The land has been a vital part of human existence since the dawn of time. Even before the advent of civilization, it was the only thing that mattered to man. Slowly, we learned to manage nature and make it work for us. Today, man has a limited relationship with nature. Roheal Louv writes in the Last Child in the Woods about this sad truth. Louv makes a strong case against man’s captivity of nature by using anecdotes, hypothetical examples, and rhetorical device. Louv makes his case by using an easily understood anecdote. Louv tells the story of his friend being pushed to buy a car multimedia system. He makes it seem like the customer felt the same frustration in his story. The anecdote is made to seem common in order to show that today’s society has a similar attitude towards technology dependence. Louv does not agree with the idea that technology is necessary.

Louv uses juxtaposition in order to continue his negative view of the car-enjoyment anecdote. Louv suggests that his grandchildren will someday hear about a time in which kids used to look out their car windows instead of looking at backseat TV or playing on smartphones. This juxtaposition example’s effectiveness is due to its realistic nature. Louv’s analysis is likely to prove true, even though our grandparents can still recall their childhood without internet or TV. This shockingly realist analysis makes the reader see the urgency of this issue. His description of “fogged” glass/the telephone poles following by/counting horses and cows brings back memories from childhood. He or she is compelled to preserve those memories for future generations. The reader learns that future generations will not experience this same experience if they are separated from nature and humans. Louv’s imagery creates an atmosphere of sorrowful loss that hits home to all who have ever looked out the car window as children.

Louv’s argument depends on anecdotal evidence. He also relies upon rhetorical devices. Imagery is important, but Louv relies more on a personal attachment. Louv subtly states that the problem of nature and humanity is something that all of us have to address. Louv proves that separation is not natural and must be fixed. The fix is possible, and it starts with us.

These events, which are some of history’s most important, have changed society and helped to create the modern world that we live in today. JD Sallinger’s Catcher in the Rye criticizes the new, modern society that emerged in the post-war period. The protagonist, Holden Caulfield is known for his judgmental and critical views on almost everything. JD Slinger uses Holden’s judgmental thought to highlight the problems that can arise from a society built around social class. Holden is trapped and tries to escape his prep school life, but he finds himself in another place in the fall. Holden is adamant about the quality and cost of suitcases at elite prep schools. He considers anyone below him phony, while everyone below him is depressing.

