Other characters are imbued with other instincts such as Piggy who totally civilized with no apparent wilding attributes. However, another character, Roger is not capable of understanding the rules of civilization. The author seems to convey that the instinct for savagery is more natural to humans than the desire for civility. The author implies that when left to their own devices, most people revert to savagery and barbarism. Balancing out this innate evil, which is central to the story, is Simon who is naturally good.

The boys’ progression on the island from well behaved children awaiting rescue to little more than savages who decide never to return to their old life represents the loss innocence that we all go through as we grow from childhood to adulthood. The author illustrates this as a natural occurrence due to innate tendencies rather than something that is the result of their circumstances on the island. The Lord of the Flies tends to echo some images and themes found in the Christian Bible. The author never makes any direct connections but some contend the Bible themes are an underlying motif in the novel. For instance many believe that the good character Simon’s glade in the forest harkens back to the Garden of Eden because the glade was a clean, orderly and uncorrupted space on the island. Others equate Simon with Jesus and the Lord of the Flies with the devil. Simon is killed by the other boys in the book after coming to a moral conclusion. He is sacrificed by the others.

However, one of the problems with equating Simon to Jesus is that Simon has no supernatural connection to God, which is Christian tradition when it comes to allegory. His death also did not bring salvation to the island. In fact, it gets worse on the island, more savage. At the beginning, Ralph and Piggy find the conch shell on the beach and use it to call the others together because they were separated by the crash. The conch shell has come to represent civilization and order in the minds of most readers. In the group the boy who holds the shell is the one who speaks. As civilization breaks down the conch shell loses its power over them.

The boulder that Roger rolls onto Piggy also crushes the conch shell, signifying the demise of the civilized instinct among almost all the boys on the island. The shell is broken when Roger rolls a rock onto Piggy who was holding it at the time. Despite his nickname, Piggy is the most intelligent and rational boy in the group. His glasses are taken to represent intellectual endeavor. The lenses are used to start fires and to focus sunlight. The glasses are later stolen after the boys break down into tribes. The tribes refuse to share devolving even further. Other symbols within the book are the signal fire used to represent the boys’ connection to civilization. There is an imaginary beast that signifies the primal instincts present in all humans. The Lord of the Flies, which is actually a severed head impaled on a stick as an offering to the imaginary beast, symbolizes the evil lurking within all.

In 1692,  would find themselves in the setting of Puritan New England, the famous setting of the Salem witch trials; New England was a deeply religious area and Salem was no less- it would be quite a feat for John to lie and claim that he was a witch. The life of a puritan settler revolved around the church- it was even considered unwise no to show up for mass… could see it as dangerous; and lying could be nothing less than a strict offense against god. John, as the reader knows, has a hard decision- should he lie and be able to take the fact that he will know for sure that he will be going to hell? Or could he go to rope, honorable and holding out the truth until the very end, and will die pure and free- leaving for heaven? He knew he could never fit back into a religious society afterwards, and knew no matter what he did, he would never be able to make up for the horrible action of breaking of the main offenses against his god. For if he did lie, and went along with every else who have previously d so, he would be returning to a completely different life. Leading a life that large of a sin would leave a lead weight on his shoulders wherever he went, and possibly he would never be able to get over it mentally. If the pressure from religious beliefs and ideology are heavy enough, along with other combined effects, the cause could be straight forward- death.

How could a man like John Proctor, who was looked upon and respected, let his name be ruined and well as already be condemned to hell? He was a man who villagers would look up to, his ideas and thoughts were respected and he was generally thought of as a good man. In other words- his name was clean and white, and he was free to do what he was wished with no dark looks given to him from disapproving people passing by. He was a role model- and that was extremely important to him. The thing that mattered to him the most was his children, and what he appeared to them- a man who has sunk as low as would be doing; he would never be able to feel proud again (Miller 150). Not only that, but once the respected John Proctor had given in, the court would use his confession against him- trying to persuade them into thinking what the court was doing, was indeed the right thing to do. Should the others currently in jail follow his example, and commit their lives to damnati on too?  It is indeed possible that Proctor would take that guilt upon himself, putting it on a body already weighted down with many wrong actions. No only would be misleading people, but his name would be used to support this horrible lie- taking a sin even farther than it originally was. In the time period, a name meant everything to a person, and  could not let another simply let it be whipped all over his face, it held honor and righteousness…and if John would have confessed his named would have been used too far for evil in his mind, that no  could live to commit.

What if, this was all a very bad idea, to die over simple ideas that he could easily look past, letting his scars heal with time? Living in small town would have caused trouble, everyone knew who their neighbors and what they did and had, and there was no evading a past. Other people would have treated him differently from the beginning for a good deal amount of time, and his name would have been scarred for life; the talk and treatment given by others would slow down the healing process for decades. Another thing; Proctor had already created a major sin by having an affair with Abigail. It was already evident those months after the discovery of the affair that he was still not completely, and with the major ordeal the trials and the large effect they would leave on his life- he would never be able to live with himself. Not only that, but his name would be burdened. Today it easy for  to simply leave to a new town or state, lie and start fresh- for records such as crime could be kept a secret. Yet four hundred years ago, it was quite different, travel was hard and in the small world that Proctor lived in, escaping what had happened would be like outrunning rain. So in the end, the guilt would have killed John, what with the many different faces that he took from and placed it upon himself, even if he had evaded the rope.

