Mark Twain was and still is a literary idol for writers to always look up to, and the way he wrote he even became a political figure in America. To change his work without his permission, legal or not, is morally and ethically inappropriate. Carol Lucas said, “I think that if one is to edit Twain and omit what one might think is unacceptable, then one has to start in Shakespeare, the Roman and Greek comedies, most French and British comedies of the 18th and 19th centuries, and so on. Might as well rewrite all of history” (). Through this quote one can easily see how editing Twain’s masterpiece would be a queue for editors around the world to go and edit every inappropriate word of a dead writer’s work.
Wart is a very good person, but his actions always seem to go overlooked by everyone. One prime example of this is when Kay brought the griffin head and Wart brought Wat as a reward for saving the trapped prisoners. Wat was a mad man but Wart believed that Merlyn could have cured him. Wart obviously has the right intentions and put the well being of others his top priority. When the boys come back home, everyone seems disgusted to see Wat back but everyone seems proud of Kay especially Sir Ector.
I also think it is very ironic that the most unintelligent person on the ranch is the only one who ignores the very unintelligent social hierarchy of racism, which the other supposedly better educated workers take part in. This is because Lennie doesn’t understand racism, he’s too simple and child like, black people don’t seem any different to white people to him. Once Crooks sees Lennie has simply come to speak to him, which
Lastly, I think Ralph had the best idea about the beast. He convinced himself that there is no beast, but is not sure. He calls meetings to talk about it and find solutions. He explains to the other people on their level; he says that he too, is scared. This is the best way to go because instead of becoming slaves of fear, he tries to help the boys resolve their problem.
People wish they could be more like him, fearless to challenge those they feel act wrongly. Personally, when I witness behavior that defies social norms, I think to myself “what would Larry David do”? That is because when it comes to social norms, Larry David is the perfect man to expose why it is important not to break them. A typical person who hasn’t been exposed to Larry David’s ideology may not think much of the young, naïve line cutters from 1st grade. However, the episode “Vow of Silence” shows exactly why those line cutters should not be given
Most people shudder at the thought or sight of a Pit Bull and consider them vicious atrocities, but I will show that Pit Bulls are innocent and really are just misunderstood. I would like to give some facts, dispel some myths, and show the side of the breed that the media chooses not to tell. American Pit Bull Terriers were first introduced during World War I and World War II. The job of the Pit Bull was to deliver messages back and forth across the battlefield. Pit Bulls were first bred to bait bulls and bears as a sport back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but soon became more commonly used as house pets due to their friendliness towards people (Brom, 1987-09, p.14).
It would have been unthinkable for them not to own slaves. But I can't imagine Aristotle upholding slavery on principle. Through his lectures and writings on ethics and morals, Aristotle was constantly trying to persuade men that it is to their own benefit to live a virtuous life and to allow the next fellow to do likewise. At the same time, he had no illusions about the nature of man, expressed very directly in this statement: For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms,
49). He really believed that all animals are equal and acted and worked for the comfort of his 'comrades', he was a hero. Napoleon on the other hand was a quite a contrary image, he was selfish cruel and corrupt. He would think of his and the pigs interest first and then that of the other animals and the farm. His way of ruling was inequality, completely contrary to the teachings of the Old Major and the 'The Seven Commandments' (Orwell pg.
I like it, he thought, I don’t like it…Charles Halloway saw but chose not to see,” it says on page 41. Ray Bradbury often makes the narration of the story much more personal, making it seem as if we were inside the characters’ heads, thinking what they think. This unique diction creates a comparably unique tone. Ray Bradbury’s tone always seems excited. The combination of short, choppy sentences, the long-winded sentences, and the repetition makes for a tense atmosphere about his words.
While there are undoubtedly subversive, or corrupt elements in the novel, arguments for censoring it generally misrepresent its more nobler intentions and greatly exaggerate its subversive designs. Putting aside the overinflated claims of the novel's most extreme critics and supporters, the diversity and intensity of readers' reactions to The Catcher in the Rye suggest that the issues it raises are significant ones. Consequently, it seems likely that readers will continue to have heated discussions about this "minor" classic for a long time to come. One of the issues that has been debated ever since the novel's initial publication is whether or not it qualifies as a significant work of literature. Does it offer significant insights into the complexities of human existence and the development of American culture, or does it simply appeal to vulgar adolescent minds with its obscene language, complaining about everything without developing any positive insights of its own?