Blue Hotel :: essays research papers

It is not surprising for an author’s background and surroundings to profoundly affect his writing. Having come from a Methodist lineage and living at a time when the church was still an influential facet in people’s daily lives, Stephen Crane was deeply instilled with religious dogmas. However, fear of retribution soon turned to cynicism and criticism of his idealistic parents’ God, "the wrathful Jehovah of the Old Testament" (Stallman 16), as he was confronted with the harsh realities of war as a journalistic correspondent. Making extensive use of religious metaphors and allusions in The Blue Hotel (1898), Crane thus explores the interlaced themes of the sin and virtue. Ironically, although "he disbelieved it and hated it," Crane simply "could not free himself from" the religious background that haunted his entire life (Stallman 5). His father, a well-respected reverend in New Jersey, advocated Bible reading and preached "the right way." Similarly, his mother, who "lived in and for religion," was influential in Methodist church affairs as a speaker and a journalist in her crusade against the vices of her sinful times (Stallman 5). This emotional frenzy of revival Methodism had a strong impact on young Stephen. Nonetheless, he -- falling short of his parents’ expectations on moral principles and spiritual outlook -- chose to reject and defy all those abstract religious notions and sought to probe instead into life’s realities. Moreover, Crane’s genius as "an observer of psychological and social reality" (Baym 1608) was refined after witnessing battle sights during the late 19th century. What he saw was a stark contrast of the peacefulness and morality preached in church and this thus led him to religious rebelliousness. As a prisoner to his surroundings, man (a soldier) is physically, emotionally, and psychologically challenged by nature’s indifference to humankind. For instance, in the story, "what traps the Swede is his fixed idea of his environment," but in the end, it is the environment itself -- comprised of the Blue Hotel, Sculley, Johnnie, Cowboy Bill, the Easterner, and the saloon gambler -- that traps him (Stallman 488). To further illustrate how religion permeated into Crane’s writing, many scenes from The Blue Hotel can be cited. Similar to the biblical Three Wise Men (Stallman 487), three individuals out of the East came traveling to Palace Hotel at Fort Romper. The issue explored is the search for identity and the desire of an outsider (the Swede) to define himself through conflict with a society.

Ashes of Izalco-bookr report :: essays research papers

ASHES OF IZALCO By Claribal Alegria and Darwin J. Flakoll   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   I found the beginning of this book quite confusing. I had a difficult time discerning who the main characters were and what was the plot. I also wasn’t quite sure when the Mother had died and it wasn’t until later that I realized the reason that Carmen was present was because she had traveled home for her mother’s funeral. However, once I got into the book and started to put the characters in context, I really began to enjoy it. This book has very sad overtones. It is concerned with the human struggle for happiness in life, or maybe just contentment. Just about every main character, present and past, seems to be involved in some inner turmoil. Carmen is struggling with her own identity and her unhappiness in her marriage to Paul. She feels she plays a role of dutiful wife as she was brought up to be, but that the marriage really has no strong foundation and she and her husband have nothing in common. Possibly a repetition of her parents’ marriage? She admits to being convinced by her husband to have an abortion. This must have been very traumatic to reconcile with her Catholic upbringing as she refers to it as â€Å"a crime†. She is searching throughout the narrative for answers to her questions. What has become of her? What should she do about her marriage? Her father? And one of the most pressing questions is her struggle to understand why her has mother left the diary to her? There are no clear answers for Carmen. As she searches for answers she is also experiencing the very early stages of the grieving process. She is angry. She doesn’t like at all that her mother has altered her view of her as a parent. Don’t we all think that our parents never make mistakes or have questions in their own lives? If Isabel had left the marriage when she was a child, Carmen would have been forced to deal with the issue of an imperfect world with imperfect people. As she travels through some very poignant reminiscences, she admits to her own self-absorption as a child. As an adult, she reflects on now seeing her parents more clearly as individuals. I, too, have personally had this experience in seeing parents differently from the adult perspective. Carmen appears to be wearing a mask in her own relationship that shows a repetition of her mother’s life.