With all of that combined, if John Proctor had decided to live and confess to the lie of being a witch, the life he would lead soon after would be a miserable. Full of guilt from many different sources; religious, bad names and loss of honor would leave him a very empty person. Perhaps today it would still remain a choice that would make no logical sense, but to Proctor and when he lived, it had a right choice written all over it. But the good part is that he had made the best decision for himself, and went to his death with glory and pride, with no a fleck of guilt on his mind.

Author: Unknown

A robust piece of literature and love induced psychoses in, “The Rape of Lock.” On the other hand, “The Eve of St. Agnes” told a tale of life, love, death, and eternal fate in heaven. These two brilliant writers have given two magnificent poems. Pope exhibits many characteristics of a narcissistic human being. His independence in life shows through his writings in fiction. Which inevitably portray his deeper feelings of life. Popes’ efforts here are of outstanding quality. However, his poem did fail to convince Arabella to résumé her engagement to Lord Petre. Most of Pope’s efforts here were written with time. Now, Keats has romantically serenaded his reader with descriptive lust and desire, which can be compared with popes’ efforts by the difference in eighteenth century literature and romantic poems, their descriptive natures and ideas they portray to the reader through their writing.

Pope has written an eighteenth-century poem which he calls, “An Hero-Comical Poem.” This poem has exalted an over all sense of worthlessness for common rules. The mentioning of Achilles and the ever-popular Aeneas, are symbols of Pope’s Gothic style. Pope speaks (almost) G-D like throughout, “The Rape of Lock.” Contrary to Keats, who is more down-to-earth with his sense of realism in his writings.

In the beginning of Keats romantic premise to life in St. Agnes, all is cold. The opening sequence brings a sense of realism to this bitter cold scene. Cold owls, rabbit’s, and numb fingers on a holy, “Beads man.” The Beads man symbolizes the sense of age and spirit. Much of this poem is a test of Keats inner soul or spirit. He has lead himself to St. Agnes for his own personal account of life in a time long gone. Keats’ romantic style has brought visionary raw emotion to the aching hearts of all his readers. Then, both poems go separate ways in their tales of body and spirit.

Taking account of all differences in these two works, has brought out a sense of unknown extasy. Pope displays morality with his own twists on fate and man kind’s inability to rationalize right decision making in life. He complicates this with, “Moral superiority” and his visions of old styles blended with his attitude for recognition. Pope has indulged the reader in consistent religious order, and awkward justice for mankind. However, when viewing Keats poem stanza by stanza, much is revealed. Keats’ tale starts as a direct eagerness for future considerations. His image of love and old age creates a stifled knot in the stomach of the reader. Enthusiastic resistance is overcome by Keats smooth flow, and harmonizing beauty in heaven. Angels and death are brought together like osmosis. His ability to start off in a cold bitter atmosphere of regret, and then sway the reader’s emotion to a peaceful loving atmosphere is in itself astonishing. Desire brings Keats to the heightened point of emotional gratification within, “The Eve of St. Agnes.” St. Agnes is such a peaceful age-old memory for Keats. He presents strength when pain is being inflicted. His early images of purgatory, show Keats in a bind of human emotion and regret for past sins. However, Pope does this as well throughout, “The Rape of Lock.” Although, Pope is less likely to find a happy medium in his tale of tolerance. He does manage to relinquish all his desires for the sake of his own inner strength. This strength is portrayed more intensely through his soul.

Memories are key to the anguish of the poem. In all of Keats mediocre issues come love and honor. The entire tenth stanza is caused by the emotions involved with love. However, this must leave some readers at a loss. Keats doesn’t seem to really care whether anybody understands him. Keats only concern is to repent and achieve harmony in life with his body and soul. Each of these two poets has signified their lack of realism with a substantial concern for age-old myth, and undeniable love. The portrayal of love in each poem has brought most of the emotional satisfaction from the reader. Hence, having observed these two magnificent artists for their personal adherence to the reader, it is necessary to delve into the emotional collaboration of imagery and its effect on the mind, body, and soul of the two sides involved in each reading.

Imagery can sustain many possible contradictions on the writer’s intentions. For instance, Keats hides his characters (Porphro and Madeline) in order to present a more lustful in-depth love. Safety is a key to Keats’ prolific attitude on the secrecy of a woman’s virginity. A wholesome outlook is always in the future, it would seem. However, this outlook is never reached throughout the poem. In comparison with Pope, Keats has distinguished himself in his writing. Pope relies on old myths and obscure legends in order to achieve his outcome of clarity. Each writer has their own hero of the day. In each writer’s mind is the idea that one can be g-d through their own scripture. Each must be excused for not always being able to know what is still real and what is fiction in life. Their expensive minds have brought their own personal truth to light. Can they hear the crying of their love sick pasts? In classic style, Pope has brought dreams to reality. While Keats has more realistically attended to his personal experiences. In addition to women, love, g-d, sex, soul, mind, and body, Keats and Pope have taken different outlooks on many similar issues. Keats has given the reader a more intense feeling of desire and lust, then Pope. However, when myth and love collide Alexander Pope has answered with his tale of g-d’s, angels and afterlife. As an empirical narcissistic person, I have romanticized about the romances Keats has described. His inner thoughts are more clear, then those of Pope. Additionally, Pope is more morbid and in a way sour about his shortcomings in life. Which are expressed significantly in many of Pope’s images. For instance, “poetic eyes” is used by Pope on line 124. This image can be expressed as a better way for the reader to see that life imitates art! Now, viewing both works in detail has brought out an arousal of insecurity and misunderstood quality. However, each has distinguished its own identity by its style.