Marxism means that “all wars are class wars” and all conflicts in society result from the division of wealth between individuals. There is no separation between economic and social classes. Holden’s family is in the upper socioeconomical class. This means that they are financially wealthy and socially elite. Holden, a teenage boy who isn’t quite as smart or cool as others, doesn’t see the way he judges others for their economic standing. Holden mentions the suitcases that his roommate has been using for years. It is quite remarkable that Holden can recall such a small item and still associates a whole person with it. Holden refers to Dick Slagle as his roommate and the bags he brought to school with him. Holden even stated, “It doesn’t matter, I know” and still talks about how it hurts when someone has inexpensive suitcases. Holden is adamant that his suitcases came from Mark Cross. They were authentic cowhide and all the other crap. And they were quite expensive.” (page 13). Holden believes that despite his failure at school, he is superior to his roommate for a small item like his suitcases. This is because Marxism has a significant belief that people belong in the same class socially and economically as they are. Sign exchange value means that “a commodity has value only if its owner is a socially privileged person” (Tyson59). Holden is oppressing his roommate by assigning these suitcases a sign-exchange value and assigning them a value. A University of Chicago inquiry reveals how the suitcases are connected to Holden’s capitalist society. “Only few can dream for suitcases, at great cost to many,” the critic said. The only way to enjoy them is to shut out all awareness of the many. Ohmann and Ohmann both state that even those few who are able to afford suitcases can find themselves in a rut because of the antagonistic striving needed to make them secure. Holden’s appreciation of his suitcases is not the only thing that matters to him. The conflict that is caused when others want them is what Holden focuses on. This is how societies that are based on social class and sign-exchange value, like the theory Marxism, can manipulate people into dissociating themselves from one another. JD Slinger uses Holden and suitcases as a metaphor to show how the socioeconomic classes of people can affect the relationships between them. Tyson also looks at how Marxism attempts an analysis of these people and how their class influences their lives. Tyson suggests that Marxist criticism would assess Holden’s negative judgmental thoughts and feelings based on his class as well as his feelings towards the class. Holden criticizes others, but also himself. Holden criticizes situations in which he finds himself in a greater way than those in which he is not. Holden hires a prostitute, but he refuses to pay the five extra dollars she requests. Holden is forced to be in this situation because money (socioeconomic classes) is the key force behind the interactions between Holden, the pimp and his prostitute. Holden feels trapped despite being the one who caused the problem, and having the ability to solve it. This is implied by his use of language (page 44). Holden also suggests that his actions were out of his control by saying, “All the sudden I began to cry.” I wouldn’t trade my life for anything, but I did it.” (page 45). Holden doesn’t even get up after the pimp hits him. Holden says that he stayed there for a while, much like Stradlater. But, this time, it seemed like I was actually dying. It was true. I thought that I was going to drown. I couldn’t breath. Holden may feel trapped, even though Holden is technically in control. He also feels trapped by his lifestyle as an upper socioeconomic class member. This is evident in his attempts (and failures) to escape the pre-school lifestyle. An University of Chicago literary critique points out the importance of Holden’s relationship to school in his view of society. Holden said that he was going west and that school is the way America socializes this imma-ture. He stated that he would “start hitchhiking” his way to the West. The plan I had was to take a ride down to Holland Tunnel. After that, another ride would be taken and the next one would be taken. Finally, I would travel out West and find somewhere beautiful and sunny where no one’d recognize me. Holden was expelled four times from boarding schools. His actions are the reason he chose to leave. He thought this would make him more isolated from the lifestyle of a prep school student in an upper-class community. But it doesn’t. Holden is a regular at a prep school and returns every fall to avoid going West. Holden has been trapped in his socioeconomic group. Holden, despite being part of a privileged social class, is still subject to this oppression. Lois Tyson explains the phenomenon as follows: “The family does not consciously carry out the cultural “program” when raising its children. However, that program is produced in the context of the socioeconomic culture.” (Tyson, page 14). Holden returned to prep school at the request of his family. He was raised in high-class prep school by his parents who were highly socioeconomic. Holden wants to get out of this “cultural programme” because he feels trapped within it. Marxism would use this example to illustrate how Capitalists oppress even the upper class.

Holden Caulfield feels trapped with his lifestyle. He doesn’t know that he is in a consumerist society where social class is the main focus. He doesn’t realize what he is really doing when he criticizes others about their suitcases or breakfasts. Holden is both relatable and frustrating to many. These ideas are not possible to separate from Holden’s experience as part of the socioeconomic elite. Since the advent of the industrial lifestyle, this elite has been around. It is amazing to think that Americans still live within a society that, despite accepting all identities and sexualities and allowing others to flourish, oppresses people of every class. Walmart’s CEOs and owners make billions while their employees are paid minimum wage.

Many great philosophers have used allegory literature to explain their basic principles. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, used a cave allegory in order to explain how human minds interpret the ideal physical world. The Bible contains metaphorical representations that represent God’s will. Romantic poetry also contains philosophical representations. William Wordsworth’s view of nature in “Tintern Abbey,” depicts it as transcendentalist. Percy Bysshe Shelley’s view on reality in the novel “Mont Blanc”, however, is existential. These philosophical preferences are displayed by the creation of nature imagery and their reactions.

