gives them the paw to the end of the story, you see that everything revolves around the paw. One example of this is when Mr. White says that he has everything that he needs but then Mrs. White says that they could use an extra two-hundred pounds to pay off the rest of their house. You can see that this is creating tension between Mr. and Mrs. White's relationship. Then the next day, Mr. and Mr.s White are informed that Herbert(their son) has died at work and that they will not take responsibility for his death but will compensate the family two-hundred pounds. But Mr. White thinks that his death had nothing to do with their son's death. So Mrs. Herbert wants to wish him back to life. As you can see, everything in this story revolves around the paw because the white family possibly loses their son and try to wish him back all because of the Monkey's paw. That is one way that the Marxist lens can be looked at in this story.
I decided to read the short story, "Madame Celestin's Divorce", and will be using the feminist lens to decipher it. The story starts with Madame Celestin working very hard sweeping the gallery. She dresses nice and always seems to be having to work too hard, according to the lawyer, Paxton. Since the story was written in 1893, this perfectly describes jobs that women did have at this time. As time goes on throughout the story, Madame Celestin talks to multiple people about getting a divorce from her husband, who has been gone for 6 months. She talks to the lawyer, her friends and family, and finally a bishop. All of these talks with people give differing advice. All of this discussion about divorce comes to an end when her husband comes back. The feminist lens uncovers that as Madame Celestin comes closer and closer to individualism, she can very quickly get controlled again by her husband. The women of this time had trouble with individualism and the feminist movement helped them become less conformed by social norms like Madame Celestin. Unfortunately, Madame Celestin did not have the chance to do this, as when her husband comes back, she loses her chance to do so.
I chose to read the short story "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs. Though capable of being examined through a few different lenses, I chose to view it through an oriental lens. The story begins with Sergeant-Major Morris, who served in the army in India, having an unexpected visit to the White family. The White family would be considered the occident in this case. I'm not sure if it was coincidental that their last name is 'White', but it contributes nonetheless. Seargeant-Major Morris, the Monekys Paw, and India would be considered the orient—or what is feared and considered 'other'. When Morris is warming him of the paw, Mr. White is quick to dismiss its 'magical' properties as something of an eastern myth. His pokes fun at it as well, saying it "'Sounds like the Arabian Nights,'" or to have her husband wish her to have four pairs of hands. Despite them ridiculing it, they fear it as well. They are unsure if what the seargeant is saying is true, and the mystery of it entices them, yet scares them as well. "His manner was so impressive that his hearers were conscious that their light laugher jarred somewhat." AS Seargeant Morris told his story, it left the White family a little weary and unsure what to believe, because they looked at eastern beliefs as made up and magic. Seargeant-Major Morris, an unexpected gueast, brought in an unwanted and unknown thing into the White family home. Making Morris the Orient, and the White family the occident.
I read Signs and Symbols by Vladimir Nabokov, and I will be evaluating it using a Frudian literary lens. This story is very gloomy, and it never really portrays things in a happy manner. Nabokov started the story by describing the son as an uninspired metally unstable boy. The fact that he does this firmly establishes that the story is about him, even though it doesn’t talk about him most of the time. Along with establishing the primary focus, the introduction lays down the idea that these people are not wealthy and they don’t live an extravagant life. The reader is able to get an understanding of how depressed the boy is when the author describes how bland of a gift the boy requires. As the story goes along it gets even more gloomy as the train they are on loses power and gets itself stranded on the track. We can sense the lack of emotion and humanity in the boy. Along with this his id has almost completely taken over, and he reverts back to his more basic instincts. When he is unable to achieve mental stability he tries to kill himself, and he possibly does so at the end of the story. I believe that the call at the end of the story was not a misdial, but a person calling to inform them that their son killed himself. A unique representation of this is the bird in the puddle. When the parents are leaving the hospital there is a flightless bird helplessly flopping around in a puddle. To me this bird represents the boy they left in the hospital. It is in an unfortunate situation and it is unable to get itself out of it. Along with this hint, the bird has fallen from the nest just like the boy who has been removed from his home.