Referring back to the comparison of Pope and Keats styles can be quite an enhancement upon the cerebral context in each poem. Pope has strictly concerned himself with literary merit, and ghostly apparitions of old tales that haunt all writers of the possibility for brilliance. Keats however, has staked his claim as a romantic idealist of love and thought. Mind, body and soul are key factors in both of these works. Heaven is portrayed as a savior to man, and an unforsaken goal for others. Spirituality reigns deep within the hearts of both Keats and Pope. Consequence is not an issue, but the ability to repent through words of wisdom is. This is what keeps Keats and Pope sane(As well as many other writers, including myself). With wisdom comes age, and with desire comes lust.

Therefore, romantic poets need to be preserved for their tremendous ability to stretch the common ability to comprehend all of life’s trials and tribulations as seen here in all its glory!

The illumination of salvation through violent means is essential because “both O’Connor and her God are ironists [unyielding] . . . her heros are willful characters who must be humbled in learning that the will of God must prevail” (Master-pieces 497).

O’Connor portrays two varieties of sinners who possess either excessive pride or aggressive evil traits. The price of redemption is high. O’Connor violently shocks her characters, illuminates their shortcomings, and prepares them for redemption as seen in: “A Good Man is Hard to find,” “Revelation,” “The River,” and “The Lame Shall Enter First.”

Walters reasons, “The instruction of pride through lessons of humility is, in each story, the means by which the soul is prepared for its necessary illumination by the Holy Spirit” (73). The grandmother in “A Good Man is Hard to Find” and Rudy Turpin in “Revelation” is each convinced that she is a lady of elevated status. When threatened by superior beings, their self-imposed facades fall. Inherent human weaknesses are not tolerated and the faulty soul is damned or violently returned to reality (Walters 72). In The Habit of Being, O’Connor emphasizes: “My devil has a name . . . His name is Lucifer, he’s a fallen angel, his sin is pride, and his aim is destruction of the Divine plan” (456).

The grandmother is extremely prideful and identifies herself as a “lady” as O’Connor reveals in the clothing description:

The children’s mother still had on slacks . . . but the grandmother had on a navy blue straw sailor hat with a bunch of white violets on the brim and a navy blue dress . . . trimmed with lace . . . In case of an accident, any one seeing her dead on the highway would know at once that she was a lady. (A Good 11)

When the grandmother’s trivial scheming causes the family to leave the paved road in search of a misplaced plantation, they do have an accident. Her cat, Pitty Sing, which she insists travels with them, pounces on Bailey’s shoulder and causes them to crash. Unfortunately, the grandmother seals the family’s fate when she identifies their rescuer as the Misfit. While her family is executed, the grandmother pleads for mercy by appealing to the Misfit’s moral, family and religious values. The grandmother finally releases her hubris and experiences compassion as she exclaims: “Why you’re one of my babies. You’re one of my own children!” (O’Connor, A Good 29). This demonstration of selflessness is evidence that the grandmother has at last been admitted to grace.

The Misfit says, “She would have been a good woman . . . if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life” (O’Connor, A Good 29). The grandmother’s life must be endangered to reveal that everyone is equal in God’s eyes.

Like the grandmother, Rudy Turpin knows she is a lady. Confident in her conviction of inner superiority, she habitually categorizes people as “white trash,” “niggers,” or “homeowners” (Walters 110). In her nightly prayers, she thanks God for her elevated status in life (Walters 25). Turpin’s neat little categories are first challenged by a hot-tempered girl, symbolically named Mary Grace. After witnessing Mrs. Turpin’s inflated projected self-image, Mary Grace physically and verbally assaults Mrs. Turpin. Mrs. Turpin again questions her superior status when the black laborers dutifully sympathize with her anguish. “Mrs. Turpin knew just exactly how much Negro flattery was worth and it added to her rage” (qtd.in Walters 125). Beyond frustration, she challenges God in the pigpen, screaming: “Who do you think you are?” (qtd.in Walters 112). In the climax, Mrs. Turpin is finally torn from her inflated self-image when the clouds part and she discovers herself on the bottom steps of Heaven’s stairway (Walters 107). With the intervention of the divine grace, Mary Grace, Mrs. Turpin accepts the truth and discovers humility.

The use of violence is necessary for O’Connor to remind readers that they cannot begin to understand God’s grace, but acknowledging graciousness, however shown, and understanding that all are equal in His eyes is the onset of salvation (Masterpieces 497). These sinners are the violent instruments used to reveal human faults. God’s intervention of grace can come in any form. Rufus in “The Lame Shall Enter First” and the Misfit in “A Good Man is Hard to Find” demonstrate aggressively evil sinners. Characters choose whom they will serve and they must accept the inevitable consequences of their choice. Still, the sinners may be saved.