Wordsworth describes the stunning scenery of Tintern Abbey as a way to connect with the world. First, he describes the feelings he gets from the Abbey. He feels enlightened and like he’s in a state meditation. Wordsworth’s description of Tintern’s “unintelligible realm” (41) suggests that Tintern helps him to see the divine truths that are often hidden in real life. This is when “we are put to sleep / In body, and we become a living being” (46-7) Wordsworth explained that he is one with nature during his transcendent, meditative relationship with it, and a part the “soul”, which exists in all things. Wordsworth’s philosophical theme comes from this link between the soul with the outside world. This is made possible by the divine qualities found in nature and man. Wordsworth returns to this theme of nature’s universal presence in the poem later, writing, “While an eye made still / By the power, and the deep force of joy, we see into life of all things” (48-50). He gives nature a sense of life by giving it a human touch.

Wordsworth’s belief that there is a fundamental connection between the self, the world and oneself parallels later teachings by transcendentalist philosophers. American transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson went to Europe to see his heroes Coleridge and Carlyle. Wordsworth’s beliefs were reinforced by him. Russell Goodman writes in “American Philosophy: The Romantic Tradition”.

Emerson is a direct bridge between American philosophy & European Romanticism ….Emerson writes about the ideas & projects of European Romantics and American philosophy (34-5).

Goodman’s claims are indeed matched by Wordsworth’s theme in “Tintern Abbey”. Wordsworth’s observation about “the unintelligible universe” (41) is similar to Emerson’s feeling intellect; Wordsworths sense of the “living spirit” (47) is similar to Emersons “marriage between self and world”. Wordsworth also believes in transcendentalist philosophy and poetry. Wordsworth claims that his emotions can help him identify divine qualities in nature when he’s in “that blessed state” (42). Emerson’s writings likewise show that Emerson believes nature and humanity are divine in themselves. He does not defer as much to God as Christians.

Wordsworth’s transcendentalist poetry examines the kinship among man and nature. Shelley, on the other hand, focuses on the individual interpretations of the world. Shelley views the human intellect and senses as key to understanding reality. These are his philosophical ideals about Mont Blanc. Shelley’s “own separated phantasy,” as he calls it, gives importance to his personal experience in the world. It is like he can only see it. Shelley’s poem continues this theme by depicting the world in a constantly changing backdrop, allowing Shelley to be the star of a theater. He writes: “My own, the human mind that passively / Now renders to and is received quickly influencings,/ Having an unremitting interaction / With everything around” (37-40). He emphasizes how his mind is centered on intellect as well as the senses. This gives rise to an individualistic outlook about life. Later in the poem, Shelley questions if he lies / In dream, but does the greater world of sleep / Spread far and inaccessible / Its rings” (54-7). This metaphor reinforces that reality and the universe were created by each individual for their own purposes. Shelley’s philosophy about reality is based primarily on the individual. This is evident when the images create a theme, but there is no reference to any deity or divinity.

Shelley’s “Mont Blanc” reflects the principles of existentialism. This philosophy gained popularity in early 20th century. The central feature of Existentialism is that people can make their own decisions and alter the world. This existentialist idea is reflected in Shelley’s reference to his Mont Blanc experiences and life (36) Marjorie Grene explains in “Introduction to Existentialism”, “existentialism”, a philosophy that asserts as its primary principle that existence precedes essence (2). Examining existentialism’s opposite, that essence precedes existence, can help us understand what essence is. The thirteenth-century Augustinians believed man’s perception of God as infinite was proof of his existence. Existentialism believes that you must begin with your sensuous experience and work your way up to the ultimate intuition of eternal truths. Shelley’s Mont Blanc experiences are based on this logic. To dream, you must first exist. Only then can you feel the essences or fleeting objects of a dream.

Wordsworth’s philosophical ideas rely on emotion, but Shelley’s rely on individual existence. The psychological introspection of the romantics, curiosity about unknowns, and their emphasis on emotion were all considered revolutionaries. Wordsworth and Shelley were both truly innovative with their philosophical ideas. Wordsworth, Shelley, who were both ahead of their time, are responsible for transcendentalism’s and existentialism’s ideas.

Albee believed that life of illusion was wrong because it created a false life content. It’s therefore no surprise that Who’s Afraid is Virginia Woolf’s central theme of ‘truth & illusion’ plays an important role. Albee creates a dramatic story about two couples through the use of critical language and direct speech. Audience members can immediately see that tension is a major part of the eventual confessions, climax and final scene. Truth and illusion will be established through the breaking down characters.

