World literature survey and major works

Morality Then and Now

The technological era that we as a society have entered has completely altered the way that morality and proper behavior is viewed and expressed. Before the Internet was as freely used as it is now, there was more control as to what children and teenagers had access to. Now, because of the rapid advancement in the exposure of the Internet, everyone has access to just about anything -- both appropriate and inappropriate. It is this unregulated exposure that has tainted morality. Cultures who are more open about such things as sexuality or who are not so religiously guided, can now influence and expose people who are a bit more conservative. Parents have a harder time explaining to their children what is right and what is wrong when plenty of immoral behavior is freely shown on television and easily accessible on the Internet.

Scientific advances and the Internet have culminated into a destruction of moral code in society. Cell phones are being used as ways to send sexually implicit messages to individuals, racy pictures and videos, and enables people to broadcast whatever private manner in a matter of seconds. This has only helped the acceleration of the destruction of morality. The Internet has greatly enabled this attitude. Making it so much easier to get access to things that would have been prohibited because of its immorality, can now be accessed as if nothing was wrong with it. Exposing children to things that they would not have been exposed to had it not been for the Internet, makes it so influential in the destruction of morality.

Just as the Victorian age came during a time where society thought that morality was no longer being valued, the Internet era is leading society down a path where values and self-respect are gone. The Victorian Era was one full of religious influence and it was this that drove to the rapid sexual repression. The middle-class society had views that differed from those who sometimes did not have an option but to expose their children to things that they may not have had any control over. Just as today's society is concerned about the future of their children and how such drastic and constant exposure to immoral things will affect their sense of morality and proper behavior, society of the Victorian era had the same concerns. If something is constantly being approved by society because of its constant exposure, then children will grow up thinking that it is okay to expose yourself on the Internet. It is by example that society learns, and the Victorian era tried to prevent this from occurring.

2) Lord Tennyson Alfred

Age has always been seen as a deterrent in doing things that was once loved. Anything that requires any sort of physical exertion is seen as being something that cannot be done after reaching a certain age. Something that I have always loved to do, but may need to stop when I get older is swimming. I love the feel of the water when my arms break into it. Diving and holding my breath underwater for extended periods of time bring an unexplainable adrenaline rush to me. It is as if nothing matters or can go wrong when I am doing what I love to do.

It is this sense of knowing that eventually I will not be able to do what I love because of physical impairments brought on by age. It is not because I don't think that I will love what I do when I get much older, but because I know that biologically my body will not be able to swim as fast nor stand being in the water for extended periods of time when I age. It is this that saddens me most, and I know it is what saddens a lot of the people who have had to go though this because of their aging. The idea of not being able to do what is so loved is pretty hard to deal with.

Not everyone who ages has given up on their dream. The ultimate example is the American singer Madonna. She emerged in the 1980s as a vivacious girl in her twenties, destined to not only revolutionize the music industry, but the conservative 1980s. For thirty years she has continued to represent her true self and continue to do what she appears to love: sing, dance, and perform; she has now become a cultural icon. Despite her being in her fifties, she is still just as motivated and just as in love with what she loves to do as she was when she first started. As recently as the 2012 Super Bowl, she performed acts on stage that are unheard of performers doing at her age. In an industry where age and youth are what is most important, she has managed to overcome all these stereotypes and has emerged even better than before. Her stamina and determination to stay relevant have enabled her to continue to do what she loves doing, despite her age.

3) "The Lady of Shallot"

Tennyson makes it a point to make the poem "The Lady of Shallot" one which can be left open for interpretation. The theme is that loneliness not only exists in her immediate vicinity, but also in her emotional state. This can be seen many times throughout the poem when she makes reference to the many things that she wished she had and her pointing out to those things she lacks. From the beginning, the mystery of how she become locked up and isolated in the first place brings upon the sense of loneliness. But this is quickly replaced by her love for art and music. She loves to weave, "There she weaves by night and day / a magic web with colours gay" and loves to sing, "Hear a song that echoes cheerly." Even though she is in a situation that few would find comfort in, she still manages to find joy in doing the activities that she loves. She does not wish this upon anyone however; she is partially hoping that the immediate loneliness of her existence would go away, "I am half sick of shadows," said / the Lady of Shalott." Despite her ability to see things differently through her art and music, she is still lonely.

