Book Analysis

Mark Twain, a dedicated abolitionist, used the book as a platform to argue against the racism and hypocrisy of the south during the 1800s. Twain’s book was used by the abolitionist to criticize the racism and hypocrisy that characterized the south in the 1800s.

Mark Twain used many tools to illustrate his argument about racism, the hypocrisy and flaws in American society. For example, Pap’s drunken lecture scene, Huck’s meeting with Mrs. Phelps or Jim’s involvement and character throughout Huck’s adventure. Jim’s portrayal of the character in this book has caused controversy. Some think Twain used Jim to show that he was a racist, because he depicted him as an idiot who only cares about money. Twain, however, used Jim to make a point about the racism that existed in American society during the 1800s.

Twain reaches his goal by making Jim the most morally superior character. He does this by showing him to be a caring, kind and loyal person. This contradicts southern views of the time which held that African Americans had no value as people and were only property.

Mark Twain’s book was published in 1880s. This was more than 10 years after the end of the Civil War, and the emancipation for all slaves. But racism continued to be prevalent up until the Civil Rights Movement. Huck’s morals in the south show that many Americans still believed blacks to be inferior, for a variety of reasons. They thought they were stupid and lacking emotions. Mark Twain uses Jim’s affection and emotions for his family as a way to show that these stereotypes are false. He also attacks the reasons that Whites believe they are superior and can be racist toward African Americans. Jim feels sad that he is separated from Huck during the fog scenes and relieved to see him again. When I was tired from work and hearing you calling, then went to bed, my heart was broken because you were gone.

Jim describes in this quote how he searched for Huck tirelessly and was deeply hurt when Huck left him. Twain tries to prove that Jim can, like other African Americans, have feelings and emotions towards others in the quote. This evidence that Jim has emotions is contrary to the racial myth that African Americans have no feelings. It supports Twain’s anti-racism argument. Jim’s emotional side is also revealed when he describes his family. Jim’s emotional state was affected by his separation from his daughter and wife before the book.

In the end of the book, we can see that his family is very important to him. His separation from them causes him great emotional distress. Huck would watch out for the Duke and King on the raft while Jim kept the raft on track. Jim weeps for his family, which he has missed dearly. When I woke up at dawn, he had his head between his knees and was moaning. I did not notice nor tell anyone. I knew what was going on. He was worried about his wife, and his children up there.. I believe that he cared for his people the same way white folks care for theirs. It’s not natural to me but I’m sure it is. (Twain 161).

The quote is essential to Twain’s case because it refutes the idea that was prevalent at the time: blacks couldn’t love their families or care for others. The reader can understand the racism in American society when Huck says that he doesn’t believe blacks are capable of caring and loving their families.

Twain uses Huck’s lines and Jim’s feelings about his family in order to show that African Americans are no different than whites. He also shows that the racist values and beliefs that Huck, along with millions of other people had learned as children were completely wrong. Jim thanks Huck for all the work he did to help Jim become free. This happens before the King and Duke scene. Jim declares, “Pooty Soon I’ll Be A-South’n For Joy, En I’ll Say, It’s All On Accounts Of Huck. I’m A Freeman, And I Couldn’t Ever Been Free If it Hadn’t Ben For Huck. Huck Did it.

Jim won’t forget you, Huck. Twain adds this line in order to say that Jim Huck are both equals. Twain says in this line that Huck is equal to Jim and that they can have a relationship.

Twain was also critical of racism by pointing out the hypocrisy of racist societies. Twain’s second angle of his attack on racism is how hypocritical the ideas of the racist society were. Jim is a loyal, compassionate and generous character throughout the book. In contrast, most Caucasian people are evil, selfish, and backstabbing.

The idea that Caucasians, in particular morally, are superior to other races is untrue. The book shows a strong contrast between Jim Pap. Pap, on the other hand, represents evil. He is even linked to the devil.

Jim’s compassion and selflessness towards Huck is the biggest difference between him and Pap, who is selfish and neglects Huck. Jim takes care of Huck when they discover the floating house in which Pap is dead. To protect Huck against the grief of a loss, Jim refuses to show him the face. Huck told the story “Come inside, Huck. But look at that face. It’s too horrifying” (Twain 62).

Jim’s simple act shows his kindness, which sets him apart from Pap as well as other whites from the story including the king, the duke and others. Jim shows that he cares for others, including Huck. He tries to save Huck from his father’s death. Pap’s selfishness and lack of care is evident when he finally sees Huck again after a few months, but is concerned more with his money. “Looky there — mind the way you talk to, I’m already standing as high as I’m going to be able to stand. Don’t give any sass. Since I arrived in town, I haven’t been able to hear anything else but that you are rich. It’s not just me. It’s the reason I came. You give me that money today — I’m coming.

Twain uses this line to show that Pap, despite being white, was selfish and careless. Huck has not seen his son for some time. Huck decides to go to Huck to “rightfully claim” the money. Twain draws a parallel between Jim’s character and Pap’s to demonstrate that African Americans don’t always have a superior morality. Jim also shows loyalty to Huck and other characters, as shown by his refusal to leave the boat despite many opportunities for escape. His desire for freedom was strong. Jim’s loyalty to Tom is shown when he sacrifices his freedom so that he can stay and help heal Tom. Huck’s retelling of the story is “No, sir — I won’t leave dis place, without a physician; not if it has been forty years! I knewed he had a white interior” (Twain 279).

Jim claims that he’ll stay with Tom for however long it takes until the doctor arrives. This line is important because it shows how loyal Jim is. He would give up his freedom, which he has been waiting years to get just to ensure Tom’s safety until the doctor arrived. Huck’s reaction to Jim’s act is also important because it shows racism that only Whites are capable of loyalty, compassion, and care. Huck, who believes that Jim was white on the inside, is not the only one to believe this. Miss Watson broke a promise she made never to sell Jim. King and Duke were also unfaithful by selling Jim.

Twain introduces these incidents into the novel as a way to show how, contrary of what people believed in his time, one’s character is not determined simply by race. It shows how, despite the stereotypes of African Americans as being sneaky or disloyal held by hypocritical white Americans at the time, all races are capable of being disloyal.

Twain created Jim to be gullible, unintelligent, and support Twain’s argument about discrimination against blacks. Twain was of the opinion that African Americans and whites are both equal. Twain also thought that racism towards blacks is hypocritical.

Twain uses Jim as an example of kindness, compassion, loyalty, unselfishness to demonstrate that white characters are selfish; lack compassion; and disloyalty. Twain also uses other whites as examples of their own hypocrisy. Jim’s relationships and emotions are important, because they prove that African Americans can have real relationships and emotions.