Albee depicts George and Martha as an unorthodox, abusive couple. It creates a sense of mystery and ambiguity and is a play about a dysfunctional, abusive marriage. George and Martha fight constantly and are known to frustrate one another. Albee draws a sharp contrast between the two personalities. George, who is passive and intelligent towards Martha but is also very sad and violent towards her, while Martha is aggressive, violent, assaulting both physically and mentally. It is hard to understand the couple’s relationship as George calls Martha a “sub-human monster” who yowls, while Martha defends her husband’s great qualities as he teaches the games as fast as he can. This creates a false sense of reality that the audience doesn’t know who is lying. Albee suggests that the couple agree that there is no objective reality. George: But we have to keep going as though they did. Martha: Yes, but we must carry on as though we did. The excessive consumption of alcohol during the ‘evening’ increases the tension between characters and makes the disclosure of truth easier. George’s numbness can be seen through his calm and sometimes apathetic demeanour. It is not clear if this is George as he really is or if it is an illusion created by the performers. Martha and George insist that Honey befriend Nick and play several games that are quite revealing. The first Act’s title, ‘Fun and Games’, is a lie. It’s not fun for most people to play the games that the guests are forced to play. Albee suggests Martha play games with George. It is not clear to the audience, however, that Martha and George’s idea of fun is to make fun of their guests. Martha then taunts George and suggests that they will play a play called Hump the Hostesses’. The play’s uncertainty and dubiousness instils fear in the characters, which could lead to a change of meaning.

Albee creates the illusion of George’s son, and Martha believes he is the one to kill him. The couple’s chaotic marriage continues through Albee’s use of metaphors. George believes he can kill their son by playing the game of ‘bringing up baby’. But Martha makes the whole fantasy into a reality, and the audience sees it as madness. George and Martha create an illusion of their son by sharing details about their child. This includes his birth and his hair color. The play’s other characters Nick and Honey are introduced to the imaginary son of the hosts early in the play. There is doubt as to whether George or Martha are lying, but the intention to intimidate and confuse their guests with clever gameplay shows that George and Martha have made a fool of themselves.

Nick and Honey Albee make up the guest list to George and Martha’s after-party. Their marriage is based on illusions and false pretenses. While the couple seem to be a normal, American family, they are not truthful. Their relationship is dominated by the theme of fertility and the absence thereof. They were portrayed as having a natural love, and then a very hysterical pregnancy. However, Nick admits in these scenes that he was only trying to inherit Honey’s wealth. Martha and Nick develop a flirtatious attitude throughout the play. Honey falls asleep in the bathroom at Act Two and they kiss, showing that their marriage lacks truthfulness and communication. Honey is presented as the perfect housewife. However, her actions show that she is an abnormally young person. Honey sucking her thumb and lying in fetal position are just a few of her tendencies. Honey is often described as “slim-hipped”, but she is actually afraid of having children and has taken preventative medication called ‘apple jelly” to make sure she doesn’t. She is moved by George’s and Martha’s stories about their son at the end and decides to have a kid. Albee shows us how she explores truth and illusion through Honey and Nick’s misunderstanding of their marriage. This is just one example of Albee exploring the theme.

Virginia Woolf is mentioned in the title of this play, which brings up the theme of living without illusion. Albee’s play creates illusions from only one perspective, so the characters must fight to maintain their reality. Albee also raises the issue of private and publicly visible images in marriage. This theme suggests artificiality as well as deception. The projecting false images raises questions about Woolf’s theory that humanity is afraid to question reality. This theme is strongly represented in the play’s title, “Who’s Afraid” Virginia Woolf. The title could be interpreted as ‘Who’s afraid of questioning existence?’ and Albee suggests Martha is terrified of this convention of reality in the final moments of the play, as she expresses that she is afraid of Virginia Woolf; ‘I…am…George…I…am’, the overuse of ellipses slows the pace of the speech dramatically, giving the audience a sense of closure.