This loneliness can be attributed as being a reference to being an artist. There is never a clear reason stated as to why or how the Lady of Shalott is actually isolated, so it can be inferred it is her art that has cost her to have a real relationship with anyone. She states many times how lonely is it to be without someone, not necessarily as being in love, but as having a companion, "She hath no loyal knight and true, / the Lady of Shalott." It is not really clear whether it is romantic love that she is seeking, but like any artist who divulges themselves in their work, in what they truly love and believe in, it can get difficult to share such a passion with someone else. It becomes difficult to carry any sort of relationship with anyone in the outside world that is so often referred to in this poem. The theme of loneliness can be seen over and over again in this poem.

4) Love Poetry

Thinking of you makes my heart beat faster

As my love for you grows.

I love you more than words can say,

But that you'll never know.

I love you more than all the riches

The world can bring my way.

I love you more than any lucky streak,

And that I will convey.

Every time I see you,

Flowers bloom with delight.

The sun shines down and drowns

Any sense of fear or fright.

For you, my love, are everything

I'll ever need for survival.

It is your presence, your vision, that allows me

To sense the time of your arrival.

The world stops spinning

When the thought of you comes across.

Nothing else even matters

For what I dread most is your loss.

In this fantasy I live,

For you will never know,

The many ways I love you,

And how much more I know, this love will grow.

5) Responding to Literature

You dared to end my life

Because I threatened your existence

My flirtatious being scared you

For you had no mode of resistance

I however the beautiful woman

Will forever in this portrait stay

Even though you rid me of my body

My soul will never go away.

Now here I stand before you

Although in your unconscious nature

But once you awaken from this dream,

You will pay for what you caused, sooner or later.

1. Read the last sentence of the poem "My Last Duchess" Do you find it an effective conclusion? What-if anything-might the speaker intend to convey with such a comment? How does the comment support or detract from the overall message of the poem? In a paragraph discuss whether or not this ending is effective and consistent or ineffective and inconsistent.

This is the perfect way to end this poem. The ending is in fact effective and consistent. The entire time, the duke speaks about how it was to have his wife besides him and how much he did not agree with her behavior. He then makes an insinuation that it was him in fact that had her killed. The ending leaves the reader in a sort of shock. The lines, "...Notice Neptune, though, / Taming a seahorse, thought a rarity, / Which Claus of Innsbruck cast in bronze for me!" are so effective in clarifying that the Duchess did not die of natural causes and it was in fact the Duke that wanted her to act in a certain way, and he did: by having her killed. And the only thing left of her is the portrait, which he praises for capturing her, after he managed to "tame" her.

2. Assume that the emissary is an insightful person. What kind of an impression do you think the Duke is making? (Be sure to use specific examples to support your claims.)

If the emissary were to be an insightful person, he would have had a very bad impression of the Duke. The Duke started talking about how lovely and beautiful his late wife was. He talked about how much he cared for her and how important she was, and then as if drastically changing, he starts talking badly about her, as if it was her fault that she died in the first place. On top of that, he insinuates that it was him that taught her a lesson after she got too flirtatious and too out of his control, he states, "[he] gave commands; / Then all smiles stopped altogether." The emissary would have caught on to his cynical behavior and would have thought that he was not only an out of control man who kept speaking badly about his dead wife, but that it was himself that put an end to her life altogether. All this is happening while the emissary is there on account of a new wife that the Duke is about to have.

3. What do you think of the Duke's assessments of his Duchess? What problems do you have with his assessments? Do you think his assessment is objective? Why or why not?

The assessments of the Duke toward the Duchess are not objective at all. They are in fact pretty subjective. The readers are only exposed to what the Duke thinks of the Duchess. We are never given a chance to make judgments for ourselves. The only perspective available is that of the duke, and since he had already had a preconceived notion of who the Duchess was according to how he interpreted her behavior, we are left only with is account of everything. The Duchess could have been an innocent friendly woman, but because the only way we are exposed to her is through the Duke's eyes, we are not given an objective account of who she truly was.