Works Cited

Twain, Mark. Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn: An Authoritative text Contexts And Sources Critique. Thomas Cooley edited the 3rd edition, Norton & Company 1999.

Tarzan has remained a popular fictional character in novels, music, and songs for much of the 19th-century. This has led to a relationship with various social, cultural, political, and economic spheres. This has been a major influence on radio, film, television, books, and comic strips. Tarzan ancestry films have received positive public reception. In addition to the increase in popularity, his super hero persona of saving animals and people from evil is also being displayed onscreen. Tarzan has been featured in 47 of the 89 films that were made between 1918 and 2008, with his stories being narrated on screen. Dracula’s success is rated higher. Tarzan first appeared on the screen in 1918. It was a silent film.

Character’s BiographyTarzan descends from the British couple that rebels abandoned along the Atlantic Coast in Africa. His mother died before he could even walk, and the ape chief who adopted him murdered his father. Tarzan was a young boy when the author wrote his Jungle Tales of Tarzan six-book series. Tarzan is an ape’s name, but his English nickname (nickname) is John Clayton Earl Greystoke. Burroughs created a hero with few or no faults. He describes the character as brown, tall and handsome with a Caucasian appearance. Also, he has grey-blue eyes and black long hair. He is bold, unwavering and trustworthy in his expressions. He is intelligent because he can learn new languages quickly. He has many of the above traits, and more. It is because of these characteristics that he stands out from other heroes. His characteristics are connected both in theory and in reality. Disney’s Tarzan was a huge success because of his abilities.

Tarzan’s filmography has changed dramatically from 1918 until 2008, the year of its last release. There have been 89 films released. Tarzan films were adapted from silent movies based on the original Tarzan novels. In the early days of Tarzan’s conception, these were shown. Elmo Abraham was the first Tarzan to be portrayed by an adult actor in Tarzan of the Apes (1918). Tarzan’s movie was authorized in the 1930s, and continued until the 1960s. Johnny Weissmuller played the role of Tarzan the Ape Man from 1932 to 1948. Weissmuller was told to have his inheritors portray the ape as someone who could understand pidgin. The refined noblesse of Burroughs novels was not the same. Tarzan and the Fearless, Tarzan and the Leopard Woman, Tarzan’s Desert Mystery, Tarzan’s Secret Treasure, Tarzan’s New York Adventure, Tarzan’s New York Adventure, Tarzan’s Revenge, Tarzan Finds an Son, Tarzan Triumphs, Tarzan’s New York Adventure, Tarzan’s New York Adventure, Tarzan’s New York Adventure, Tarzan’s New York Adventure, and Tarzan’

Sy Wentraub, who bought the rights to Sol Lesser’s film, continued this “me Tarzan you Jane”, portrayal of Tarzan until the 1950s. Tarzans Greatest Adventure is the first film produced by Wentraub. It was followed by eight others, including Tarzans Hidden Jungle and Tarzans Magic Fountain. One television series was produced. Weintraub’s Tarzan resembles the Edgar Rice Burroughs character in his novels. He is a learned, educated jungle lord. Tarzan movies were mostly black-and white films shot on studio sets. Stock jungle recordings were also added. Weintraub’s films, from 1959 to the present day, were filmed in foreign countries and appeared in full color.

Tarzan and the Fearless, starring Buster Crabbe (1933), and The Adventures of Tarzan, starring Herman Brix (1935), were among the series and movies that competed against the franchise. The last series was unique in its age because it was recorded partly on location (Guatemala), and Tarzan was shown as educated.

Tarzan films, which have been around since the 1930s and often included Jane, Tarzan’s companion chimpanzee, were frequently filmed with Cheetah. Cast included an adopted child, who was often referred to as “Boy”. Weintraub produced films from 1959 that cut Jane out of the story and made Tarzan a lone explorer. It showed that he was confident in his own abilities and did not require any further assistance. This was an important transformation. Tarzan movies have only been made occasionally since then, and they are a bit of an anomaly. Disney’s animated Tarzan (1999), a remake of the 1984 film Greystoke, The Legend of Tarzan Lord of the Apes, was a major step forward for the ape-man.

Disney has adapted the animated story after 47 narrations. Disney confirmed that the Tarzan film is a fairy tale for both the cartoon and movie production. The first animated action was added to a cartoon. This essay will analyze the development of Tarzan films, the influences of socio-political factors, and its aesthetic or cinematographic forerunners. Tarzan’s storylines have changed over the years, but his character and reputation remain unchanged. Tarzan is known for its imitating of adventures and its exhilarating experiences. The Tarzan world was created by a combination of influences from a wide range of genres, as well as the adventure and heroism of films of the early 19th century. If you look closely at the many influences that went into making this film, it becomes clear that its origins are a combination of westerns and action films as well the aesthetics of noir.

Disney’s Tarzan began a whole new era in the evolution of Tarzan. Disney’s Tarzan (1999), an animated film based on the 1984 movie The Legend of Tarzan of Lord of the Apes, inspired a new beginning for the heroic man ape. The film is a children’s favourite, with a number of catchy songs. The public would probably call it “The Jungle Book”, as the songs are so catchy. This film is one of the most eviscerating animated films ever made by the studio. Disney’s Tarzan is a far cry from the novel by the author (Edgar Rice Burroughs), but it still has a lot of charm. It is clear that the Disney tale would be better enjoyed if it was read in its entirety. It is the same story as it was when I wrote this.

Tarzan was the child that Kala saved. Kala’s a gorilla and it is Sabor the leopard that is responsible for Tarzan becoming an orphan. Kerchak, leader of Kerchak gorilla tribe, allows Kala to care for Tarzan. Tarzan, who grew up with a broken-down family, has trouble adjusting to Jane. She is on a discovery trip for gorillas. A slap is given to him for his curiosity. Jane helps him learn about Western culture and he begins to speak English. Jane’s father and Clayton, their guide, were on the hunt to capture gorillas. Tarzan becomes enamored with Jane and takes her to the gorilla habitat, where he is captured. Tarzan defeats the evil man thanks to Terk, Tantor and their friends.

The film’s visual and aural scenes are reminiscent of The Jungle Book. An incredible animation combined with continuous action will keep you glued to your screen. The soundtrack for Tarzan is the best of all Disney productions and Tarzan films. Phil Collins has been producing average music for the past decade, since his Grammy-winning years. He reinvents himself now by mixing pop and cool rhythms. The song enhances the film by giving kids a chance to watch it in a more enjoyable way. Disney has achieved its goal of making movies that appeal to children of various ages with Tarzan Hero. Sabor was an excellent villain, and I think he’s better than Clayton. Characters interrelate strongly so we are able to see what they have in mind for their choices. This is a movie that has great storytelling.