Why is this a Buddhist Poem? Essay -- Literary Analysis, Who Are You?,

The protagonist of the poem, Who Are You, attempts to define his identity in the manner that most humans fall victim to. The inquirer, assumed to be Buddhist, is unsatisfied with his response as it contradicts the Dharma of the enlightened Buddha. Peter, when asked, â€Å"Who are you?† endeavors to label himself by the people that surround him, the place in which he was born, and the traits that he feels connected to. The question, however, is a deception used in the hope of unveiling the flaws of the perception that humans carry for themselves. The Buddhist questioner engages in conversation with the motive of exposing the three marks of existence. The first is Anitya, impermanence, the second is Duhkha, dissatisfactoriness, and the third is Anatman, no self. The no self is a principle that other religions contradict, and most humans have difficulty comprehending. The Buddha replaces the concept of an intrinsic or everlasting soul with the Five Aggregates, thus further illust rating impermanence. In order to eradicate the Duhkha in Peter’s life, he must recognize all these notions within the Buddhist doctrine along with that of Dependent Arising. This further explains the source of Anatman, offers a passage to eradicate the Duhkha, and further cease the existence of Samsara. With the dharma of the Buddha, it is evident that Peter’s ignorance towards life will become replaced by wisdom and comprehension, allowing him a lifestyle liberated from Duhkha. The method, in which Peter desperately attempts to decipher who he is, represents the flaws that the Buddha recognized in most sentient beings. These flaws are epitomized by the three marks of existence. The first mark of existence, reflected in the man’s responses, becomes visible. This... ...t his identity, he finds that no answer seems to satisfy the other. The more perplexed Peter becomes, he discovers how little he truly knows, and upon declaring this, the questioner is appeased. This is because the motive of the Buddhist is to unveil the dharma of the Buddha in hopes of enlightening his disciple. Through his questions, he illustrates the three marks of existence, Anitya, Duhkha, and Anatman. The Buddha replaces Anatman with the Five Aggregates to explain the impermanence and the dissatisfactoriness in the human realm. In addition, the notion of dependent arising is prevalent in hopes of explaining the cause for Duhkha, ignorance, and the method to eliminating it. Through the banter between he who is enlightened, and he who is not, the reader is hopeful that Peter will appreciate the dharma presented and cease the delusion and dissatisfactoriness.