6) Responding to Literature (Read pages 749-762)

1. How does "How Much Land does a Man Need?" function as an allegory? Explain how each of the following elements of the story-its characters, its setting, and its events can be read on both literal and symbolic levels.

The story, "How Much Land does a Man Need" is the perfect example of an allegory. The main character was so intrigued by the presence of money that he chose to continue to try to get more and more even though he had already had enough to begin with. He was more than happy with his former life until money was introduced to him. His simple land not only symbolized his pride, it symbolized what he had earned, and what it was that he actually needed. His character was one of a simple-minded individual who thought he had everything despite his family's criticism of the little he had. Then once he got the opportunity to expand, his land grew, but so did his problems, and so did his greed. He was no longer happy with what he kept getting: he wanted more and more. Every time his setting changed, he was added with a new hurdle and more problems. By the end, he had all the land that anyone could ever want, in a place where he couldn't really understand anyone. He was in a situation where he lost touch with who he was before. Upon his death, the answer to the title of this story is answered in an ironic fashion, adding to the allegory of this tale. How much land does a man need? He needs a six foot hole to get buried in after dying. The moral of the story ends up being: greed kills.

2. You have seen British writers questioning the benefits of nineteenth-century industrialization and modernization. How does this questioning change in a Russian setting? List and discuss three different ways in which Tolstoy either shares or extends the British writers' debate about progress.

Tolstoy shares the same idea that money taints behavior, that the British also believed. This concept does not really change in a Russian setting because the idea is still the same. Money changes people and it gets them to do things that they would not have done other wise. It takes away the innocence and simplicity in their lives and does not allow them to truly be happy. Both Russian and British authors expressed this full in their writing. First of all, Tolstoy's character Pahom was a very simple-minded individual. When given the chance to express how he felt about having money, he said that he would rather not have it because he liked enjoying the simple things without the worry of dealing with money. Secondly, once exposed to the opportunity to excel financially, Tolstoy allows his character to jump right at it, despite his previous beliefs about the power of money that affects someone's personality. Lastly, once an individual is exposed to a little bit of money and luxury, they keep wanting more. This portrayal of these characteristics by Tolstoy in his character went hand in hand with the effects that the British though the industrial change was having on their society.

3. In your opinion, does Pahom get what he deserved? Or did he pay too high a price for the "crime" he committed? Explain your response to Tolstoy's moral in a brief, well constructed paragraph.

I believe that Pahom did get what he deserved. He paid an appropriate price for the crime that he committed. He was fully aware of the damage that having too much money would have on an individual and their family, however, he chose to continue on his path of destruction anyway. Instead of being happy with what he had, or even with what he earned the first time, he wanted more. He was never satisfied with anything after his initial financial gain. He proved his own self right when he said that he thought money would actually change him. His fear of financial success was true because he ended up losing all the simple things that he enjoyed and broke all that he thought was moral. Although death was a bit harsh, it is very symbolic that after his pursuing all the land that he wanted, he ended up being buried in a six feet hole, all the land he would ever need.

7) the Bet

a) What would you do for a million dollars?

Five things that may seem outrageous but that I would be willing to do for one million dollars are:

1.) Jump out of a plane (making sure that I would survive the landing of course.)

2.) Rob a corporate bank (only if I knew that I would be able to get away with it.)

3.) Climb a skyscraper more than 50 floors high (strapped to something that would be secure.)

4.) Walk barefoot across the country

5.) Wrestle a bear

I do not think that I would agree to live in solitude for fifteen years in order to get two million dollars when I got released. However, for ten million dollars, I might consider it. It is a long part of your life that you have to give up in order for that money to be given to you. In fifteen years, so much can happen, so many things could occur, everything could change. It doesn't seem worth two million dollars to give up living a part of your life that you will never be able to get back. But for ten million dollars, I think that it may be worth it. In fifteen years, I will be able to truly discover who I am if I am in solitude. I have all that time to reflect and be able to gain knowledge that I may not have been able to gain otherwise. It gives me a chance to truly learn about literature, as I will probably be doing a lot of reading. I will also have the opportunity to learn just about anything, without any distractions. At the end, aside from the immense amount of knowledge gained, I will be able to enjoy the ten million dollars. This ten million dollars would have been the money that I probably would have earned anyway (probably even less) if I actually took the time to work for those fifteen years. Instead of having to slave away, not being able to live my life anyway, for that long period of time, I would be able to gain knowledge and understanding of life in solitude and still be able to benefit from the money. I think that besides money, another thing that would make people make a bet would be for the protection of their family. In order to provide maybe a safety net, or to ensure their health and survival, individuals may make bets that may seem a bit too dangerous, but do so in order to persevere their family's well-being.

b) How do you feel about capital punishment?