I read Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron". I am using the Marxist lens to analyze this short story. It was written in 1961, at the height of the Cold War. The Cold War was between the United States and the Soviet Union, representing the political systems of Capitalism and Communism respectively. In general, Capitalism is known to let companies and people compete against each other to further themselves in society, and Communism is known to do everything they possibly can to make everyone equal in society. Vonnegut, who is an American, took the generalization of Communism (the political system he has been told to hate) and took it to the extreme. He did this to tell a cautionary tale of what would happen in one hundred and twenty years if Communism was to take over in the United States. Vonnegut takes the "making everyone equal" and made it evil by having everyone who was above average in any way, such as beauty, intelligence, and athletics, and forcing them to wear masks, weights, and mental handicap radios. These devices take these above-average people and force them to become less than what they are and become equal with their less intelligent, strong, and beautiful colleagues. The main characters of George and Hazel Harrison also mention that these restrictions are good as they stop people from competing with each other. This shows a clear government oversteps and one can easily see the comparisons to the evils of Communism and how Capitalism is better.
Madeleine Pearce
I read Vladimir Nabobov’s story which is titled “Signs and Symbols.” Upon reading it, I applied a Freudian lens to the short story. I felt that lens fits well with this story because not much interaction happens between the characters, but the way that Nabobov describes everything in the story seems to have a very dark undertone to it. The first sentence sets up the undertone to me, saying that the parents were confronted with a problem of finding their child with a gift. Saying it this way makes it sound way worse than if Nobobov would have said that they faced the challenge of finding a gift for their child. The second part that really jumps out to me as a darker undertone is when Nabobov first describes the child. He could have stated that he was unkempt and needed to be shaved, but he insisted on giving very grotesque descriptions to the child by saying, “his poor face sullen, confused, ill-shaven, and blotched with acne.” I do like the inclusion of the “blotched with acne” because almost everyone thinks of acne as an unattractive trait that some people have, which only further highlights the darkness that Babobov is telling the story with.
I read the monkey's paw by W.W. Jacobs since it was a story I remembered from 8th grade and wanted to reread it to refresh my memory on the content. It was just as intriguing as I remember and it's great to see how well this concept is played out in just a handful of pages. This short story most closely follows the orient lens although Freudian could be applied as well. It relates to the orient in the fact that the problem originates from the orient. The titular Monkey's paw was found by an explorer in the far Southeast country of India. In the 19th century, India was a big topic of interest to Europeans and it caused them to be more well studied in oriental culture. The monkey's paw grants magic wishes and the White family takes interest in its background. Of course, the wishes have bad side affects and take life as well as raise the dead. This could be implied as revenge on Europeans for some of the bad things they've done in the Orient such as Imperialism in India and the Opium Trade in China. This European family takes great interest in an Orient object and tries to use it for their gain but eventually it leads to their downfall. This could be seen as an Anti-Imperialism message due to the fact that British Imperialism was very alive at the time this story was written and because many stories relating to the Orient usually have negative reaction to the abduction of cultures.
W.W. Jacobs’ “The Monkey’s Paw” is a fascinating short story about how getting what you want comes at a price, and at that, one that you may not want to pay. It reminds me of The Lion King and how by Simba wanting to be king is inadvertently wishing for his father’s death. Using a Fruedian lense, we see that there is a price to pay with greed and thinking that nothing bad will come of it. The Whites are fairly well off in the story, but they want more. People think that having everything you want will make you happy. It isn’t until the end when the son dies do they realise that you can’t have everything you want in life. Greed is very much an id character trait and with id comes destruction. The Whites learned from their ways once the damage was done. If they had listened to their instincts like the old man wanted to at the beginning, their son would still be alive. But because they were greedy, they let their id take over and it caused them even more troubles and heart ache. This story is about the human psych and what id does to someone.
In “Madame Célestin’s Divorce” Chopin faces many struggles. The hardship she endures from Célestin’s actions leads her to think about a divorce. Being the time period she is in, everyone disapproves of it. During the 1890’s social pressure often kept women in unfulfilling marriages. The lawyer however grows a fondness for her and encourages her to go through with the divorce. With the disapproval of her family and the encouragement from the lawyer, Chopin goes to the church for guidance. She first goes to a priest than a bishop, they both tell her that she must stay in her marriage and endure the mistreatment of her husband. She is faced with judgement in either of her decisions. Her husband ended up coming back and confessing his love for her again. The anger she had towards him was diminished. Célestin had promised her on his honor that he would turn over a new leaf, and change for the better. This shows either how much she loves him or how much she wants to please everyone else by staying with him. I don’t doubt it will happen again as he doesn’t seem to care as much as Chopin does, but maybe he is being serious this time.