Edward Albee shows the theme “truth and illusion” through the dissections made of four characters: George, Martha Nick, Honey and Nick in Who is Afraid to Virginia Woolf? The audience can see the tension growing between the characters, which gradually exposes their most intimate truths. This is made evident by the heavy alcohol consumption throughout the play. George and Martha’s devoid marriage is centered around an imaginary son. This shows that reality has no deeper meaning. George or Martha must abandon their illusions to see the truth and expose themselves to each other.

Scarlett O’Hara was a young girl who lived in Atlanta during Civil War time. Margaret Mitchell’s book Gone With The Wind is filled with Drama-filled romance. She wants to return home to Tara, the place she grew up in. Because almost all of the plantations are gone, she has difficulty living in Tara and is having trouble paying the taxes.

Scarlett O’Hara is a daughter of a wealthy, southern family. Ashley Wilkes is her true love. He loves her, but he doesn’t feel that she is truly in love with him. So he marries his cousin to try to have a happy marriage. Scarlett is jealous about Ashley’s marriage and marries Melanie Hamilton, Ashley’s brother. Scarlett marries Wade, her now deceased husband, to have a baby boy. Melanie is going to Atlanta for the Union’s burning of the city. Melanie decides she will leave Atlanta. They leave Atlanta to return to Scarlett’s plantation, “Tara”. They leave Atlanta and return to Scarlett’s family plantation “Tara”. Scarlett, a beautiful woman, has all the men that she loves. Ashley, her long-loved man, will marry Melanie. Scarlett must behave well at Twelve Oaks, warns Mammy. That day there is a new male and that is the day civil war starts. Rhett Butler is with Scarlett as Ashley talks to him about his love for her. However, he cannot be with her since he doesn’t believe that she is old enough nor does he believe she knows what love really is. Scarlett doesn’t realize Rhett Butler is there with them at the time. Charles Hamilton Melanie proposes to Scarlett to be married to him as war is beginning. Ashley hopes that Scarlett will envy her decision. Scarlett marries Charles during the last 2 months. Charles then goes on to fight for The Confederate in war. Scarlett discovers Charles is dead from measles, and she then discovers that she’s pregnant. Scarlett becomes depressed and bored after giving birth to Wade. Melanie and Melanie stay with Melanie’s aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. Scarlett finds it a great place to live and begins to appreciate Rhett more. Scarlett is driven mad by Rhett’s mockery and directness. Atlanta is starving as the war rages. Scarlett’s and Melanie’s safety are their greatest fears. Ashley is captured at Gettysburg and taken to prison. As the Yankee army closes in on Atlanta, they begin closing in. Scarlett longs to be home with Tara but has promised Ashley she would stay with Melanie while she gives birth.

Scarlett asks Rhett to marry her and Scarlett responds “oh yeah”. Scarlett is married to Rhett after a honeymoon at New Orleans. Scarlett is a mother to Bonnie Butler. Rhett grows to love his daughter and starts a successful campaign that aims to bring back Atlanta’s good people. It keeps Bonnie out of being an outcast, like Scarlett. Rhett and Scarlett are happy at the start of Rhett’s marriage. But Rhett soon becomes very bitter towards Scarlett. Scarlett loses the affection she had once for Ashley. Ashley’s jealous older sister India discovers that they have become friends and begins a rumor of an affair. Scarlett is surprised to find that Melanie accepts Scarlett’s side and denies the rumors. Scarlett and Bonnie Rhett lose their daughter in an accident while horseback riding. Rhett is devastated and the marriage becomes unstable. Scarlett realizes that Ashley was not her true love and that Rhett is the one she truly loves. Rhett is still sad and tells Scarlett that it’s been a long time since he had a relationship with her. He then leaves. Scarlett does not know what to do. Scarlett decides that she will return home to Tara, where Mammy, Scarlett’s childhood slave and nurse is waiting for her, and try to figure out a way Scarlett could get Rhett.