Rufus is the hostile delinquent who fends for himself by stealing. He believes he is under “Satan’s” power to commit crimes against man and nature. Yet, he will automatically be saved on Judgement Day because “the lame shall enter [heaven] first” (Bain et al. 370).

Rufus, malicious as he is, sees through Shepard’s projected image and calls him “that big tin Jesus” who makes “immor’l suggestions!” (Bain et al. 391). Rufus’s arrest and accusation are the violence necessary to illustrate Shepard’s hypocrisy. Walters suggests that although Rufus’ actions are destructive, he struggles against “an insistent pull toward salvation.” He steals a Bible to teach Norton basic religious principals, demonstrating that he has not forsaken God. His “devouring” of the pages validates his faith (102). Walters further implies that without God, Rufus will continue his life of crime and be damned; with God, Rufus may become a preacher. He must choose (104).

Dorothy McFarland, editor and critic points out that the Misfit’s actions are more terrifying than Rufus’s, because he remains well-mannered while committing sinister acts against society (19). He politely apologizes to the grandmother for appearing before her without a shirt and asks if she would “mind calling the children” (O’Connor, A Good 21). The fugitive Misfit “cannot find salvation or meaning to life” because he is aware of his “fallen condition” in a society of people oblivious to their faults. Without God, a “good man” doesn’t exist and with God, he knows that he is a “sinner” (Masterpieces 498).

Even though each story contains violence, a story is more horrific when an innocent child is the victim. Walters explains that a spirit is better off violently escaping surrounding evils by dying, than existing in a “living hell” without religious guidance (76). Norton in “The Lame shall Enter First” and Bevel in “The River” are examples of the innocent victims. Again, Salvation is extremely costly, yet in O’Connor’s eyes, redemption is worth the cost at any price.

Norton’s struggle to accept his mother’s death without his father’s support leaves him severely depressed. Shepard substitutes human intelligence for religion and considers himself a surrogate priest who hears confessions of misguided teenagers. Shepard dismisses Norton as selfish and lacking potential. Rufus is Shepard’s special project, because he is “the most intelligent boy he had worked with” (Bain et al. 391).

Norton, being very impressionable, starving for attention, and ignorant of basic religion is enlightened by Rufus. Even though Shepard chooses to ignore God, Norton needs some form of faith to explain his mother’s death. Rufus supplies answers and convinces Norton that he can locate his mother in Heaven and join her there if he goes while he is still a child. Unfortunately, he hangs himself, but according to Rufus, he is with his mother.

Another example of the absence of faith is the tragic death of Bevel. The child is consistently exposed to a corrupt society from malicious playmates and his parents’ circle of friends. While his parents nurse a hangover, the babysitter, Mrs. Connin introduces Bevel to religion. Bevel, totally oblivious to religion, fails to recognize a picture of Jesus. In a search for more knowledge of the divine, he steals Mrs. Connin’s book of “gospel truth.” The book convinces Bevel that he was “made by a carpenter named Jesus” (O’Connor, A Good 38).

Without comprehension, he is baptized in the “River of Life” to take away his “pain” (O’Connor, A Good 40). Bevel understands only the literal truth of the preacher’s baptismal sermon. Believing that the river would not accept him the first time, Bevel sets out to baptize himself and “keep on going this time until he [finds] found the Kingdom of Christ” (O’Connor, A Good 51).

Both Norton and Bevel are rescued from their negligent parents. They are not abusive parents; however, they are negligent because they choose to ignore God. As Walters has noted, neither child has reached the age of reason nor consciously contemplates suicide, “both die in a state of grace” (76).

O’Connor’s two sinners, the prideful and the evil, must be violently shaken to see reality or damned to eternal punishment. Awareness of God’s grace does not come easily to these people. The truthful illumination of their soul may cost their own life or that of an innocent victim. As pointed out in Masterpieces of American Literature, “God’s mercy is not a soothing balm[,] but a burning flame that purifies the sinner” (498).

Works Cited

Bain, Carl. E., Beaty, Jerome & Hunter, J.P. The Norton Introduction to
Literature. 5th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995.

“Grace.” The New Encylopedia Britannica: Micropaedia. 1990.

McFarland, Dorothy, Tuck. Flannery O’Connor. New York: Fredrick Ungar, 1976.

O’Connor, Flannery. A Good Man is Hard to Find. San diego: Harcourt, 1976.

O’Connor, Flannery. Habit of Being. Ed: Sally Fitzgerald. New York: Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux, 1979.

“O’Connor.” Masterpieces of American Literature. Ed. Frank N. Magil. New
Jersey: Saturn, 1993.

Walters, Dorothy. Flannery O’Connor. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1993.

The apartment that Amanda, Laura, and Tom Wingfield share is in the middle of the city and is among many dark alleys with fire escapes. Tom and Laura do not like the dark atmosphere and their mother always tries to make it as pleasant as possible. The two women do not get out much to socialize. Amanda sometimes goes to D.A.R. (Daughters of the Revolution) meetings, but Laura does not like to socialize at all. She has a slight limp and is extremely shy with people. When she does leave the apartment, she falls. She is unable to function in the outside world.