Disney’s use of the “Deep Canvas Animation” technique is a great addition to Tarzan. The two-dimensional character can move in the jungle with credibility. Disney’s Tarzan humor is exceptional. Disney’s past humor hasn’t been memorable, for example. Disney has a history of making fart-jokes and annoying humor. Disney’s Tarzan is full of genuine, innovative and universal wittiness. Our favorite scene is the one where Jane is chased by baboons. Tarzan mysteriously appears to save her. Jane, who is still unfamiliar with Tarzan, screams for him to put her down as soon as they reach a safe place. Then, when she saw the baboons following her, Jane yelled for her to be picked up. Disney is likely to use similar jokes in future films. The cartoon’s virtuousness gives it a fun and light-hearted atmosphere.

It is astonishingly diverse but it shares six common elements. Each of these elements can be broken down and analysed to gain a greater understanding of what is being explored. The elements that make up fiction include plot, point-of-view, characterisation, setting, symbolism, and theme. John Updike masterfully uses all of these aspects to create a unified, complex piece of fiction in “A & P”. “A & P,” recounts Sammy’s reaction when three girls walk into A & P, downtown, and wear nothing but bathingsuits, defying the norms of society. Sammy follows their example and abandons his socially accepted role. By analyzing the fundamental elements of fiction, “A & P,” by John Updike, is illuminated.

The plot is the foundation of all fiction. It focuses attention on the story and gives it a sense of direction. The plot can be broken down into five main elements: the inciting factor, the exposition, the complication, the climax, and the catastrophe. The arrival of the girls at A & P is without a doubt the inciting force, as their entry initiates the remainder of the story. Sammy describes each girl in detail. His observations include “black hair not quite frizzed” (409) and “long, white prima-donna leg” (410). The reader will find small details and dialogue scattered throughout the meticulously rendered scenes. They help them to understand the story, the characters, and the setting. Updike gives the girls greater importance by slowing things down and focusing them on. This makes the audience more likely to recognize the girls and their significance in relation the thematic theme. Also, it sets the stage for a conflict that revolves around the girls’ appearance. Complication is the third step of Freytag’s Pyramid. It introduces conflict by focusing on the negative reactions to the girls’ clothing. Due to the fact that it is considered inappropriate for girls to wear swimsuits in A & P’s, they are subjected by customers and employees alike. Managers also reprimand them, causing the girls great embarrassment. Sammy’s resignation is the culmination of these complications. Sammy had been watching the girls reject social rules passively up until this point. In quitting his position, he takes an active part in the conflict. This is the most important action. Sammy is reverted to his former position and job. Sammy’s sudden realization of “how difficult the world would be for [him] in the future” (414) is what triggers his catastrophe. The epiphany is a somber reminder to the reader that Sammy’s refusal to conform to the social standards will be a lifelong struggle.

This epiphany can be revealed by analyzing the characters, as well as the symbols, of the girls, and of the customers. The characters of both the girls and the customers are static, flat. They don’t change and they aren’t complex. Sammy describes the girls in the shop as beautiful, independent and young. He calls the other customers “houseslaves”, “bums”, or “houseslaves”. Sammy is able to observe “sheep pushing carts down aisles” and girls “walking in the opposite direction” (410) during one scene. Sammy uses the metaphors “sheeps” and “pigs” (413) to show their conformity and passivity. Contrastingly, the girls display their individuality as they walk in the opposite way and wear clothing that makes other shoppers “jerk” or “hop”, or even hiccup (410). Updike creates a stark contrast between the two static sets of characters. This allows the girls to be seen as the foils of the other shoppers. The shoppers represent passive submission and society. However, the girls stand for the freedom that comes with autonomy and individuality. Sammy’s epiphany reveals that the treatment they receive by other characters is representative of their rejection by society.

Updike portrays the girls as symbols for oppressed personality and submission by placing them against an authoritative patriarchal backdrop. Congregational churches and A & P stores are two elements of the scene that illustrate these ideas. The A & P General Store, which is the focus of this entire story, represents American culture and corporate ambition. Sammy is dismissive of merchandise that represents popular culture. He calls it “gunk”, and the girls, who are constantly lost in the vast amount of inventory. These images show the feeling of losing autonomy in a sea of media and advertisements. Churches, on the other hand, are symbols of passive submission. Lengel, a manager, “teaches the Sunday school” and other duties (412). While scolding them for their inappropriate attire, Lengel “concentrates on giving the girls that sad Sunday-school-superintendent stare” (412). His and the Church’s paternalistic beliefs are what seeks to restrain and control girls’ rebelliousness against social values. The girls are symbolically banned from society when these standards are enforced.

Updike binds together the various elements of “A & P”, using narration and point-of-view. Sammy’s narration is the only point of views from which readers can view the story. His unique, first person voice is heard throughout the story in the form casual rhetoric. Sammy is positioned in the third checkout position, facing the door. The reader sees the unfolding action. Sammy does not shift the focus until he leaves A & P and symbolically gives up his position in society. Sammy’s role is more than just that of narrator. He also plays the main character in the story. The character is dynamic and round, unlike other characters. It changes as it goes from passive to active in the fight against society. Updike’s story is told through the eyes the protagonist. This allows the reader to experience the journey as a “sheep”. Sammy’s transformation binds together the antagonists and closes the gap. Sammy unites the opposing forces in this story.

Updike’s “A & P”, a fictional short story, contains a complicated web of elements. Deconstructing and analyzing this web can reveal many hidden ideas. Each of these six elements is interconnected. The plot is the frame that the other elements are built around. Characters and settings also serve as symbols to reveal the theme of the story. The narrator’s perspective is what ties the entire narrative together. After analyzing the interrelationships among the major elements of fiction, it is clear that “A & P'” has a lot of meaning and consistency, but also a lot of complexity.

Works Consulted

Updike, John. The Norton Introduction to Literature, “A&P”. 10th ed. Ed. Alison Booth, Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2011 (original publication). 409-14.

The four main character of The English Patient is extremely powerful. They are also important to understanding the story. But they can’t stand alone. The patterns of imagery and symbolism in the text offer a richness that extends far beyond literal meaning. These patterns are a great way to learn about each character and make connections between characters. This helps you better understand the novel. The plot wouldn’t have the same impact on the reader if it wasn’t so richly colored with imagery, symbols and metaphors. Skin, hands, maps and elements are among the most important.

The idea that man is a communal book, in which his entire life and all his relationships are “mapped” on him, is a metaphor that is resonant throughout the novel. It is also a literal interpretation, with the scars visible on Caravaggio and the English patient.