My paper draws on the New Historicist Theory and Psychoanalytic Theory to critique my work. The idea of new historicism, a literary theory that focuses on the notion that literature should be analyzed and interpreted in the context of both history and criticism is widely accepted. New Historicism recognizes that literature can be influenced not only by its author’s time and circumstances but also by the reaction of critics to it. These principles are evident in Derek Walcott’s poem A Far Cry from Africa. It has a clear historical context. His poem was affected by the times of Walcott. The psychoanalytic critique points out that literary texts can be compared to dreams in that they reveal the author’s unconscious desires and anxieties. You can see the author’s personal traumas and family history, sexual conflicts, fixations, childhood, and other issues in the literary works. These psychological materials will be disguised, encoded or disguised (as in dream) by using principles such as symbolism’ and condensation’. Derek Walcott is a Black poet. This is why his poem A Far Cry from Africa demonstrates psychoanalytic critique. It concerns the oppression of racial or cultural groups during Africa’s colonial occupation. It also addresses the dilemma Walcott faced after he was born in St Lucia, British West Indies. He realized his mixed race heritage as a child. His grandparents were both black and white. In 1962, A Far Cry was published. It tells the story of a specific rebellion in Kenya that took place during British occupation in 1950s. Mau Mau fighters (members of the Kikuyu tribal) fought an 8-year-long fight against colonization pressure. They saw these conquistadors as illegally conquistadors. This is New Historicist Theory, which Walcott has written. The poet is caught between his love of English language and his ancestral blood ties to the African people who have oppressed him in order for him to survive as a writer. He tried to claim that he lives in Santa Lucia, a faraway island from Africa. His cry is long to reach African shores. The future Nobel Prize winner for literature, in 1948, sold the first verses hand-printed on the streets in Castry, St. Lusia’s capital. He was 23 years old when he broke up with his homeland in 1953. There was no education at St. Lusia’s tiny resort. Derek was awarded the highest literary honors, but it was theatre productions that allowed him to be financially independent. The world survived colonization and slavery. It was a world of stolen history which it had to recover. He, almost by himself, managed the impossible. To give to the slave state, unabated humiliated persons, his protohistory. These verses of poetry will instantly conquer: the nobility and power of the spirit, the humiliating mind of metaphorical scope, and the lack of self-pity and humility. The pride of rhyme, Walcott’s rhyme especially, reveals the intelligence, susceptibility, and potential of this poet. Contrary what popular belief says, poetry can be liberated by rhyme. Derek Walcott is undoubtedly the most liberating poet. This is because he has the most original and modern rhymes. All rhymes are used by him: consonant and assonant, visual, anagrammatical. truncated. compound. Nobody wants to leave the place that made him who he is. The universe is only possible in its smallest parts. The vast majority of the greatest poets never ventured beyond thirty miles of their home. It is a conversation with their experiences. It can be a refugee or exile. Sometimes the poet can be very focused and fixed in his private space. It can become so private, it becomes very fixed, focused. D. Walcott is full of patriotic sentiment, but again not of a military-mobilization nature, as is traditionally the case, and rather cultural, if negative, extremely politicized imperial and colonialist connotations are removed from this definition. This was what drew ire from D. Walcott back home. He was accused not only of lacking patriotism but also of lack of nationalism. D. Walcott can hold a balance between’moderate patriotism, a lack of nationalism and ‘global universelism’ (global unialism). D. Walcott, however, is not a man of unambiguous citizenship. He is the son a native of the Caribbean Islands and Englishman. His views are far from any nationalism ideology. Strategy and politics often lead to the formation or mobilization of sentiments for the creation and maintenance of nation-states. D. Walcott has created multi-layered structures that reflect his multiple levels of understanding of his personal history and the ancestral (in broadest terms) roots of his people through reflections on his cultural memory. Walcott’s work had a strong connection to spirituality, methodism, and spirituality from its inception. He said, “I never separated a poem from prayer.” He said, “I never separated a letter of poetry in prayer.” It never goes away. It’s both a blessing and a gift. It’s gratitude, really. It’s gratitude, really. Your identity is not being renewed, but your anonymity. ‘Poets at Imperial Margins’: the metaphysics and space of poetry. Both poets have a common theme: the Empire. All starts in childhood. These media are all sources of inspiration. Walcott, who was born on an island in the West Indies is a believer that the country’s nature is the source of all the people’s memories and origins. For Walcott, the material is what feeds his poetic imagination and gives him spiritual food. Walcott’s imperial theme and language are closely linked. English was not Walcott’s second, learned language. After learning it as a child, he received an English education in colonial England. His works also include the theme of exile. Poetry was a literary tradition that honored dedication. Many West Indies poets have been forced to choose between English and European culture. Walcott’s way of thinking is a synthesis.