Capital punishment is a very touchy subject, but I do agree with the death penalty. I believe that if someone committed such a horrid crime that it merits getting the death penalty, then they shouldn't be allowed to live and reflect on their crime. The alternative punishment to the death penalty is life imprisonment, which really is only a punishment after the first couple of years until someone gets used to living this way. After that initial period of adjustment, they get used to living the way they do and are actually granted to opportunity gain knowledge and to self-reflect on their crime: all on someone else's expense. It is the taxpayers that end up paying for their crime since they still have to pay for this person to live for their life's entirety in a prison. In all, I do support capital punishment.

8) Responding to Literature

The lawyer's philosophy can be interpreted through his letter. He first admits to his "despis[ing] freedom and life and health" because of everything that he was given the opportunity to read in his fifteen years of confinement. He believes that based on what he has read, people no longer really enjoy life. They are always out there wasting their youth and wasting what little they have to live, by wanting material things. He refers to his being this way before and how much he wanted the money in order to be able to afford the things that he could not before. But his reward was in the wisdom that he received while being in isolation. Because of everything in the books, he gained knowledge that he says everyone else lacks. He states, "You have lost your reason and taken the wrong path. You have taken lies for truth and hideousness for beauty." The lawyer believes that nothing has ever truly been appreciated because of people's desire for money.

The entire letter speaks about society's lack of care for natural beauty and their dissatisfaction with whatever they are given. His philosophy that money overrides any desire to truly live was proven by his choosing to stay in isolation for fifteen years in order to attain two million dollars. Upon the end of his sentence, he realizes that he got what he needed all along: wisdom and knowledge. However he claims to know the truth that people do not realize is out there because they have not truly lived, however it is paradoxical because he claims to know this truth when he himself has only lived through books. He refuses to take the money that he earned because he wants to be able to live, but yet he states how much he hates the same wisdom and life that he credits for bringing him upon his realization, "...I despise your books, I despise wisdom and the blessings of this world. It is all worthless, fleeting, and deceptive, like a mirage."

His argument can be seen as having some merit, but it is very simple-minded to think that the world's problems and everyone's different attitude towards living can be resolved by simply giving up any material possession that they may have. During the last years of the czarist rule, Russian society became fed up with the way that things were going for them. They were tired of the vast difference between the lower class citizens and those of nobility and money. The peasants got over their desire for money and their wanting what the nobles had, and instead decided to do something to change their lives without needing lots of money. This is reflective to what the lawyer's philosophy in his letter was, as he was no longer interested in being rich. He wanted to be able to own his life and to live without desiring wealth.

1. Compare and contrast Chekhov's story and Leo Tolstoy's "How Much Land Does a Man Need?"

Chekhov's character and Tolstoy's character Pahom had a lot in common. They were both willing to sacrifice a lot in order to be able to attain a better financial standing. They put their lives at risk in order to be able to have the money that they thought they wanted. Their statements about material gain were both similar as well as different from each other in very important ways. Chekhov's character was trying to prove a point that a person could live in isolation and be completely fine with it because material items were unnecessary. Tolstoy's character from the beginning, stated the same thing. It is the simple things in life that bring the most joy. However, they were both eventually corrupted by the possibility of some financial gain and both of their philosophy's were soon forgotten. Chekhov's character was motivated to go into his fifteen year isolation because of the money he would get at the end. It was only after spending those fifteen years in isolation that he actually did realize how little is gained through monetary safety. This is what brought irony to the end of Chekhov's story. Irony came about a bit more dramatically in Tolstoy's story. The character, Pahom was one who renounced money from the beginning. He thought that having money would lead people down the wrong path and not let them enjoy the simple things in mind. However, as soon as the opportunity came to gain more money, he took it. Every time that he had the opportunity to upgrade his property, he did. Even though he was afraid that money would end up doing this to him, he could not resist wanting more land. In the end, he ends up dying and being dug in a small plot.