As previously stated, symbols play an important role in The Glass Menagerie. Symbols are substitutions that are used to express a particular theme, idea, or character. One symbol that is used over and over is the fire escape. This has different meanings to the characters. For Tom, it is a place where he can escape to. It is where he goes to escape from his mother¹s nagging. He is open to the outside world when he is on the fire escape. It is his way out. For Laura, it is where the gentleman caller enters and where the outside world is brought inside to her. But to Amanda, the fire escape is not only where the gentleman caller enters, but where he will come in and rescue her daughter from becoming a spinster.

Amanda feels that if the gentleman caller comes, then he will rescue Laura. The problem is that Jim, the caller, has not even met either of the two women yet. Amanda assumes that he will be the one for Laura. She has a difficult time distinguishing between reality from illusion. The same way she refuses to acknowledge Laura¹s handicap. She does not refer to it as a handicap, but rather as a ³little defect,² that is hardly noticeable.

In addition to the fire escape, Williams uses Laura¹s glass menagerie as an important symbol throughout the play. It represents Laura¹s sensitive nature and fragility. She is very innocent, very much like the glass that she polishes and looks at. Eventhough, it is very fragile, when put in the light the glass shines and produces a multitude of colors. This is the same way as Laura. When Laura is enrolled at the Business School she becomes very shy and embarrassed, hence causing her to become ill in the classroom. She can not bare to face those same faces again the next day and decides to give up on going to her classes.

Laura chooses to spend her time with her tiny glass animals, and she treasures them more than actually participating in daily contact with other people. She does not want to become involved with the world outside of their apartment. She prefers the comfort of her home and of her glass animals. Laura is just as easily broken and hurt as the glass unicorn, and she is just as unique. When Jim accidentally bumps into the unicorn and breaks it, the unicorn no longer looks unique. It becomes like all the rest. During that time, Laura feels more accepted and less self-conscious. She begins to open up and glow. Jim notices this and takes advantage of it by dancing with her, and, eventually, kissing her.

Part of the innocence Laura has lost is symbolized in the breaking of the unicorn. When Jim tells Laura of his engagement she is heartbroken. She no longer feels that uniqueness she once shared with the unicorn, but becomes more common like Jim.

Therefore, when she gives the unicorn to Jim she is giving him her broken heart. She gives him something of hers to take with him when he leaves and, in a way, he has left something with her. He has only left her with shattered hopes. It is clear, at this point, that Laura and her glass menagerie break when they both become exposed to the outside world, represented by Jim.

In the same manner, although not very major, the use of rainbows and cigarette smoking are minor symbols in the play. The rainbows signify the hope in the future. Tom exhilarates Laura when he pulls out the rainbow-colored scarf and tells her how the magician changed a bowl of goldfish into canaries. He is thinking of the time when he will be able to escape also. In addition, at the end of the play Tom is speaking about looking into shop windows and seeing the pieces of glass perfume bottles, which remind him of Laura. He sees their rainbow-colored glass and remembers how his sister used to protect her glass animals. But, in the end, the rainbows, which at first were positive, all end in disappointments to each person.

Tom¹s use of cigarette smoking is a symbol of his constant strive for individualism. He is pursued by his mother to not smoke as much, but he does anyway. Neither Laura nor Amanda smoke, leaving this pleasure to only Tom. He can go out on the fire escape and smoke his cigarette knowing that neither of the other two will have a say in his decision. He escapes the everyday racket of his mother by smoking. Although, not as significant as the other symbols, Tom¹s cigarette smoking is one way he tries to relate to the outside world.

All of the characters in The Glass Menagerie retreat into their own separate worlds to escape the harshness of life. None of them are capable of living in the present. Each of them avoids reality in their own way.

For example, Laura is only able to live in the present very briefly. She retreats back into her little world of glass animals and listening to her old phonograph records. Even when it appears that she is overcoming her extreme shyness with Jim, she immediately goes back to playing the records on the Victrola after she finds out that he is engaged. She is more comfortable and less vulnerable in her own world.

In addition, Amanda is very obsessed with the past. She is always telling Laura and Tom about the time when she was younger and had received seventeen gentlemen callers. She considers those times to be better days than the present or the reality. She has difficulty in facing the fact that she is a single mother with two children.

Also, Tom becomes caught up in the past after he leaves home and is wandering the streets thinking about Laura. He had gone to movies and wrote poetry at work to escape the reality of living at home. It was his responsibility to support his mother, his sister, and himself with his work at the warehouse. He wanted to become a poet, but he was pressured by his mother to become responsible enough to take care of his sister. She wanted him to find Laura a mate that could rescue her. Actually, this search was a search for reality. Without that link to the outside world, they would continue to live in their world of delusions. Unfortunately, Tom left home, as did his father, and continues to be haunted by his memories of Laura.

Jim, on the other hand, tends to try to live his life in the present. He is that link to the outside that the family needs. He only lives temporarily in the past, only when he enters into the apartment. Jim is not happy with working at the warehouse either. He is taking night classes and wants to become an executive someday. He becomes the high school hero again when Tom and Laura remember his glory days. They are the only ones that give him the feel of importance, of self-worth. Jim talks about how he was constantly surrounded by women and he feels a bit disappointed that his future did not turn out like his high school days.