The burns on his shins are the worst. Further than violet. This description of the English Patient’s body is horrifying and confronting. It addresses themes of pain, identity construction, and the physical evidence that he has suffered in the past. The reader will learn more as the imagery develops. The body almost looks like a battlefield, where the evidence of his suffering is marked.

The novel uses the image of hands to convey the theme of ambiguity in past experiences and the themes of reflection and observation.

Her father taught her how to use hands. In order to smell a dog’s foot, he would sniff the base. He would describe this as the best smell on earth! A bouquet! A hint of the animal’s daily movements.

The text is concerned with the idea that past experiences are ambiguous, subjective and based on the hands. Hana’s dad acknowledges the reflexiveness of the hands and body but he doesn’t acknowledge the other side of the argument, that the physicality of the body can hide experience and identity. The scars on the English patient’s body show that he is a man without a nation, a name, or an accessible, tangible past. He can live with no identity because of the scars that cover his body.

The nature of experience and history makes it impossible to discover “truths”. The English patient’s characters all use the body as a canvas to record their experiences.

In a love story, it’s not about losing your heart, but finding that sullen, irritable inhabitant. When found, this means the body is incapable of fooling anyone. This is a self-destructive act.

The English patient used this metaphor in a writing. Experience is “mapped on” an individual’s experience through strong emotions, like love. Almasy’s love for Katharine is so intense that it affects his public behavior. He doesn’t even realize that this has happened until the affair ends. The love he has for Katharine is so strong that it makes him behave in a way that is not even aware of it. He acts like a jackal, a predatory animal.

The imagery used to describe the setting in the novel is based on the idea that the villa represents a haven for shell-shocked survivor, while the desert is a spiritual oasis, calm yet dynamic, controlled by the elements. Both settings contain many references to the water in the desert.

He, who never felt alone between the desert towns. Almasy appreciates the “unmarkedness” of the landscape, which makes him feel alive, liberated and nourished. Water is associated with the desert, which refreshes, enlivens, and heals.

In the desert there is only water to celebrate.

Both settings are linked by the imagery of skin and hands, as well as the elements of air, fire, and water. They also explore the same themes. The desert setting is especially important because the scarcity of water symbolizes both the harshness, brutality, and harshness of its environment.

Hana, on the other hand, is also clearly associated with water. Water represents the need for Hana to be cleansed from war’s harshness, as well her desire to clean others. The water’s purity soothes her symptoms and helps to numb them. She is then able escape into the Villa that she created for herself and other characters.

This cools her and she likes it when the breezes hit her, erasing the thunder. She likes to go outside when the breezes wipe out the thunder. Hana has lost everything close to her in war. She escapes the pain of her past, as well as that of others, by connecting with water and other elements. Almasy’s ability to perceive the beauty in the ‘nameless,’ desert is mirrored by Katharine. Her preoccupation with moisture in England keeps her from seeing it. It is also a reference to Katharine needing tradition to connect to her ancestors.

She would never have wanted to die with no name.Katharine’s affinity for water (which is, in many ways, completely opposite to fire), and her desire to have an identity that she can recognise, are both interesting and necessary. This contrasts to the English patients, who are linked to fire.

It is the burning of fire that is connected to the apocalyptic experience of all characters in the novel. Kip’s journey through Europe’s ruins, and his “re-mapping of his life” is a result of being betrayed by England, his father. The fire is shown as both a destroyer and a healer. It can be a sign of an ending, or a beginning. The English patient’s fall in the desert was a metaphorical, if not physical, end. The fire has utterly destroyed his body, and the skin on his face is “aubergine-coloured”. Fire is a metaphor for anger, regret, sorrow and sorrowful feelings, but also represents the essential mediator of human action. Clifton planned to murder Almasy and Katharine in a suicide. While it doesn’t go according to plan, the circumstances are tragic. Almasy does survive to live for a few years longer, but not without suffering. The elements have always had an impact on characters, whether it is positive or negative. Fire has destroyed any evidence of his lover’s existence, after she had died in the Cave of Swimmers surrounded by her element of choice, water. As the novel shows, his memories are all that is left. They are blurred and unreliable due to the morphine. Almasy experienced a different end when Katharine made her separation from him as a lover a priority.

Katharine and Almasy’s marriage is destroyed by European expectations. The expectations of European culture have destroyed the relationship between Katharine and Almasy. Fire is also associated with the intensity of the emotional and physical desires expressed in this relationship.

Once captured by love the heart “burns and consumes”, it cannot return to its original state. In this case, fire represents a fresh start; its consuming quality is connected to love.

Despite this, he is able, through the fire, to remove himself from his name and race. Along with his skin, his identity has been stripped. He doesn’t care what he or who he used to be. His entire life, he has wanted to shed all labels. Ironically, in the months leading up to his death, he was able to achieve psychological freedom while being confined to bed, far from the desert that he loves.

Then his legs were free and he was flying in the sky, bright. He didn’t know why he looked so bright until the moment he realized he had caught fire.

These fascinating comparisons of destruction and fire or love and fire are summed up in the quote above, which has a painfully beautiful way of expressing itself. Air is a part of the journey he takes through fire, another stage or level of suffering he will endure. Both sides are shown; illumination and light, a beginning of anew, as well as pain, loss, and apocalypse. The use of imagery and symbolism to explore themes is not different in this novel.

Kip is filled with images and sounds of destruction when he learns of Hiroshima’s and Nagasaki’s bombing.

He can see the streets burning if he closes their eyes. The heat suffocates bodies in its path, and the sudden shadow of people is seen as it passes through the cities.

The flames of fire are destructive and scorching, almost “betraying” the purity of the air or water. Kip also sees the character that is most closely associated with fire as a kind of betrayer. The English patient can be seen as an adulterer or spy who cannot save his lover. Kip believes that the English patient is a symbol of European colonial power and its destructive nature. He doesn’t care if the English patient isn’t even English. He still feels betrayed because he mimicked colonial power his entire life. Klp’s daily “in the firing line” is due to the potential dangers of bomb defusing. Fire, however, is what betrays Klp. First, he loses his partner, then, the English bomb Hiroshima. Kip is again confronted with these images a few pages later, before he leaves the villa.

He sees people jumping into rivers and reservoirs in order to escape flames or heat. Within seconds, they burn everything they have, including their skin, hair, and whatever else they are holding.

Kip’s recognition of the horrors of war, Western Civilisation, and his own situation and identity spreads like fire. Kip returns to India in the coda. It suggests that, like the English Patient, he is free.

