Cal The antagonist is Cal. Cal is clearly the opposing character. He may seem as is if he is the victim, but all he does is deliberately attack Andre’s mother not understanding her situation and position. According to the play, Cal states “How many of us don’t want to hurt our mothers and live in mortal terror of their disapproval. Our lives aren’t furtive, just our feelings towards people like you” (50).
We see an example of this arrogance towards Gerald when she says ‘Go on Gerald – just you object!’, and the stage directions that it should be said with mock aggressiveness. This is one example of the many things that she says to Gerald with stage directions of such a manner. She doesn’t seem to say anything normally but has some sort of sarcastic tone to say it in when she is talking to Gerald. When the inspector comes, Sheila is very honest and open about everything that she did wrong and is genuinely apologetic about everything that she has done to contribute to the death of Eva Smith but she doesn’t want to take all the blame so she is very persistent that everyone admits to their involvement to the death of Eva Smith. She doesn’t want all the blame on her so she insists that the rest of the family says what they have done so she doesn’t feel so bad because they also ‘helped to kill this girl’ as Gerald says.
Wouldn’t that be much more jolly?” (Rama Rau 114). The head mistress’s condescending tone creates tension because it makes the reader feel uncomfortable for the characters. Rama Rau puts this experience in the beginning of the story to set up the tension the reader will feel through out the story. Premila’s mom expresses, “You’re to small to have them. You won’t have them in donkey’s years” (Rama Rau 116).
This statement is clearly sarcastic. The author does not want to let the subject of race go and she stresses it to the audience as many times as she wants to. This does this to support her other arguments in the article. The author
In her essay, Tannen explains the impression that men don’t listen during a conversation is usually wrong. She states in her article, “but often when women tell men, “are you listening,” and the men protest, “I am,” they are right” (Tannen 425). This statement through my experiences I have found to be one hundred percent false. In the case presented by Tannen, the problem is that the women she’s talking about aren’t interpreting the true meaning behind the language being used. For example, when my girlfriend tries to talk to me during a payper view UFC fight, I completely blocked her out.
Parker directs this article at the reader and attacks the reader’s emotions through her harsh tone, graphic content, and lack of rhetorical appeal. The message that the writer is trying to show is told through the caustic comments and creative hints throughout her essay. If we look past the wall of emotion that she throws on the reader, she tries to explain the true meaning of poverty so that her audience does not feel sympathetic, but relatively understanding. She goes on using literary techniques, and emotions that grab hold of the reader’s heart, which is pathos. After reading Jo Goodwin Parker’s essay, I did not feel a pity but instead I felt respect.
In this case, even when some readers might agree with the character’s perceptions, their reactions are thought of as too exaggerated and unnecessary. Angela tells the narrator that her mother beat her so hard that “[Angela] thought she was going to kill [her]” This type of reaction would have never been considered acceptable, to what most think of nowadays as a minor matter: losing one’s virginity before marriage. The reader’s perception to this conflict is that it is a conflict between ‘good’ and ‘good’, but through the character’s perception this is clearly a ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’ case. The town where the book is set has a strong Catholic culture and therefore
The Friar tries to dissuade Giovanni from commencing the relationship despite there being little effect from his words. Annabella is harshly reprimanded by the Friar, so much so that she sees sense to confess to her sins. Despite her confession however, she is still punished grotesquely towards the end of the play. Giovanni does not confess; instead he sees his actions as necessary to deal with the problem that he is the main cause of. The final line “Who could not say, ‘Tis pity she’s a whore?” can be seen as directed towards her and so she is blamed for everything that has occurred.
The problem with my pseudo thinking is that when it comes time for me to have a response I have no clue what was said during the conversation because the only thing I focused on was the topic of discussion. My defensive listening has put me in bad situations with many people, mostly with my wife, I lash out at people because I feel threatened and with my lack of attention I miss parts of the conversation, and that makes it that much more like I am being attacked. Everyone can increase attention by realizing its importance, avoiding the common tendency to day dream, fighting the tendency to give in to
In the beginning, you immediately feel the isolation of the room in which our character lives, but you quickly figure she is there for a reason. In her writing in secret and disagreeing with physicians at all cost, you feel sorry for her, but also question if she is of right mind. There are times you are angry with the husband, but you know that is how it was at that time with how he treats her. I would agree most people reading would assume she is crazy and then see the clues that lead to postpartum depression and see the husband as not all bad. You cannot trust that her view of any reality when she seems most lucid is even clear enough for anything when you realize her state of mind.