Jim is the only character in the play that still has a sense of reality. Eventhough he reminisces about high school, he still remembers that he is engaged. As Laura can not handle the outside world, Jim can not handle Laura’s world. He eventually stumbles and breaks the glass unicorn. Neither of them are comfortable.

In The Glass Menagerie, Tennessee Williams wrote about the struggles of an American family during the Depression-Era. He presented the problems of being constrained to monotonous work and how one¹s dreams may not always come true. He also stressed that not everyone is comfortable with living in the present day. There were always better times than the ones that are being lived now. He acknowledged that there are those who wish not to participate and are not comfortable living in the outside world.

Through Williams’ genius use of symbols he was able to convey his ideas to the reader. He made relationships with the symbols and the actions of the characters. Along with these symbols he also used the characters¹ incapability of living in the present to convey the harsh realities that they faced in the modern world.

Throughout the course of the play, Wilde portrays each of the main characters in a way that reflects his views of the English aristocracy. Algernon Moncrieff and Jack(Ernest) Worthington represent the prototypical male bachelors. In the opening act, set in Algernon’s flat, the two meet and display what appears to be their usual daily activities. Neither is employed, and it is apparent that their only occupation is the pursuit of leisure activities and social matters, subjects of major importance to them. When Algernon inquires as to the purpose of Ernest’s visit to town, Ernest replies, “Oh pleasure, pleasure! What else should bring anyone anywhere? Eating as usual, I see Algy!”. Algeron and Ernest are characterized by their extravagance, a luxury affordable only because of the money accrued from family inheritance. Neither displays any notion of an appreciation for money. In fact, when Algernon’s butler hands him bills that have just arrived in the mail, Algernon simply rips them up.

Wilde’s conception of deceit as an accepted custom in English aristocracy is also existent in this scene. The practice of “Bunburying” is established, an act where each man lies to his family about an imaginary invalid friend present somewhere else, in an attempt to pursue leisure activities elsewhere. It is in this discussion that Jack admits to his friend Algernon that he has been lying to his friend in order to maintain the disguise. Thus, it seems as though the very relationship between the two men is founded on deceit. Later in this act, Lady Bracknell and Gwendolyn are introduced. Even though Lady Bracknell is married, it is obvious that the two women are merely female counterparts of Algy and Jack. Both spend the day making visits to others in their social sphere, as Algy and Jack do, holding these visits with utmost importance.

It is at this point, also, that the reader is presented with Wilde’s views of marriage practices. Earlier in the scene, when Ernest(Jack) announces his intention of proposing to Gwendolyn, Algernon does not congratulate him, rather he denounces the entire institution. At Ernest’s announcement of the proposal, Algy exclaims, “I thought you had come up for pleasure?- I call that business”. Later, Algy’s comments support the idea of adultery once one is married. When Ernest finally does propose to Gwendolyn, he first must proceed through established flirting rituals followed by a formal proposal. These rituals, such as Gwendolyn’s demand for a formal proposal, demonstrate Wilde’s conception of outward appearances being more important than true love. In fact, Ernest’s love for Gwendolyn seems rather arbitrary while Gwendolyn indirectly admits that she loves Ernest only for his name. Thus, this relationship, too, seems entirely based on deceit. This idea is substantiated when Lady Bracknell re-enters and informs Ernest of some preliminary qualifications that he must meet before being engaged to Gwendolyn. These include money, family, and politics. When Ernest does not meet the qualifications, he is denied Gwendolyn. In the second act, the relationship between Algy and Jack’s ward, Cecily, parallel Ernest and Gwendolyns relationship. After certain flirting rituals, Cecily admits to Algy that she loves him for his name, Ernest, and his image of being “wicked”. When Algy proposes, Cecily declares that they had already been engaged for three months, an engagement that she had imagined. When the proposal is announced, Cecily is only accepted by Lady Bracknell because she has enough money to support Algy’s lifestyle. Through the two relationships of Ernest(Jack) and Gwendolyn and Ernest(Algy) and Cecily, Wilde conveys the notion that love of such kinds is entirely arbitrary, and relationships are based on deceit. Marriages, he contends, are simply an alliance between families to preserve the aristocracy.

The end of the play culminates in the planning of marriages of Ernest to Gwendolyn and Algy to Cecily. These marriages are made available only because Jack(Ernest) discovers his true identity as one belonging to the Bracknell family. When this is established, Ernest is allowed to marry Gwendolyn and it seems as though he will allow Cecily to marry Algernon. However, the identity Ernest discovers is the same that he has lied about throughout the entire play. Thus, the relationships forged arbitrarily on deceit and convenience are legitimated at the end of the play. Although Ernest declares, “I’ve realized now for the first time in my life the vital importance of Being Earnest”, the statement is actually ironic because he had never been earnest at any point. In fact, the end is only the result of a coincidental twist of fate.