The novel’s meaning is based on patterns of symbolism that involve the elements. Hana Caravaggio English Patient Kip all form a constellation of four characters. The elements are also present in the novel. The imagery is poetic, descriptive and sometimes confontational. This serves to shock the reader to acknowledge the unbelievable circumstances in which the characters’survive’ towards their own struggle for freedom. The use of metaphor, symbolism, imagery and other techniques also reflect the horrors experienced by these four people. These themes are just as contradictory and complex as the actual elements. These elements can be harsh, cleansing or painful. But they are always present. They influence the plot, characters, and imagery in the novel. The novel’s themes are developed through the use of metaphor, symbolism and imagery. This helps to give the story a powerful read that is not possible by using characters or plot alone. These themes are explored in a subtle and elegant way that inspires readers to reflect and think, leading them to gain a better understanding of the book.

William Shakespeare’s choice of unique illustrations for historical events is what shapes the individual’s perspective on the event. Shakespeare shows the audience the effect of conflict through his Julius Caesar play. Through the portrayal and impact of the conspiracy on Caesar’s flawed characters and the resulting fall of Rome, Shakespeare engages them. Characterisation, tragedy structure, and manipulation of characters and history enrich the play’s historical story.

Composers can engage an audience by dramatising or manipulating the past to demonstrate the impact of intrapersonal conflict. Shakespeare introduces Brutus’ internal conflict in the opening lines of the play. He says, “Than that Brutus… with himself at a war”. This is the first time he reveals it to the audience. Brutus’ inner conflict can be found in his soliloquy. By analogy, “It’s the bright morning that brings out the addeder;… Crown him?” We put a poison in him so that he could do whatever he wanted. Caesar is compared to a snake poisonous because he will lose compassion for people in Ancient Rome once he has too much power. Shakespeare cleverly influences Brutus’s views about Julius Caesar. Shakespeare portrays Caesar as “Caesar sat up to listen”, this third person stance highlights how ambitious he’s become and makes us feel their conflict. Shakspeare accentuates Brutus’ cognitive dissonance when Caesar is dying. He alters history by having Caesar utter the words, “E tu Brute?”. To Brutus, Shakespeare says “Then fall Caesar.” Shakespeare appeals with his dying Latin words to the audience. Together with Brutus, we feel a strong connection to Caesar. But, at the same time, we’re alienated by Caesar who still refers to him in the thirdperson. Shakespeare effectively explores the internal conflict by portraying Brutus in a way that is misinformed and doubtful about the danger Caesar poses for Rome.

Shakespeare uses historical events to engage an audience and explore the impact of conflict between characters. Shakespeare demonstrates how interpersonal conflict impacts the audience during the funeral sermon by portraying Brutus and Antony as manipulative characters that can prevent them from forming a personal perception. Brutus makes the crowd believe that Caesar is a ‘ambitious man’ by saying, “But he’s ambitious, so I killed him.” The repeated phrase ‘ambition’ shows how the conspiracy believes that Caesar has the potential to become a Tyrant, which goes against Roman ideals. Shakespeare uses a rhetorical phrase in Brutus dialogue to emphasize the conflict. The hyperbolic sentence makes the plebeians ponder their fate if Caesar were alive and supports Brutus. Shakespeare uses Mark Antony’s address to further explore the conflict between individuals. Antony starts his speech the same as Brutus: “Friends Romans Countrymen, lend your ears”. Both openings have the intention to manipulate public opinion into opposing viewpoints. The openings of both speeches share the same responsibility. But, Antony’s choice of ‘lend,’ as well as his addressing the plebeians by calling them ‘friends,’ creates a feeling of equality and shows that Antony is less ambitious. Antony reveals a reality that shows Caesar as’my friend faith and justice’ to undermine Brutus speech. He also highlights the error of the conspirators. Shakespeare uses rhetorical questions and high moderation to make the audience re-evaluate their view of the murder of Caesar. This weakens Brutus’ speech. Shakespeare has also fictionalised history by using ambiguity in Mark Antony’s speeches. He uses rhetorical questions “Did Caesar appear ambitious?” as well as feigned intentions, such as “I speak in order not to approve of what Brutus talked” to appeal the audience’s senses for logos and pathos in their engagement with the conflict. Shakespeare explores and effectively portrays the conflict between two characters, while engaging an audience.

William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar explores conflict in characters for the reasons outlined above. Shakespeare also manipulates historical events and characters to influence the audience.

Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick’s white whale is often regarded as one of America’s most symbolism characters. The white whale is a symbol that can have many meanings for different people. It is also explicitly stated to have different meanings by the various characters in the story. The story revolves around Captain Ahab and his pursuit of the white whaling. However, other characters reflect on the significance of the whale.

Moby Dick is the personification of evil for Captain Ahab. Ishmael’s opinion of Ahab’s view of Moby-Dick is that “All evil was personified and made easily assailable by Moby Dick”, as he states (154). Ahab’s hatred stems from his whale stealing his leg. This is a 19th century Puritanical substitution for the bodypart that Melville wasn’t allowed to mention: Ahab’s penis. The loss is a metaphor for Captain Ahab losing his manhood. This is what Moby-Dick did. The loss of a leg is a symbol for the loss of Captain Ahab’s manhood, which was really what Moby-Dick destroyed.

Ahab refers to the personal when he says, “it was Moby-Dick that dismasted me; Moby-Dick that brought me to this dead stump I stand on now…it was that accursed white whale that razeed me; made a poor begging lubber of my for ever and a day!” (138). Ahab says at one point that Moby Dick was the person who dismasted him; Moby Dick was the person that brought me to that dead stump on which I now stand…that accursed whale razeed me, made a poor begging slave of me forever and a day! (138). The words “dismast”, “dead-stump” and other descriptive terms have deep-seated connotations that imply impotence, both in the sense of sexual impotence as well as a larger sense of not being able to fulfill one’s desires or duties. Moby-Dick robbed Ahab of his ability to stand on two legs, both literally and in the sense of being unable to carry out one’s duties or desires.

Ahab refers to Moby-Dick’s inscrutable nature, but this is just Ahab trying to give Moby-Dick a supernatural element, making him seem beyond comprehension. Ahab thinks that Moby-Dick will remain evil because people are unwilling to take the time to learn about the mysterious object of their fear. Ahab does not even try to understand the pure animal instincts that Starbuck may describe, as this makes it easier for Ahab to label Moby-Dick pure evil. He tells Starbuck, “That inscrutable creature is what I hate the most; and whether I’m the white shark agent or principal I’ll wreak my hate on him”(139). Ahab’s hatred for Moby-Dick represents his attempt to make the whale sentient. It is not only a carrier but also an originator of evil.