A Marxist literary lens can be applied to the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. This story and its political and social implications can be looked at in many ways regarding Marxist theory. The story actually begins by establishing the "absence" of class struggle. In the story, every individual is intentionally made equal, and Vonnegut overtly communicates that the society is meant to be absolved of class. Clearly, this society is meant to boost the lower class and tear down the higher class to meet in the middle. As we read, though, we become aware of an overarching "class struggle" between the handicapped citizens and the United States Handicapper General and her agents—a flaw in this societal structure. Citizens are handicapped, suppressed, captured, and made nearly into robots by the oppressive Handicapper General, even though every person is supposedly equal. All of these details are quite evident to readers and will most likely lead them to make the assumption that Vonnegut is anti-socialist or at least anti-communist. Vonnegut wrote this story as an American in 1961, so this inference makes complete sense.
On a deeper level, readers can possibly see the other side of the issue in the story. When Harrison Bergeron makes his stand against the will of the Handicapper General, he is not necessarily conveyed as a hero. In fact, he is quite violent and oppressive himself. Furthermore, readers can look at the Handicapper General as less of an enforcer of extreme socialism, but more of an enforcer of extreme totalitarianism because of her control over the society and use of oppressive force. So, what is Vonnegut trying to say with this story? Is he pro-socialist, or pro-democracy and pro-capitalism? Maybe Vonnegut is trying to display two perspectives and simply condemning the extremes of each ideology.
I choose to read W.W. Jacob's “The Monkey’s Paw”. I decided to challenge myself and analyze it using a religious/biblical lens. The Whites were told of the dangers of the monkey’s paw and what had happened to the previous owner of the paw. He got his three wishes the last one being death, which is how Morris got ahold of the Monkey’s paw. Morris received his three wishes and then tries to throw them into the fire because it already had caused enough damage but Mr. White grabbed them out of the fire. But they were so fed up in their greed to have three dishes to get whatever they want makes them use the paw even though they were warned of the outcome. Using a biblical lens shows a clear example of the temptation of sin and greed. The temptation in the Monkey’s Paw is the paw itself and the greed we see the White families want for the wishes that the paw can give. It is like the temptation that is shown to Adam and Eve in the garden; of Eden. Adam and Eve are told not to take fruit from one tree and the temptation of Satan, the snake, and Eve was their downfall. They were tempted by the greed of wanting to be like God. They were then sent out of Eden. The temptation and greed were not worth it. Just like the Whites’s wishes were not worth the things that they lost.
The short story I selected was “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs. “The Monkey’s Paw” , briefly summarized, is about a family that obtains a magic mummified monkey paw from a soldier. The paw can grant three wishes similar to a lamp that contains a genie. “The Monkey’s Paw” will be analyzed through a feminist lens. The story opens with a man and his son playing chess, the man makes a move that opens an opportunity for his son to get a checkmate. The man’s wife says “Never mind, dear,” … “perhaps you’ll win the next one.” This sentence shows how the wife is supporting the man. When the soldier throws the paw in the fire, the man removes it from the fire and wishes upon it. This shows how he is brave and courageous. The next day they learn that their son, Herbert, was caught in the machinery and died. They were both devastated by the news. A week later the woman gets the idea that the paw could bring her son back. She is almost hysterical and she is thinking with her emotions rather than logic. Her husband is thinking with logic and saying that she is mad for making him do this. After a while, they hear knocking on the door. The wife goes crazy, screaming at her husband to let their son in. The man is trying to find the paw so he can undo his wish and not see his son badly crushed from the machinery, he succeeds, and is met from “...a long loud wail of disappointment and misery from his wife…” The man ends up saving the woman in the end, which would be the “natural” role the man would fill.
Post a Comment