Hector, the greatest of the Trojan warriors, begins the poem as the model of a Homeric hero. His dedication and strict belief in the code of honor is illustrated many times throughout the course of The Iliad. An example of this is presented in book three of the poem, where Hector reprimands Paris for refusing to fight. He says to Paris, “Surely now the flowing-haired Achaeans laugh at us, thinking you are our bravest champion, only because your looks are handsome, but there is no strength
in your heart, or courage” (3:43). Hector believes that it is against the heroic code for a person to abstain from fighting when his fellow men are in the battlefield. Hector faces a moral dilemma when dealing with Paris. By being Paris’ brother, Hector is supposed to protect and honor his decisions, but he believes that Paris is wrong in his actions, and feels it necessary to make that known to him.

Another place where we see Hector’s strict belief in the code of honor is in the events that take place during his return home in the sixth book. Hector returns to Troy in order to have the queen and the other women make a sacrifice to Athena, hoping that she will help the Trojans in the war. After arranging that act he visits Paris, with the intention of convincing him to fight. Visibly upset, Hector scolds Paris, telling him that “The people are dying around the city and around the steep wall as they fight hard; it is for you that this war with its clamor has flared up about our city. You yourself would fight with another whom you saw anywhere hanging back from the hateful encounter,” (6:327). Paris agrees that he has been dishonoring himself, and tells Hector he will return with him to fight. Hector then goes to find Andromache, who is standing by the walls outlining the battlefield with Astanax, their son.

When Andromache pleads with Hector to stay home and cease fighting, Hector refuses, telling her that he would feel deep shame in front of the Trojans if he were to withdraw himself from the war. Hector then tells Andromache that the thought of her being dragged off by the Achaeans troubles him, but he is relieved by the knowledge that she will be looked at as “the wife of Hector, who was ever the bravest fighter of the Trojans, breakers of horses, in the days when they fought about Ilion,” (6:460). This causes Andromache to shed tears. On the one hand, she understands Hector’s beliefs and deep sense of morality, but on the other feels it is just as honorable to stay home and care for one’s family. This is a second place in which Hector feels torn between two conflicting responsibilities.

A character’s social status was mainly based upon his performance in the battlefield. Achilles is a tragic figure who believes strongly in social order, but questions the idea of fighting for glory. When Aias and Odysseus are sent by Agamemnon to plead with Achilles’ to fight for the Greeks, Achilles denies them, saying “There was no gratitude given For fighting incessantly forever against your enemies. Fate is the same for the man who holds back, the same if he fights hard” (9:316). This statement shows that Achilles is an individual, and does not conform to the ideas of the others. Achilles is portrayed as a fatalist, believing that there is no point in fighting, because the end is the same for everyone. In book nine, when Agamemnon admits he is wrong and offers Gifts, Achilles still refuses to join his army in battle. He does not see Agamemnon’s gifts as a reconciliation attempt, but rather as an insult. Achilles believes that Agamemnon’s offerings are selfish and boastful, and he denies them to in order to show Agamemnon that his loyalty cannot be bought.

Later in the poem, Achilles revenges Patroklos’ death by killing Hector. It is customary and proper to return a dead body to its home so it can be given a proper burial, and it is against the code of honor to perform acts of excessive cruelty. Achilles is so distraught by his friends’ death that he contradicts both of these conditions. First, he refuses to return Hector’s body to the Trojans, and then proceeds to drag it behind his carriage by the ankles. Achilles’ deliberate mutilation of Hector’s body shows the reader that he does not hold the code of honor in high regard.

Nestor is the character in the poem that best convinces the others to diligently follow the code of honor. There are many instances in which the social order of The Iliad is disrupted, and Nestor comes forth to help restore the order. Although they are thought by the reader to be somewhat pointless, Nestor’s stories always have a deeper meaning behind them. In book seven Hector challenges the Achaeans, asking which of them is willing to fight against him. When none volunteer, Nestor tells them the story of his victory against Ereuthalion, emphasizing that at the time he fought he was the youngest among the warriors. He says to the troops, ” If I were young now, as then, and the strength still steady within me; Hector of the glancing helm would soon find his battle. But you, now, who are the bravest of all the Achaeans, are not minded with a good will to go against Hector,” (7:157). This speech compels nine of the Achaean’s to volunteer, showing Nestor’s power to influence the warriors to stick to the heroic code. Later in the same book, Nestor again stresses the importance of the code of honor when he suggests that the Greeks retreat from fighting and bury their dead, because it was believed that the funeral shows the social status of a warrior. Nestor also wants the warriors to subside from fighting in order to build a wall to protect them. He convinces them by saying, “We must dig a deep ditch circling it, so as to keep off their people and horses, that we may not be crushed under the attack of these proud Trojans,” (7:341).

Nestor realizes that the Trojans have the upper hand, and does not want the Greeks to lose without a putting up a respectable fight. He feels that for the Greeks to turn around and leave would be a great dishonor, and does everything in his power to keep them in the battle. Nestor’s advice, finally, challenges the Achaeans to live up to the honorable precedent set by the book’s fallen heroes.

The characters in The Iliad base many of their actions on the code of honor. The warriors believe that the most dishonorable thing someone can do is refrain from fighting with his fellow soldiers, whereas Achilles disagrees. Although a “code of honor” is present in the Iliad, many of the characters interpret and maintain it in different ways.