9) the Jewels

a) Write a two-paragraph essay where you compare Tolstoy's character Pahom (in "How Much Land Does a Man Need?") with de Maupassant's Monsieur Lantin. How does each character's personality contribute to his changing circumstances? What does each writer seem to suggest about nineteenth century notions of progress and self-improvement?

Tolstoy's character Pahom and de Maupassant's character Lantin both have equal things in common. First, they both are changed because of the presence of money. They were both very content with having what they had. They did not want anymore, and were actually afraid of having more money because they feared that it would change who they were as people. They thought down of people who had money because they accused them of not truly enjoying life for what it was. Each of their personalities however, contributed to their changing circumstances. Lantin came to money because of his wife's death. He did not know that his late wife had any money to begin with and was always used to living a comfortable, modest lifestyle. Upon receiving the news that he would be getting hundreds of thousands of dollars for his wife's jewelery, he changed completely. He became the person that he had previously criticized and started living extravagantly.

Pahom was also very much against having any sort of money because he said that he appreciated the little that he had and that having too much would actually spoil who he was and lead him down the wrong path. His humble personality soon changed however, when he was given the opportunity to buy his own land. His entrepreneurial spirit took over and he actually wanted to keep expanding and getting the better deal every time. It was that part of his personality that eventually ended up being his downfall and the reason why he ended up dying. Both authors seem to suggest that the nineteenth century notions of progression and self-improvement were actually pretty tainted. They suggest that once people of a lower class attempt to succeed and actually gain financial strength, they lose everything that they once had. They are both suggesting that despite any best intentions, it can become difficult, if not impossible to not get changed with money.

b) We don't know very much about Madame Lantin-not even her first name. However, de Maupassant gives us some clues that help us understand her personality, and we can make inferences about her motivations. Write a brief analysis of Madame Lantin's motivations, her behavior with her husband, and her seeming lack of guilt.

Madame Lantin was a key character in Maupassant's "The Jewels," however, her name is not even mentioned throughout the entire story. The author does give us some clues into who she was and how her character made the story an important one. Madame Lantin is made out to be the perfect wife, the perfect woman, and of course, a great manager of the family's money. Her only flaw was that she loved going to the theater and she loved buying jewelery. This jewelry was supposed to be fake, and one would think of Madame Lantin as wishing to have more money because she was always flaunting the fake jewels that she did have, as if they were indeed real, even after her husband's worry about it, "My dear, when a woman can't afford to buy real jewels, she ought to appear adorned with her beauty and grace alone: those are still the rarest of gems." After Madame Lantin's death however, it is revealed that her jewels were indeed real and were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the presumption of her character changes. The entire time, knowing that she could easily live a better lifestyle because she came from money, she chose to live happily and modestly alongside her husband. She even told him that the jewels were fake so that money would not be what their marriage was about. She did always emphasize her jewelery though, giving the reader the sense that maybe she wanted her husband to be able to think of the jewels in case of her death, and attempt to sell them. Because of this, Monsieur was able to live a comfortable life. She looked after him and took care of him even after her death.

c) Assuming that Maupassant's views and perspectives were accurate, what can you conclude about middle-class society in late-nineteenth century France from "The Jewels"? Support your contentions with specific examples from the text.

It can be contended that the middle-class society in late nineteenth century France was all about not having money, but wanting it. At the end of the day, the Lantin's were living modestly, but gave the sense of luxury. The middle class always wants to live beyond their means, but in a tasteful fashion. Monsieur Lantin even joked saying, "You have the taste of a gypsy." It was distasteful and tacky to want to flaunt what they didn't have; it was thought of as being something that lower class individuals would want to do. This however was not how the middle-class wanted to portray themselves. Money was something they wanted, but not something that they would want to show off. However, when Monsieur did come upon his wife's riches, he was unable to stop himself from blowing it all away, "For the first time in his life he was not bored at the theater, and he spent the night with some prostitutes." Just like the middle-class is viewed by Maupassant in France, they do not know how to behave with money and completely mishandle it unless it has been something that they are used to dealing with in the first place.