If kindness is being given, it is routinely expected that it will be repaid. It is more common to see kindness being given out in exchange for something of value. It is common to exchange kindness for valuable things such as favouritism, prosperity, and this makes it manipulative. Hidden motives can be used to gain control of not only relationships but also your own destiny. The Handmaid’s Tale’s Offred treats her commanders Serena Joy, The Commander, and her best friend Ofglen with kindness to ensure her well-being. Offred in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale uses kindness and deceit to mask her inner thoughts to fulfill her belief that she is destined to be a handmaid.

Offred’s calm and gentle nature are normal in her position as Handmaid. But Offred’s treatment toward Serena Joy is different from her usual attitude. Offred knows Serena Joy well and has worked hard to live up her matern’s expectations. Offred is well aware that speaking was not the best way to go, so she keeps quiet and serves as a servant. But she knows deep down that she will be rewarded if she does her job well. Offred is a rebel because of this inner belief. Offred acts out in small rebellions, even though she talks and acts the way she should. Offred, however, still considers herself an independent, free-thinking woman. Offred believes this is the key to her freedom. Offred can gain some independence by pretending to be in servitude. Serena Joy will allow her to do this. Offred eventually achieves independence with the help of Serena Joy. Offred receives a cigarette, match, and other small gifts. Offred has to be open to Ofglen’s rebellion if she wants to share it. Offred acts in this manner by greeting Offred with the forbidden greeting “Hello” while mocking Gilead devotees with “I believed you were true believers.” Offred also uses this greeting to greet Offred. By speaking their minds and acting this old-fashioned way, Offred is establishing their friendship. Offred is only willing to share information about underground resistance. This behaviour makes Offred uneasy. Offred only shows kindness to Ofglen to manipulate her. It is clear that Offred doesn’t identify with Gilead, but she doesn’t identify with resistance movements. Offred is a rebellious and kind-hearted woman who does this to protect her survival.

Offred works hard to please her ultimate master, Commander. Offred recalls an incident in which a Nazi guard “wasn’t a monster” to his wife. Offred sees the situation of the wife and compares it to hers. Offred discovers that the Commander is her oppressor, but she can still use his affection for her benefit. Offred builds a relationship with the Commander by showing kindness and accepting his requests to visit her after hours that are acceptable to her. Offred is now able use the kindness of her Commander to obtain whatever she wants. Offred has been rewarded with magazines and moisturizer, which is a good sign that her kindness has protected her future. While she is currently living in the home of Serena Joy and Commander, Offred can rest assured that she will survive because of her relationship with the Commander. Offred shows that her greatest weapon is her kindness.

It is common to expect kindness, and this is evident in Offred’s life. Offred is willing to share her kindness for things like magazines and cigarettes, but also for intangibles like control, affection, and information. The principle of kindness makes it possible to achieve total subsistence. Offred’s behaviour in her relationships is what ensures her survival. It also allows her to take control of her destiny.