The first stanza describes the moment before the storm. “A chill no coat, however stout, Of homespun stuff could quite shut out,” This stanza begins to set up the obstacle that the family must overcome. When Emerson describes the storm as “less than treat” and then goes on about the intense cold it brings he also is describing God. God is caring and loving but he is also vengeful and just.
The second stanza is about the family preparing for the storm. “Meanwhile we did our nightly chores,” suggests that they were perfectly calm together, everyone knew what to do and they did it.
The third stanza is describing the snowstorm beginning; “Unwarmed by any sunset light The gray day darkened into night”

The forth stanza tells of how the outside looked after two straight days of snow; “ And, when the second morning shone, We looked upon a world unknown,”

The fifth stanza is about the family continuing on with there chores after the storm. Despite all that has happened the family still continues on, quite happily as a matter of fact; “Well pleased, (for when did farmer boy Count such a summons less than joy?)” This stanza also shows how God is good because even after the snowstorm the animals are all still alive.

The sixth stanza describes their solitude and isolation from the outside world.
“Beyond the circle of our hearth
No welcome sound of toil or mirth
Unbound the spell, and testified
Of human life and thought outside”
The seventh stanza is when the family makes a fire; “We watched the first red blaze appear”. Surrounded by snow in all directions, they make a fire witch symbolizes hope.
The eighth stanza is describing the bitter cold of the outside; “Most fitting that unwarming light, Which only seemed where’er it fell To make the coldness visible”
The ninth stanza is the most important of all. It is about the family resting after their day is done. The family is all together relaxing without a care;
“Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door,”

The setting in “A Rose for Emily” is Faulkner’s fictitious post-civil war Jefferson, a small town in the deep south of the United States. Faulkner’s use of this particular time-period or genre, is successful in giving the reader an understanding or background to the values and beliefs of the characters in the story. The town of Jefferson is a fallen legacy. The hierarchical regime of the Griersons and the class system of the time where by ordinance of the mayor- Colonel Sartoris, a Negro women could not even walk the street without an apron, had changed into a place where even the street on which Miss Emily lived, that had once been the most select, had now been encroached and obliterated, her house an eyesore among eyesores. Both the town and Miss Emily herself, now looked upon Miss Emily as the only remnant of that greater time. This fact gives the reader an understanding of the mindset of the “town,” who is narrating Miss Emily’s story to us in a form resembling a gossip circle, where stories of various townspeople are pieced together and of Miss Emily, the protagonist who lived alone except for her lone servant.

The actions of Miss Emily range from eccentric to absurd but it is the readers understanding of the setting that keep the story believable. Miss Emily becomes reclusive and introverted after the death of her father and the estrangement from the Yankee- Homer Barron. It is also revealed at the end of the story that she went as far as poisoning Homer, keeping his dead body in his house, and sleeping next to him as well. She is doing what she feels necessary in response to the pressure placed on her by the town. She is still trying to maintain the role of the southern women, dignified and proper while struggling with all the other issues in her life and dealing with the madness that is said to run in her family. She is also not accepting of the changing times and flat out refuses to change with them.

Faulkner’s setting also helps the reader understand the mentality and actions of the town. The townspeople seem oddly fascinated with Miss Emily as a relic of an older time. They have put her in a special position among the others and while they have not maintained any direct contact with her, they are still curious even after her death about her mystery. This could be attributed to the fact that as the times are changing, they need someone to restore or uphold their southern pride or majesty and as she is a Grierson, she is their only link to that past. They even take it upon themselves to try to correct her mistakes by calling on her cousins while she was involved with Homer. They felt that she was setting a bad example and because she was supposed to be of a higher class and epitomize morals and decency in the changing south they felt that they had to do something to restore her moral standing for her.

Besides helping the reader understand the motivations and events in the story, the setting also changed the tone of the story. The descriptions that Faulkner gave and the images he conjured gave the story a very gothic feel to it. The image of the Grierson place with its out of date structure and furnishings, and of Miss Emily herself as a fat old woman resembling death itself also helped to create a clear picture of an old run down town. The physical setting was parallel to the social change that was taking place at the time and could be used to symbolize the breakdown of the old structures that had once held their society up.

In all the cases, the essential element in Faulkner’s story that gave the reader both background and insight into the story, was the setting. The use of a familiar genre supported the actions and motivations of the characters in the story and elevated the tone for the reader’s enjoyment.

Romantic writers usually involve one or more of 7 different ideas associated with Romanticism in their writings. These ideas are: a profound love of nature; focus on the self and the individual; stress on emotion and not reason; fascination with the supernatural, mysterious and gothic; yearning for the picturesque, the exotic, and the misty past; deep-rooted idealism; passionate nationalism, or love of country. The stories and poems of Poe, Irving, Cooper, and Bryant involve these characteristics.

In ‘The Fall of the House of Usher’ an example of one of the 7 ideas is the mysterious atmosphere of the house and the people inside of it. In Bryants ‘Thanatopsis’ a profound love of nature is shown.The other stories focus on the individual, like in ‘The Devil and Tom Walker’. Tom is focused on his own personal gain no matter what it costs. He is faced with meeting the devil and you know the rest.These are just a few examples but through reading the stories you can find the rest.