Or, the rich have more money, they should help people who actually need it but they don’t because they are selfish, disgusting individuals who don’t care about anyone but themselves, therefore they are poor excuses of human beings. In either scenario the end result is the wealthy individual(s) being classified as less human. You can worship someone to the point when they are so far above you that there’s no way you can be equals because in your mind they are better than you. You can also be disgusted by someone to the point where their existence means nothing to you. Dehumanization works both ways in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, many saw Jay as
Daisy’s voice was one of the main traits that kept her so intriguing and mysterious for Gatsby, which Nick mentions when he says, “there was an excitement in her voice that men who had cared for her found difficult to forget” (9). The excitement of her charming voice came from her affection for money, a trait of hers that Gatsby clearly dismissed until his tragic death. Daisy was most certainly a woman without mercy, which could be observed when she ran off with her husband after she professed her love for Gatsby, and shattered Gatsby’s dream of a happy future with her. Both women, Daisy and the Faery, can be symbolized as heartless demons that are in the form of temptresses, beautiful yet deadly. The main similarity and flaw that Jay Gatsby and the knight both have is their creation of a fixated, unattainable dream: a hopeful future with their idealistic lovers.
Agnes is one of the main characters in the story, although her origins are not revealed. She is a very interesting person to observe and analyze. Not only because of her feelings towards the family and the social class, but also because of the hidden reasons for these feelings. Throughout the story those causes are not revealed, but there are lots of clues and one could make quite a few conclusions from different points of view. At first, the servant (who is also the narrator of the story) is presented as a very jealous person, who observes everything and creates the impression that she wants all that wealth and power for herself.
Bassanio compares Portia to another Portia- the daughter of Cato, who was highly thought of for her loyalty, her love for her husband, her intelligence and her learning. Portia is presented with three suitors in Belmont, two of which she did not like. The first was the Prince of Morocco. He chooses the golden casket because she is the richest and he thinks Portia is valuable and so she would be in the richest casket. “Never so rich a gem was set in worse than gold.” Portia doesn’t particularly like Morocco and is pleased to see him choose the wrong casket and leave Belmont, “A gentle riddance”.
By utilizing symbolism in “The Diamond as Big as the Ritz,” Fitzgerald demonstrates America’s obsession with wealth through the relation of immorality and money. Upon first glance at this short story, you may read it and it will have no meaning, but if you analyze it you realize F. Scott Fitzgerald uses his characters to show America’s love of money. The Washington clan is a family that has engineered a lifestyle for themselves that is not thoughtful towards others, and John compromises his values and beliefs for them. “’I didn’t!’ Burst out Kismine. ‘I never invited one.
In this regard Mr. Collins is a true production of this society. He wants to “make amends” to the Bennets girl for the entail on the property by marrying one of them. It is very ridiculous that in such a matter of marriage, he is considering only the “property” not his own prudence whether the Bennet girl is fit for him or the marriage will be a proper one. When we look at another character of this novel namely Charlotte Lucas, we see that she is also going on the same path of the society. The union between Charlotte and Mr. Collins is a good example of this marriage that brought about entirely for economic reasons.
They become more handsome than they ever dreamed, compared to some Thais, they’re wealthy, and they are good enough to land the lady that back home, they never had a chance with. Of course, in most cases all bets are off if there’s no money involved. Prostitutes work for money. They provide their body and sex in exchange for money. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, yet when many foreigners come to Thailand, working girls somehow morph into love interests.
Is a poor man's life worth less than a rich man's?” Ripley is basically questioning how the courts ruling on compensation can value a person's life by what social class the person is in. Ripley overlooks what I consider and important point about valuing a wealthier person over a poorer person. In many cases, a wealthier person contributes back into society much more than that of a poorer person, which in my opinion means that a wealthier person, in this case, is more “valuable” than a poorer person. Although life has value, death has a value in itself. If it wasn't for death, life wouldn't have any monetary value at all.
Austen and Forster both show that marrying for love does not make for a successful marriage without the element of wealth. Austen uses the relationship between Charlotte and Mr Collins to show that marrying for wealth creates stability, but is not a good basis for a happy marriage. "I ask only of a comfortable home; and considering Mr Collins character, connections and situation in life..." The society that Austen grew up in was very patriarchal and all women had, was the reliance of stability from a male. We are shown that in the 19th century the main reasons for marriage were social class, status and wealth. Austen uses Charlotte as an example of the social norms regarding marriage in the Regency era.
It further illustrates the palpable nexus between propertied male and property-less female who have to do the role of a wife in order to have any access to fortune. Through the Bennet sisters, threatened by the prospect of a penniless future- marriage to a man of fortune was one of the very few respectable options available to them. They could become reasonably self-sufficient only through marriage. A single state was not a desirable option for women with limited resources and no fortune. If they wished for wealth, they would have to accept the baggage of its male possessor as well.