John Donne’s Holy Sonnet 7 uses allusions to create emotions. The poem also portrays the conflict between sinfulness and holiness. The poet is clearly describing the transformation between overwhelming guilt and earnest devotion to faithfulness by carefully analysing Sonnet 7. This sonnet ends with hopefulness but is only a small part of the Christian relationship with God. Donne’s collection of Holy Sonnets reveals Donne’s obsession with death and fear of his eternal damnation.

Sonnet 7 is a song that depicts the human fallibility and depravity. It also conveys guilt and a struggle within, but it also shows God’s redemptive power. Donne used a structure divided into sections. The rhyme scheme for the first eight words is abbaabba, and it follows the same format as the Italian Sonnet. As the first eight line contain the most aggressive images, Donne’s hatred of himself is intensified. Donne begins the poem saying “Spit in mine face ye Jews” and “Pierce my side”,/ Buffet, scourge & crucify/ I have sinned/ The order of these six verbs creates a crescendo as the violence increases from the spitting to the face to Christ’s crucifixion. It is important to keep the rhyme scheme intact. The eight lines have the same abab ending rhymes. This rhyme scheme portrays the speaker’s anger and guilt as he realizes the extent of his sins. Sonnet 7’s 7th quatrain refers to Christ’s suffering during his death on the cross. The poet is aware of how heavy his sins are, which is emphasized by repetitions of “For I am sinned, but sinned”. His own awareness of his sins motivates him tell the Jews that he will be crucified as Christ did to them. At the end, you will see a colon. This is the transition. The rhyme scheme is the same, so the transition isn’t a distinct idea. Beginning line five signifies a change in tone. The word “but” is used to indicate that the speaker wants to express in these four words the transcendent glory of Christ’s cross. His suffering and death are “unsatisfactory” because they do not have the redeeming power Christ. He interlaced words like “impiety, inglorious”, with “glorified” to show his readers that the Jews had crucified a man whom they thought was “inexplicable” since they didn’t know he was God’s Son. However, it is even more shocking that the speaker is aware of Christ’s “now glorified” status, but continues to “crucify him every day.” This is because the speaker is reflecting on Christ’s sins. Sonnet 7’s last six lines are split into four lines, which follow the rhyme pattern cdcdd and end with a rhymed pairt, ee. This rhyme scheme changes the tone of the poem from guilt to wonder and amazement in recognition of Christ’s sacrifice and love. The speaker adds in line 9 that “Oh let’s him then, his weird love still admire,” marking an abrupt contrast in tone from octave or sestet. Why would Christ suffer for a sinner? The concept of Christ’s unending love and sacrifice is one that the poet does not understand and stands in awe. Lines 11-12 are used as an allegory in connection to the Old Testament. Jacob, the son Isaac, is Esau’s younger brother. Jacob, the son of Isaac is the younger twin to Esau. Jacob was “clothed, in vile, harsh attire” with “gainful intent,” but God gave Jacob the blessings that would have been given to Esau through the patriarchal lineage. Jacob still has to wear “vile Man’s flesh” which exposes him for all the sufferings and temptations this world offers. To highlight the wickedness inherent in human nature, the word “vile” appears twice. Sonnet 7 is therefore not just a sonnet about seeking justice or allowing guilt-ridden sufferings to consume him, but it also presents the Christian man’s daily life. He will sin and cross Christ every day, but he will never be ashamed of his actions. Instead, he will seek to repent in prayer and reflect on God’s goodness. This poem is a powerful example of the great redemptive power that Christ’s divinity and humanity can bring to bear.

This sonnet is one of Donne’s Holy Sonnets poems. Therefore, it is important that you see how Sonnet 7 matches the themes in his other sonnets. Donne’s sonnets are named after themes such as sin, grace, redemption. Sonnet 7 is about God’s amazing sacrifice. But we must remember the wickedness of humanity and the temptations of Satan to get us to Christ. The Holy Sonnets all seem to show that God is not only loving but also forgiving. However, those who violate His Word will be punished. Christ’s extraordinary love cannot and should not be used to cause misery or fear. The speaker uses Biblical allusions to illustrate the powerful relationship he has both with God and the amazing and confusing love that Christ shows.