Ahab becomes obsessed with the idea of infusing the whale’s attributes. Ahab’s obsession is a result of imagination, whereas Starbuck refuses to give the whale any symbolism. Starbuck sees Ahab’s motives as a simple desire to “exact revenge on a stupid brute…that just smote thee out of blindest impulse!” (138). Starbuck’s statement is true. If so, Ahab will be driven to madness. Ishmael has to be sincere when he claims that Ahab’s actions were not solely the result of an unintelligent agent. If Ishmael’s words are true, and if Moby-Dick really did act with some level of conscious awareness, Ahab may be able to avoid accusations of monomania and madness.

It is a crazy idea to think that animals can be conscious at that level, based on the information we have about whales. Other animals do not appear to be capable of a forethought malice. Ishmael expresses the symbolism of the whale in a different observation. Ishmael perfectly captures what the whale means to each person’s consciousness, when he states that “by it indefiniteness…it shadows forth voids without heart and vastness of the cosmos” (164). Ahab’s darker side has taken over and he sees this in the whale. Starbuck, on the other hand, is unable to imagine anything beyond the dumb brute. The whale’s color is a white conglomerate, a promise of many colors. The colors of the whale are only revealed through each man’s individual consciousness, similar to Moby-Dick.

It is difficult to read Tracks, a novel filled with complex and often confusing references. The discord in the story between Pauline Nanapush. The differences in distances between narrators’ accounts and those of the characters, narrators’ accounts and that of the reader and narrators work together to encourage the reader to choose one over the others. The reader’s relationship with each narrator is affected by the narrative distance and closeness of both narrators in terms intellect, emotion and time. Nanapush, despite being a trickster and having a strained relationship with Pauline, can be seen as the most trustworthy and likable narrator.

Pauline is a dual character who narrates the story. This creates an emotional distance and an intellectual distance from her other characters. Pauline can escape emotional turmoil in her Ojibwa society by embracing a self-imposed Catholic martyrdom. Pauline is emotionally and intellectually separated from the other characters despite the fact that it offers a psychological break from the strife caused by the government. She admits to her distance from the Matchimantos: “I said Superior that this was going to be my last trip…They would not have missed me.” After completing the task, I no longer had any interest in this lost tribe of Israel. She is expressing her dissatisfaction with her relationship by saying that this will be her last visit. She has always taken the Christian identity she holds to the highest level. By doing so, it is clear that her characters are not able to grasp or commit themselves to God the way she has. This is why they won’t miss each other. She is so determined to be separate from her Ojibwa past that she becomes frustrated with other characters who are not as religious. It is because of the religious dissonance that she has an intellectual and emotional distance. Combining her disconnection from the characters’ reality, she is able to create a story that is tinged by unreliability.

Pauline’s alternating between her experience at the convent in France and her time back home creates a time fracture in her account. In addition, the fact that some of her recollections are not clear, as in “In The Years To Come, I learned Her” (92), or the period of time covered by each chapter, make it harder to accept the account. It is confusing for the reader to understand when Pauline is receiving information and when she decides to share it with the reader. As long as Pauline is telling the story of the community, it’s easy for the reader to rely on her. But when Pauline decides to join the convent to separate herself from the rest of the world, she loses that sense of timing Nanapush can provide. Nanapush is able to become more close in time as Pauline distances herself. This is apparent when she begins narrating chapter 8. Nanapush narrates that Nector took the money at the end Chapter 7, but Pauline details her own self-proclaimed martyrdom in the beginning of Chapter 8. This transitional positioning in the narrative shows the clear difference between the two narratives. The reader is influenced to choose Nanapush because of this.

Nanapush is more relatable than Pauline at first glance, and it appears to be due to his wit and sincerity. If we look closely at his character, his relatability seems to be based on his closeness with the other characters, both emotionally and intellectually. As he has more time to spend with them, he can relay more information to them about the government problem. His concern for the circumstances in which his people find themselves is a sign of his intellectual and emotional closeness. Quotes like the one below show how emotionally close he was to Lulu or Fleur. The uncertainty of living in a world without a homeland was now a reality for me. I recognized Fleur’s signs” (187). He is willing to go out of the way to speak with Moses Pillager about how to comfort Fleur. Nanapush’s care and concern for the other characters mediates Pauline’s division. Nanapush’s active expressions of his care for the others mediates the divide that Pauline creates to split herself as a distinct entity.

Nanapush has the best overall reputation as a trustworthy and likable character. He can show a closeness to the characters that he interacts with, and to the reader. His assertions about Pauline’s untrustworthiness only make the reader want to believe in him even more. Nanapush’s statement further implies that Pauline is untrustworthy because her separation from religion was a selfish act. He is more concerned about the collective’s well-being than Pauline is. Nanapush’s interconnectedness to the Ojibwa Community allows him, in spite of Pauline’s claim that Nanapush “arranges secrets” and creates “manufactured embarrassments” (196). He is able convince the reader of his ability to convey the most realistic, factual, and appropriate narrative.

Summary of Pygmalion In London’s Covent backyard on a summer’s evening, a bunch of diverse individuals are gathered together to shield themselves from rain under the portico St. Paul’s Church. Clara and Mrs. Eynsford Hill are among the group, waiting for Freddy’s return in a cab. After he fails to find a taxi, he’s sent back out in search. As he departs, he crashes with a flower girl with a thick Cockney-accent, and he destroys many of the flowers.

The flower woman tries to get the elderly man to buy plants by pointing out his remarkable appearance. Colonel Pickering is the gentleman who refuses the purchase of the flowers. He does, however, give the girl money. People in the gang tell the lady not to take the cash because they know that someone is listening to her. The bystanders start to protest when the girl shouts loudly, “I am just the right girl. I’m.”

Professor Henry Higgins – a phonetics expert – is the observer. His focus is on determining the accents and places of birth for each individual. He says he can teach this “ragamuffin”, or flower woman, to speak with the sophistication of a duchess. Now, the older gentleman identifies as Colonel Pickering. This is the author who wrote a Sanskrit booklet and came to meet Henry Higgins. The two men then discuss their shared interest in the phonetics. The two are discussing Higgins’s experiments with Mrs. Pearce at Professor Higgins’ home the following morning.

Eliza Doolittle remembers how Higgins boasted about his ability to teach her to speak like a duchess. She has come for lessons to get a job in a florist shop. Pickering offers Higgins a wager. Higgins agrees in good spirit to make the wager. Mrs. Pearce is ordered to take away the girl, scrub it and burn its clothes. Eliza has no objections to him, so he takes her away. Eliza’s father arrives to blackmail Higgins. Higgins intimidates him so much that he asks him for 5 pounds and immediately gets rid of him.

