All of these phrases illustrate Nick being unsure, which makes him a non omniscient narrator. Nick knows nothing more than we do in this novel, if not less. We cannot take what Nick says to be literal due to his indecrepancies as a narrator. He is not credible and since there are moments in the novel where Nick cannot be seen as credible, it makes the whole novel questionable because if he lies and alters his perception at certain moment, what’s to say he’s not that way all along. Nick sees Gatsby as a wonderful man who can do no wrong in his eyes.
This is obvious throughout the story because of his lack of connection with people, the stories he tells, and all the negative things he has to say about people. His negative personality definitely comes from his traumatizing experiences as a child, whatever they may be. Holden is an extremely mysterious person and its very clear because no one knows what is the truth and what is a lie when it comes out of his mouth. In the end, feeling bad for Holden is all thats left. It’s sad that he has lived his life so miserably but things might have been different if he acted more like the real Holden, was more truthful, and wasn’t so deceitful to everyone around
(Peters, 94) Procopius in The Secret History criticizes Justinian throughout the book. He seems to have a problem with everything Justinian did during his regain from marrying Theodora, listening to what she had to say, the way he ran the empire and imposed new laws, and the need to collect taxes differently from earlier rulers, among many other complaints. Procopius was not the only one who thought it was a mistake for Justinian to marry Theodora because of her questionable upbringing and back ground but he never
When faced with a hard decision with no time to think, we often make irrational decisions based on certain circumstances. To take the law upon oneself is not an option available to those who have no authority. John Steinbeck’s ‘Of Mice and Men’ readers are confronted with a situation of similarity as George’s malignant action of shooting Lennie at the end of the novel was pressured by the threat of Curley and an apparent weakness for other’s suffering. George’s actions raised debate on how his response can be justified, however, also condemned. In support of George, he saved Lennie from a potential death at the hands of Curley, however in rejecting George’s actions, it was not definite that Curley was going to kill Lennie, but by shotting him,
It’s impossible.” (222). The reader recognizes that Holden is confined within walls of phoniness and corruption. The profanity written on the walls becomes too much for Holden. In a sense, he desires to eradicate all profanity, therefore protecting the innocence of children, but as Holden indicates, it’s nearly impossible. Unlike Holden in Catcher in the Rye, Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath concentrates society’s corruption on self-interested people.
Poor Gene When only judging Gene based on his actions, Gene can definitely be considered immoral. After all, Gene does jounce Finny off a tree limb. Gene also kicks Leper’s chair from under him and runs away from his friend in need. Gene is completely contemptible for all of his immoral actions, true. Although, what he does is understandable considering that he is a young, inexperienced boy who struggles with “the war” (24), self-esteem, jealousy, fear (and other emotions), and maturing, or “growing up”, with no real guidance.
These people are not real. The stories are fiction. But fiction has truth. How? O'Brien creates an intentional paradox for his readers when he writes the violent, but grabbing story of Rat Kiley and then at the end of the story, tells the reader that the characters and events of the story did not happen just as he described them, but that they happened in a totally different way to other people.
He subjects the poor characters of his novel to every imaginable evil that man has been wont to commit in order to prove that this could not be the best of all worlds. Secondarily, Voltaire also seems to have other bones to pick. Hardly a paragraph is written that does not contain a sarcastic comment about or outright mockery of some person, idea, or institution. It is a credit to the skill of the author that he is able to present his criticisms with a humor that is as intoxicating as it is relentless and controversial. The sheer number of insults and implications made by the author coupled with a healthy sprinkling of aristocratic inside jokes would indicate that he essentially wrote this book for himself and other like-minded intellectuals of the enlightenment that disapproved of the status quo or could at least appreciate his cheeky sense of humor.
As other novels dishonestly romanticize and glorify war, Heller does the opposite. A main theme Heller tries to convey throughout the novel is that the reality of war is absurd and corrupt, as well as the people involved in war. Although Yossarian is selfish and untrustworthy, Heller slowly shows the reader that these seemingly dislikable characteristics of Yossarian show a type of heroism. As Yossarian evolves, the reader comes to realize that Yossarian’s obsession with preserving his life doesn’t necessarily emphasize his selfishness, but rather the value he puts on life. Throughout most of the novel, the reader follows Yossarian’s quest to escape the war,
However, it seems to me that this view does not take into account what F. Scott Fitzgerald is trying to tell us about human beings, that we may have many faults but that most of us are just trying to do the right thing. The Great Gatsby is a sordid tale of deception. Nick is left in the dark by Daisy when they choose to leave at the end of the novel. Daisy and Tom lied to everyone when