Edwardian family Essay

The furniture alone really shows the wealth and opulence of this upper class Edwardian family. The furniture and clothes also develops trust between the audience and characters as it gives off a cosy home feel.  It is obvious from when you first read act one that JB Priestley has made a deliberate effort to change the tone from how it was at the beginning (relaxed) to how it ended (tense). When we read the play for the first time, we get the impression that for people as superior as the Birlings to take any notice of somebody in a lower social class than them, somebody such as Eva Smith actually has to die. This shows huge injustice and makes us feel very sympathetic for Eva Smith. The main way he achieved this is by the use of the plot. This is because they are having a nice relaxed dinner party, and then an Inspector who they have never meet before knocks on their door, and begins to interrogate them about a suicide. This puzzles them as the police officer openly says that it was definitely a suicide, therefore what crime could they have committed.  Although this is the main reason for the drastic change in tone, Priestley does many other things to show this change. One aspect of his writing which does this is the way in which he wrote the inspectors lines. The inspector’s lines are all written so that it sounds extremely aggressive from the Birling’s point of view. One example of this, is when Shelia is being extremely honest, and is telling the Inspector how she got Eva Smith sacked. Shelia really shows how guilty she feels, how deeply sorry she is and how she would behave differently a second time. However the Inspector very bluntly says â€Å"Yes but you can’t. It’s too late. She’s dead. This is an extremely upfront and abrupt way of saying it. So he changes the mood from relaxed/happy to almost awkward and upsetting.  Due to this aggressiveness which the Inspector shows from the moment he walks in the door, Mr Birling almost tries to fight back which results in both of them almost competing in a childish game, where they keep trying to get one up on each other. E.g. (who’s the bigger man) This is shown by Mr Birling consistently mentioning that he has friends in high places. He does this in a very subtle and sly manor. At this point both of them know the involvement Mr Birling had with Eva Smith. Mr Birling remembered Eva Smith because he fired from his company her due to a campaign she led for higher pay. Therefore he last meet Eva Smith under unpleasant circumstances. This secret that both the inspector and Mr Birling had was probably what sparked off this aggressiveness. The first time we see this happening is when Mr Birling says â€Å"Perhaps I ought to warn you that he’s an old friend of mine, and that I see him fairly frequently. We play golf together at the West Bromley†. The â€Å"old friend† being the inspector’s chief constable. In a way Mr Birling is trying to tell the Inspector to tread carefully, by letting him know he has friends in high places.  This aggressiveness certainly demonstrates how Priestley changes the tone so drastically and so effectively. It also keeps the audience gripped making it very exciting.  All of the characters in this play have very strong personalities one way or another, and all of them represent some kind of portrayal above everybody else in the play. Shelia, for example, shows that she feels more remorse than anyone else by far and seems truly hurt and guilty by the whole thing. For example when the inspector asked Shelia â€Å"And was it the girls fault?†Ã‚  Shelia replies â€Å"No, not really. It was my own stupid fault†.  She has shown her honesty by owning up to it unlike her self obsessed father who would argue everything until he was proved completely wrong. She also displayed remorse by ridiculing herself, saying â€Å"It was my own stupid fault†.  Again she shows that she is sorry when she says â€Å"Oh-why had this to happen†. Rather than saying something like Mr Birling would say e.g.: â€Å"Well it was her own fault in the first place†. Shelia plays the kind understanding character to the play, who comes across as more innocent than anybody else. She brings reason to the equation and we probably feel the more sympathy for her than anyone else. This is because when she tells her story, Priestley writes it as if it was from the bottom of her heart/sincerely. Another reason we feel this sympathy for her is because we feel she has been conned out the most, when we find out that the inspector is a fake. This is because she seems to have poured her heart out more then everybody else and after she finds out that the inspector is a con she still defends the morals the Inspector was saying even though the entire Eva Smith scenario, was completely false based on the knowledge they had at the time. This happens in the 3rd act when Shelia says to Mr Birling â€Å"It doesn’t matter now of course, but was he really a police inspector?† Mr Birling then replies â€Å"Well if he wasn’t, it matters a devils lot. Makes all the difference.†Ã‚  Shelia then snappily responds â€Å"No it doesn’t†.  She says this meaning that just because the Inspector is gone nothing is changed because what he was saying was correct even if it was fictional. However Mr Birling cannot understand that the message has not changed, now they know the story was fiction and just says â€Å"Don’t be so childish, Shelia†.  This is another event in the play which supports Shelia’s kind, understanding and more mature than her father’s personality. She represents a possibility of social change and seems to have some basic morality.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov Analysis Essay

Vladimir Nabokov’s choice of subject in his novel Lolita shocked readers, but that was essentially why he chose it. Beetz, states that Nabokov’s first inspiration for the novel came from a newspaper story about an ape â€Å"‘who after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature’s cage’ Nabokov said. As many critics have remarked Lolita is not about sex but about love. Even more it is about obsession-and the destructive power it can hold over the lives of its victims.†(Beetz 2481) Also with out the shock value of Lolita’s risque subject of the â€Å"love story† between a man and his twelve year old step daughter, the book most likely would not have become as famous as it is. As Serafin states, Lolita became very popular underground after it was banned in Europe. The taboo of it being banned mixed with Nabokov’s sparkling wit made Lolita a sensation.(338) As Hart says in the 1950’s peoples attitudes towards sex were still very puritanical and conservative.(158) By exploiting the scandalousness of the violation of the last sexual taboo, the relationship between an adult and child, Nabokov was able to really show the extent of the power of infatuation, love and obsession. As Nabokov shows in his novel Humbert Humbert knows what he is doing to Lolita is wrong, but his burning desire for her drives him to violate his own morals. He even used morals to try and justify his actions, â€Å"The moral sense in mortals is the duty†¦We have to pay on mortal sense of beauty†(Nabokov 300) In this quote Humbert dilutes himself into thinking he has a moral obligation to appreciate the beauty that is Lolita, when in reality he has a moral obligation to leave Lolita alone and allow her to have a normal childhood. Another quote in which Nabokov shows how Humbert’s obsession controls him is the following; â€Å"I felt proud of myself. I had stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done.†(Nabokov 65) In this quote he is referring to â€Å"pleasuring him self† while near Lolita with out actually touching her. The very nature of his actions show his desperation and it soon become apparent that Humbert’s twisted fantasies will not satiate his obsession for long and that he will act on it and â€Å"impair the morals of a minor†. By using the shock to readers of a relationship between an adult and a child, Nabokov successfully was able to show the extent of what obsession and love can drive a person to do. Humbert’s obsession lead him to ruin the lives of himself, Clare Quilty and the childhood of Lolita. Nabokov choose his taboo subject for Lolita to increase the impact of the character’s actions as driven by his own infatuation.