Freddy Eynsford Hill’s mother and Clara Eynsford Hill are also gifts. It turns out that these are the people who we first saw beneath the portico at the beginning of the play. The visitors don’t know that Eliza had been the “ragamuffin-flower girl” that night. Eliza’s perfect English and her pedantic speech amuses everyone. Her description of the death of her Aunt is also shocking.

After Eliza leaves, Mrs. Higgins reveals that the girl’s public presentation is far from ready. Higgins and Pickering return to the house late at night. They are ecstatic with their success in passing Eliza off as a duchess to an ambassador at a backyard event. They are so proud they totally ignore Eliza. Infuriated Eliza finally throws a pair of slippers at Higgins. Eliza worries about what she will do after the experiment. Will she be thrown into the gutter again? What is her future fate? Higgins doesn’t see this as a problem. He tells her to go home after he has told her the garments she is carrying are hers. Higgins’ mother is shocked to find Eliza missing when Higgins visits her the next morning. After calling the police, he is shocked to learn that Eliza was upstairs.

While Eliza is waiting, Mr. Doolittle comes in and accuses Higgins for ruining his life. Higgins informed a wealthy man of Doolittle’s reputation as England’s best moralist. This man then left Doolittle an immense sum of cash to be used for moral reforms. His wife, who is a common-regulation person, is miserable because he has been forced into a middle-category morality. Eliza is invited to his marriage, another concession made to middle-category morality. Eliza accepts her father’s invitation to the wedding.

Higgins holds Eliza in place as the group prepares to leave. He then tries a little to convince her to return to Higgins’ condo. He insists that he is treating everyone equally. For him, there is no difference in the way he treats duchesses or flower ladies. Eliza has made up her mind to become independent, so she refuses Higgins’ invitation to stay in his apartment. Higgins admits to missing her and admiring her newly found independence. Eliza does not agree with him and leaves to attend the wedding of her father.

This essay compares the letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son with The School for Scandal. The comparison provides an interesting look at society over 200 years old, and what they expected. Brinsley utilizes satire and recognizes issues in society. Brinsley’s play is a satirical comedy that uses satire to ridicule the characters. The genre of the play is a comedy with manners, which has contradictions between character expectations and reality. Chesterfield’s letters are a fascinating comparison. They provide a glimpse into the expectations and behavior of people in positions of authority. Chesterfield’s and Brinsley’s differences as authors allow for a variety of viewpoints. Brinsley is a satirist who aims to entertain, while Chesterfield provides a list with strict guidelines that he believes those in need of them should know. The two are clearly different: the play is used to reflect on an individual’s life and the letters are sent to inform the recipient of the society’s expectations and the way to live in it. Sheridan’s play is written in a way that accurately reflects the upper-class lifestyle and society, which is fundamentally true. The play was created with the intention of raising questions about the gossips and slanders that were at the core of the society. Sheridan used characters to illustrate the negative effects of gossip, lies and slander. She wanted the audience to be aware of their own shortcomings. The gossip spread quickly and could destroy the character of an individual in seconds. Sheridan’s writing is a combination of satirical and humorous lampooning. By satirizing a form of comedy that allows for the delivery of the correct message, Sheridan can ridicule characters in an witty, derogatory, and snide manner. Conversations Between Sir Benjamin Backbite And Crabtree Mr. Surface I was not trying to hurt (…) you, as any man ever has been’. Brinsley uses a deliberate lampoon to ridicule the two characters and their actions. Backbite refers to a man who he initially said had no intention of causing upset in an insulting tone, even though he claimed to have done so with good intentions. ‘Ha, ha, ha! It’s hard for them not to finish a topic they aren’t completely done with. Lady Sneerwell enjoys humiliating those she targets. The individual is reduced to a’subject’ and their humanity is lost. Sheridan uses this portrait to demonstrate how people’s opinions can become distorted, with the intention to harm others just to entertain them. Sheridan, like Brinsley, describes the society’s influence in great detail and with a lot of understanding. Sheridan’s aim is to educate readers on society’s problems, whereas Chesterfield starts to make a guide on how to comply with the standards of society. They are of importance. Chesterfield is seen as a representative of the society and their expectations, and this can be seen in his writing. The language gives the impression that it is imperative for readers to follow instructions. Chesterfield’s and Lady Sneerwell’s opinions are similar. They both express their views on society’s expectations. Sneerwell also has the same standards of manners that Chesterfield does. Both are of the opinion that how an individual is presented can influence their perception. An individual who doesn’t have good manners will be viewed as unworthy, and thus deserving of humiliation. Sheridan recognizes the importance and the politeness in the public’s perception of an individual. Through the use of humor, the satirical writer tries to change the perceptions of the characters and their decisions. The characters of the play live in a world dominated by false manners. Mrs Candour’s false manors are satirized. Brindley’s last name is Candour. Candour represents innocence, purity and integrity. Mrs Candour is a gossip that can spread slander at a rapid rate, removing any respectability possessed by someone in her position. “But, Lord, would you expect me to report such things?” No, no: tale-bearers ‘. Irony in Mrs Candour, who is supposed to be against gossip but enjoys spreading it. Sheridan is deliberately creating a paradox in order for the audience to see how unstable upper-class standards were during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Candour doesn’t admit her own actions, but she does little to prevent slander from ruining someone’s reputation. These women may claim that they have no desire to gossip and are polite, but in reality their actions encourage the spread of gossip. Sheridan’s play encourages reflection on false nature and manners. Ladies Candour, Sneerwell and other characters are portrayed as being rude and unpolite. Sheridan has a talent for borrowing from the sentimental comic tradition which continues in literature. He uses satire to adapt the humor mode, but he doesn’t always use the traditional Horation style of satire. Horace’s satire is funny and witty. It allows ridicule of the stupid aspects of human nature in order to bring enjoyment to the audience. Sheridan was more interested in the domestic side of society than the politics that are usually discussed. Sheridan wanted to remove the admiration of people who would normally respect men for their folly. The satirical style of Juvenalian writing was used to adopt a certain mode of satire. This included certain attacks on certain characters’ behavior and certain speeches. The satirical style is used to convey a message of realism to an audience without being authentic. In his letters to son, Lord Chesterfield demonstrates how important manners are to society and that impoliteness is a major factor in destroying a person’s reputation. Chesterfield uses a satirical tone, but he also adds the aspect of a person’s appearance to the social politeness. Chesterfield also recognizes the importance of manners in Sheridan’s work as a way to express an individual’s social status. Chesterfield however goes further and says that “frequent loud laughter” is indicative of folly (…). There is no other form of ill-bredness or illiberalism than audible laughter. Chesterfield has similarities to characters in The School for Scandal. Chesterfield has similar opinions to The School of Scandal characters. Chesterfield acknowledges society’s ability to judge manners. Sheridan & Chesterfield are both aware of the importance that society attaches to manners. Chesterfield, when reading his other letters to Chesterfield’s son, starts to see manners in a more intellectual sense. He even says that grammar and good manners are essential for a successful person. Orthography is essential to a person with a literary background. Richard Brinsley Sheridan replicates the social climate of 18th-century London through satire. Both texts have the same sneering tone, but the genres and messages are different. The one uses it to make an ironic point, the other to teach and try to prevent malice. Sheridan uses characters such as Lady Sneerwell, Sir Benjamin Backbite and others to reveal the malice of those in high society who enjoy gossiping and slandering other people. As early as the first scene, it is clear that gossip has the ability to cause destruction. The members of the group are not adhering to the expected standard of good manners. The characters are entangled in the business of others and manipulate the situation into a scandal which can ruin a person’s reputation. Sheridan intended to use humor to teach the individual. By combining comedy and slander, the audience can enjoy the contradiction. Lord Chesterfield’s viewpoint is different from Sheridan’s because he does not observe society, but is actually a part. Chesterfield believes that by adding a layer of politeness to the individual’s physical presentation, they can create a more accurate portrayal of society. Chesterfield’s distinct voice is a reflection of the society he lives in. The texts allow for exploration of society by presenting a distinct voice. Overall, both texts shared similarities and differences. Their different perspectives helped them to better understand each other. Richard Brinsley Sheridan. The School for Scandal. Michael Cordner. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford, 2008. P. 219, “Satire Terms”, Nku.Edu. 2017,

