These subtleties poke out from beneath Fadiman's overlying theme's of acceptance and cultural relativism which blanket the novel. These overlying themes may be noble and heart warming, but they are also unrealistic as can be witnessed throughout the novel. If there is one thing the reader can take away from, The Spirit Catches You and you fall down, it is that there is a big difference between saying, "Can't we all just get along?" and actually getting along. Fadiman is constantly making cultural comparisons between the Hmong and American cultures.
It featured believable characters and made the characters, although hard to relate to, feel quite real. I can’t say that the whole dystopian future thing was handled well, though. I would recommend the book to anyone who needs really believable characters to enjoy a book, because it has just that. I wouldn’t recommend it, however, to anyone who likes to relate to them. Overall, I think the book is a great read for someone who would likes real situations and is okay without really happy endings.
Within both these plays, friendship as a major theme, uniting characters and enabling the authors to explore how relationships are effected war both plays have many friendships, but each has an overriding main relationship. In ‘Journey’s End’ the friendship is based on Stanhope and Osborne while in ‘The Accrington Pals’ the friendship theme is mainly based on May and Eva. In both of these plays the friendship is portrayed as being strong and the strength of that relationship is tested throughout. Though one friendship survives longer due to death, they are still stronger than the other characters within the play, and this essay is going to try to explain which friendship came out stronger from both plays. In ‘Journey’s End’ the friendship that I want to focus on is Stanhope and Osborne.
The point-of-view is third person limited. The two characters Brille and Hannetjie are both major characters, however Hannetjie is a dynamic character and Brille is a static character. These few points are very important because they affect and change the story’s flow and outcomes. It also changes the reader’s feelings and impressions of the characters by its conclusion. The point-of-view greatly affects the story because it allows us to learn that Brille and Hannetjie are not that different, but actually more similar before we reach the end of the story.
While the book genre and general themes are the same, many things such as writing style and use of rhetoric make the two books very different. With that in mind, “I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings” is overall more effective in it’s ability to inform the reader of Angelou’s life mainly because by using a more passionate yet informal tone, Angelou was able to more effectively connect with her audience. One big similarity that both books had in common was the point of view of the author. They both used a first person point of view. This is significant because since the books are explanations of the events in the authors’ lives, the use of first person point of view makes it a lot easier for the writers to connect with the audience.
However, he is quite stubborn and the lack of communication in their relationship is very unhealthy. His wife “[doesn’t] feel as if it [is] worth while to turn [her] hand over for anything” (Charlotte Perkins Gilman 4). He refuses to hear her out on anything, and makes all the decisions for her. Whether it is which room she is to stay in, or whom she is allowed to visit, John takes away every choice she has and every decision she may have made. He does love her, but because of the hierarchy in their household, and because he is a physician, he firmly believes that he is right in everything he is doing.
They might discover that the world is not perfect. Books lead to understanding of life, and their society does not want them to know those truths. Montag illustrates his desire for intellectual companionship: "Nobody listens anymore. I can't talk to the walls because they're yelling at me. I can't talk to my wife; she listens to the walls.
The tone shows you how much Meursault doesn’t care about what happens in his life or the decisions he makes. To him, whatever happens happens. For example, in Chapter 4 of The Stranger, the narrator says “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but I didn’t think so.” (Camus, 35) The very matter-of-factly tone makes it evident how much Mearsault doesn’t really care about the things that happen around him. The tone of The Stranger, also manipulates you into exploring the views of existentialism.
7. In the beginning of the story, I notice a contrast between the two children, Bailey is attractive and small meanwhile Maya is fat (big), unattractive. The incident at the church made me feel bad concerning Maya and I quickly understood she was bullied and even though she could be bullied by her own brother but later realized that her brother was like an angel that protects her. I tough because of how she was protected by her brother she could a spoil child. Later in the book when she explained that she was raped, I felt sad and bad for her because she was still a kid and when she was pregnant I thought she was going to put an end to her life but at the end I realized she grew older became more mature, graduated from school and kept the baby.
Paul is a dynamic character and in some situations even a compelling character. On the one hand, Paul, one of three children of Hester, is a very sensitive and unhappy child because he feels his mother doesn’t love him, “She had bonny children, yet she felt they had been thrust upon her, and she could not love them” (Lawrence 35). Even though people say that she is a good mother who adores her children, Hester and her three children know that this is not so, as is evident from the next sentence, “They read it in each other’s eyes” (Lawrence 35). After one conversation with his mother, he understands that only lucky people have money. So, he decides that he is the lucky one and asserted to his mother that God told him about this.