Aliens, Go Home

Should illegal immigrants be sent back to their countries, or should they be granted amnesty? Is this a question of morality or of uncomplicated national policy?Granting amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their acts of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working with false documents (www.usamnesty.org). Why should a national policy be bent to such extremely unreasonable extent?If the matter is about morality, it will be highly subjective as morality is prone to being understood from too many various perspectives, the result of which can be too complicated to deduce into a single stand.However, if the matter is about uncomplicated fundamental national policy, which states that illegal immigrants should be punished because they clearly broke the law, the matter becomes very basic and very easy to see.Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers. Why spare them of the punishment that they have prepared themselves for in the moment that they decided to break the law? It does not make sense.Even though statistics from various polls illustrate that most Americans are in favor of granting illegal immigrants the amnesty (USA Today) they need to subsequently get a green card, it is still not a good thing to do.For one, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is tantamount to admission of a weak national policy, ergo, a weak national system. Why create a law that you’re ready to break?If you’re changing your laws for the convenience of people who were ready to break them, what is now the distinction between the ruler and the subordinates? Much worse, who is now ruling in the country that had created the laws in the first place? Aliens?Second, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is unethical. At the risk of crossing the borders of morality issues, illegal immigration is first and foremost an issue of ethics. Illegal immigrants might argue that they have the right to exercise freedom of movement; however, freedo m of movement only applies to movement within national borders (Wiki).Third, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is a crystal clear invitation to future lawbreakers. Regardless of any reason for such an act, which others deem reasonable and humane, the truth of the matter is that it will eventually backfire and bring forth more trouble than ever. Future offenders are watching.If they see that there’s a way to get away with being an alien, then they will fear less about breaking in borders and entering a different country. Then the weak system will be subjected to an unimaginable, albeit invited chaos, coming from different nationalities, into one nation. What good will it do, considering all the possible clashing of cultures and vanishing centuries-old traditions?Each country has had a way of living that is distinct from the other. One way of preserving this is restricting the number of immigrants and standing guard against the destruction of old and protected cultures. No country will succeed in doing this if illegal immigrants are tolerated beyond what national laws provide for.Fourth, an increasing threshold for the tolerance of illegal immigrants will inevitably give way to the entrance, proliferation and perhaps subsequent tolerance of human and drug trafficking, which is a nightmare for a country that is supposed to protect its constituents. (americas.org)Having said the four major reasons for eliminating the possibility of granting amnesty, this paper will now enumerate reasons why illegal immigrants should be sent back to their countries with a definitive malicious record of being an alien at least once.Immigration amnesty can potentially benefit a massive 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. (www.usamnesty.org)This number of people should be sent back to their countries because, for one, they are law breakers. Second, if they could ignore their own countries laws, what good can they do for the country th ey moved in? Considering this massive number of people, would it be much surprising if criminal acts increase in a nation?This is not to say that undocumented aliens are automatic criminals. But consider this, won’t any one of them be suspect?Some EU member states are currently receiving large-scale immigration. Spain, for one, has created more than half of all the new jobs in the EU over the past five years, and is now a destination for undocumented aliens. These jobs should go to the people of Spain, not to the aliens!The thing is, the matter is not about what majority thinks, but simply, it is about what is right. Illegal immigrants should be sent back to their countries and be marked, so that other countries will take note that they were lawbreakers once, and so the undocumented aliens could feel the magnanimity of the offense they have done.It is bad enough that some people have trouble following the law. How much worse could it be if a country creates a system where law s can be break and amnesty can be granted such that any potential offender could feel free to follow in the footsteps of those who had broken the law before them?