https://www.nku.edu/rkdrury =””>. [accessed 29 Dec 2016]. Chesterfield Philip Dormer Stanhope. The Dear Boy Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his Son. (London: Bantam, 1989) p100

If you ask someone to describe the feeling of love, they are likely to give a recent account. We have been influenced by romantic literature, professor interpretations and the notion of a magical series of moments in love. Though most people see love-stories in terms of trust and dedication, they are actually social commentary on the mechanisms that lead to avarice, self-fulfillment, and a desire for power. Love-stories are not true romances, as they contain satire.

George Cukor’s romantic comedies The Philadelphia Story (1940), and The Philadelphia Story (1941) are, in a way, comprehensive comments on the peculiarities human desire. The movie is considered a classic “remarriage” film, a genre created by philosopher Stanley Cavell. The analysis based upon Cavell’s ideas on love elaborates the idea that true love has as its object reality. Cavell writes that the key to mutual love is being aware of one another’s needs. He summarizes the fact that affection is not perfection-seeking, but rather is dependent on judgement and is attentive to one’s true self.

The Philadelphia Story makes this point well. Several scenes in the story show the flaws of Tracy and Dexter’s marriage. Dexter wants Tracy to learn from her past mistakes and not make them again. The reasons Tracy divorced Dexter seemed reasonable at first, but as the film progresses we learn how they both played a role in destroying the other’s character. Tracy’s demands and accusations encouraged Dexter to be an alcoholic. When they weren’t met, Dexter became more addicted. Cavell writes that when Tracy pointed out that Dexter’s drinking problem was hers, he responded “Granted.” However, when you got married to me you became responsible for this problem. Red, you were not a help-meet. You were a critic'” (Cavell 164).

Dexter says to Tracy exasperatedly that she has never listened to her problems, but continues to scold Tracy. It’s easier to wish someone well than to truly be compassionate. Similarly, it’s easier to divorce your spouse than to wait for him to sort out his problems. The comedy “Re-marriage” aims at showing the character’s ability to change their nature and not simply adopt a passive attitude. Cavell writes, ”Importance” is a word that is important to Dexter. As he links Tracy being unable to recall the events of the night in which she became drunk to the fact that she cannot tolerate human weakness.

He mocks Tracy’s upper-class snobbery by contrasting two different adjectives meaning “first class”. Tracy, although raised in a first-class environment, frequently fails to differentiate between what being a decent person means and what it is to be acceptable by the elite. A dull father and the absence of a mother could have contributed to this. Tracy weeps after she ponders Dexter’s words and reminisces about her former marriage. In order to truly be happy and to reciprocate Dexter’s love, Tracy must learn to accept the difficulties that life brings. Tracy and Dexter grow closer when they realize that love for each other is built on understanding the flaws of others. Cavill says that Tracy must learn to accept herself and her fallibility. She can then accept life’s highs and lows.

Cavill’s analysis of The Philadelphia Story sheds some light on how the heart works. He shows that real love comes from facing downfalls and pressures in life and learning to grow. Cavill writes about how Tracy threatened to sink True Love, if Dexter accepted another woman as a passenger. He also describes that Dexter grabbed the person who spoke badly of Tracy and told them that they “still have a wife in me until today” (Cavill 151). The words of these characters have much more power than the rest. Dexter has the ability to manipulate situations using his words, just as Tracy can. George appears to Tracy just before their wedding and they discuss the previous evening. Tracy translates George’s message as a wife “Behave naturally” (Cavill 141). Dexter corrects Tracy in a sly manner by saying, “Behave yourself normally” (Cavill140).

Dexter says that Tracy doesn’t need to follow the social standards of how to treat her husband, but should instead be confident. This is especially true in 1940s when women were not given much respect and were considered housewives. Dexter is quick to respond to George’s attempt to mock Tracy by criticizing his patriarchal society beliefs about the proper attitude for a female. Dexter’s and Tracy’s relationship is authentic, even though they may not always agree on certain issues. They accept the challenges that reality throws their way. Cavell believes that remarriage movies require a transformation of the female character. Tracy’s transformation occurs during the swimming scene, when she becomes aware of her flaws. When Dexter worries about her, she says “Darkly, sire,” Not wounded, but dead.”” (Cavill 141). Tracy’s “rebirth”, which is a rebirth, leads her to discover that she has bad assertiveness. Her first marriage ended because she possessed ‘goddess like’ qualities. Tracy’s rebirth makes her human again and frees her from being locked up in an ivory-tower.

The Philadelphia Story ends with her relinquishing her title, Tracy Lord. This is a sign that she’s been freed from all power issues. Cavell is of the opinion that both men and woman have equal spiritual rights in remarriage movies. Cavell uses Milton’s analogy of love to explain how no one would want to destroy their marriage. They just want to fix whatever is causing the strain. Cavell says that to find true love, you must first understand the depth of your problems. You also need to be patient to maintain strong relationships.