10) the Love of Money

There are different ways of attaining money that may seem a bit drastic to certain individuals. Sacrifices seen in order to get money have been selling their children in order to be able to attain wealth and status for their family. There are certain cultures in which it is allowed for daughters to be sold to older, richer families in hopes of attaining not only a higher status, but also getting more money for their day-to-day expenses. This changes their characters because they are believing that it is okay for human life to be sold in order to advance in life. It changes their perspective of what is right and what is wrong in order to succeed in a way that they think will make their family more financially stable.

An ideal example of how money changes people is in individuals who win the lottery. These people come to money in a very quick and surprising manner. They do not have time to prepare, nor do they have the knowledge about how to effectively manage all this money that is coming to them at once. One too many times we hear in the news how people who have won the lottery have actually squandered all of their money on nonsense and make it nearly impossible for all of their money to even be extended for the rest of their lives. It changes who they are, since they leave their jobs and become people who now can afford to get anything, and most importantly, it changes their priorities. They no longer have to worry about money, so everything in their lives tend to change.

On a more personal note, when partners change in financial status, that also has an effect on their relationship. When one partner succeeds more than the other, and the money situation is not equally divided, it provides with a strain the marriage. Even those couple who have always been strong and have always been able to endure everything together, have a change in their relationship. Money changes everything, and that is not different when it comes to a wife and husband relationship.

11) Responding to Literature

1. What do you think of Lawrence's decision to end the story as he did? In what way is the ending of the story a distortion of the usual fairy-tale ending? How does this ending support Lawrence's views on money and materialism as stated in the "Primary Source" text-box at the end of the story?

Lawrence's decision to end the story the way he did was a reflection on how he viewed money's role in life. As stated in the "Primary Source" text-box at the end of the story, Lawrence saw money as being a deterrent of living life to the fullest. He though that people should not spend their entire lives trying to get and earn money because life will then pass you by without you having anything to show for it. This is exactly what he wanted to portray in his story. He chose to end it the way he did to emphasize just the huge toll that seeking money had on the son. The mother who was never able to be happy because of her lack of money was the greatest influence on Paul, who spent his whole life trying to get "lucky" and trying to get the money that his mother so desperately wishes she had. However, on his way to get the money that his mom wanted and that he wanted to give her, he ended up dying. He died at a young age without ever truly living his life. He spend his whole life riding his fake horse, trying to find the answer to his family's financial troubles. He lost on the opportunity to go to college and be happy, and instead died trying to get rich. At the end, he got rich, but to no avail, since he would not be able to enjoy it because of death.

2. What is different about the style of Lawrence's writing when compared to the other pieces you've read that reflect realism? List at least three differences and at least one similarity. If you hadn't been told, would you have known that it was written in a different time period than the other pieces you've read during this lesson?

Lawrence's story, "The Rocking Horse Winner," was one that reflected a different type of realism. First of all, unlike other stories that were previously written under the realism genre, Lawrence's depiction of the occurrences in this family were almost hard to believe. A key characteristic of most literary realism is that they are plausible. They are events that are commonly heard of and that people could actually relate to. The fact that it was a supernatural occurrence that was guiding the son's picking of the winning horses, seemed a bit far-fetched. Another difference between Lawrence's piece and those of other authors was that there was a sense of romanticism in this piece that realism writers tend to stay away from. It was because of the son's idealistic love for his mom that he tried to hard to make money. He wanted to be lucky so that his mom would actually love him and be happy with their life, adding a sense of idealism and romanticism that contradicts what realism literature stood for. As previously mentioned, but only slightly, the supernatural occurrences in the house is also something that makes this story different from other realism literature. Adding this element would almost disqualify it being in this category because it is not something that can easily be explained through realistic terms. This piece however, does have an element in common with other pieces of realism literature, and it is the ability to have a profound effect on the individual. Realism depicts everyday life in a non-romantic or idealistic way, and the way that this family lived their life is pretty representative of how other people during that time period also lived their life. They worked hard only to struggle to get by. If the time period were not mentioned, I do not think that I would have known that it was written during a different time than all the other pieces of literature were. It was pretty much the same struggle that was depicted, and time period did not really make a difference in the overall message of the story.