Economics and Book Online Essay

1. Liza needs to buy a textbook for the next economics class. The price at the college bookstore is $65. One online site offers it for $55 and another site, for $57. All prices include sales tax. The accompanying table indicates the typical shipping and handling charges for the textbook ordered online. a. What is the opportunity cost of buying online instead of at the bookstore? Note that if you buy the book online, you must wait to get it. The opportunity cost of buying online instead of at the bookstore would be whatever is you would need to give up to get the book online. This would mean that the opportunity cost of buying online would include the sum of the shipping charge and the time that you would spend waiting on the book to arrive. If you buy the book at the store, you would be able to get the book the same day but it would also mean losing out on the possible savings that you would get if you bought it online. b. Show the relevant choices for this student. What determines which of these options the student will choose? So if Liza buys from the bookstore it would cost $65. If Liza decides to buy online from the first store the cost would vary. The price of the book from the first online store would be $55. Next day air to get the book in one business day would cost an additional $13.98. ($55 + $13.98 = $68.98). Her next choice would be to use 2 days shipping which is an $8.98 charge also from the first site. ($55 + $8.98 = $63.98). Next she could use 3-7 day shipping for a $3.99 shipping charge. ($55 + $3.99 = $58.99) The next online site charged $57 for the book. If she chose 1 day shipping it would cost ($57 + $13.98 = $70.98), 2 day shipping would cost ($57 + $8.98 =  $65.98) and 3-7 day shipping would cost ($57 + $3.99 = $60.99). So from looking at the information here it would be unlikely that Liza would purchase from the 2nd online store and I don’t see her buying it from the first online store and using next day shipping because that would cost her $68.98. It is hard to tell from the information whether or not Liza has enough time between now and her next class to wait the 2 or 3-7 for shipping. It would be helpful to know if her class was tomorrow or next week and depending on what time of day she orders the book online or if it is over a weekend or close to a holiday that would also push the shipping date back some. Also where she lives in the U.S. sometimes plays a factor in shipping times. 2. In August 2007, a sharp downturn in the U.S. housing market reduced the income of many who worked in the home construction industry. A Wall Street Journal news article reported that Wal-Mart’s wire-transfer business was likely to suffer because many construction workers are Hispanics who regularly send part of their wages back to relatives in their home countries via Wal-Mart. With this information, use one of the principles of economy-wide interaction to trace a chain of links that explains how reduced spending for U.S. home purchases is likely to affect the performance of the Mexican economy. I think in this case this may fall under Principle #10: One person’s spending is another person’s income according to our textbook. If you start from the top of the chain that may include lenders and financial institutions that are funding a construction or real estate project or they are finding that they are taking a high risk because more people are defaulting on the mortgage loans. If that takes place then this hurts the lenders because there will be less potential home buyers because of people losing jobs and finding it harder to find work so in return that will make the real estate market crash. This chain of events will make it harder for the contractors to keep some of their workers and be forced to fire people so that will make it harder for the Mexican community to send money back to their families which is why it will also hurt Wal-Mart’s wire-transfer business. 3. During the Great Depression, food was left to rot in the fields or fields that had once been actively cultivated were left fallow. Use one of the principles of economy-wide interaction to explain how this could have occurred. For this I would say that Principle #11: Overall spending sometimes gets out of line with the economy’s productive capacity, would fit this situation. Because there was not as much spending going on during the great depression that also would mean that there would be less people buying products such as foods from the fields. The food that was already produced or grown would be left to rot if the sellers could not find any buyers. As it says in our textbook, â€Å"in the 1930s, spending fell far short of what was needed to keep American workers employed, and the result was a severe economic slump. In fact, shortfalls in spending are responsible for most, though not all, recessions.†