Mutualism Symbiotic Relationships

Essay on The Canterbury Tales - 538 Words

The Canterbury Tales â€Å"The Prologue to The Canterbury Tales† were told during a pilgrimage journey from London to the shrine of the martyr St. Thomas a Becket at Canterbury Cathedral. This was approximately 70 miles to the southeast. These Tales were told by a group of 29 pilgrims, and a Host who met up with them at the Tabard Inn. They left the Inn on the morning of April, 11. The Nun’s Priest Tale was the first story actually told, this was determined by whoever drew the shortest straw. The pilgrim who told the best story would win a free dinner, and the loser’s had to pay for his dinner. Geoffrey Chaucer who was without a doubt the greatest English poet of the Middle Ages, wrote this great story â€Å"The Canterbury tales†.†¦show more content†¦The Miller was a very big and strong man, that , stated in The Prologue to The Canterbury Tales, â€Å"Could win the ram at any wrestling show†. He was Broad, Knotty , and Short-Shouldered. It also says he could â€Å"Heave any door off hinge and post, Or take a run and break it with his head.† The Millers’ beard was red, and very big and thick, and his nose had a wart on the end, with red hairs protruding out of it. His nostrils were black and very wide. He wore a sword and a buckler at his side, also the Miller wore a blue hood and a white coat. This is it for the physical traits of the Miller, I think you know by now, that he was big, and he was strong. Now we’ll talk about the Millers’ personality. The Millers’ personality was very distinct, It matched his physical traits almost exactly. the Miller was very boastful in his ways, he would boast to people about how he could bust any door down and off the hinges, or take a run and break it with his head, he was also a very greedy man, He would steal from the poor, or the rich without even thinking twice. his thumb of gold was how he did this, meaning, he pressed on the scale with his thumb to increase the weight of the grain that he sold to his customers, or so they thought he was selling them. The Miller also had a filthy mouth, and told tavern stories quite often. Also, he liked to play the bagpipes, in fact he was theShow MoreRelatedThe Canterbury Tales832 Words   |  4 PagesThe Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer, the stereotypes and roles in society are reexamined and made new through the characters in the book. Chaucer discusses different stereotypes and separates his characters from the social norm by giving them highly ironic and/or unusual characteristics. Specifically, in the stories of The Wife of Bath and The Miller’s Tale, Chaucer examines stereotypes of women and men and attempts to define their basic wants and needs. In the Miller’s Tale, theRead MoreChaucers Canterbury Tales741 Words   |  3 Pagesreference to one of The Canterbury Tales discuss, what means Chaucer uses to create the highly individualized (and often comic) characters and how successful is his creation. The Friar from The Canterbury Tales Geoffrey Chaucer was a master at creating highly individualized characters who are often comic and realistic at the same time and always have good traits as well as bad ones. The aim of this essay is to demonstrate this ability on the example of the Friar from The Canterbury Tales who is one of theRead MoreAnalysis Of The Canterbury Tales 1189 Words   |  5 Pagessuch examples following this concept is The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer in 1478, and Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley 1818. Three characters in The Canterbury Tales (The Wife of Bath, The Pardoner, and The Knight) and The Monster in Frankenstein have developed a talent for successful storytelling, proven by their abilities to engage the audience with their pathos and passion. While storytelling is used differently in The Canterbury Tales (as a method of entertainment) than in FrankensteinRead MoreMoral In The Canterbury Tales1221 Words   |  5 PagesThe Canterbury Tales The Canterbury Tales have an ultimate lesson at the end, just as every other literary work does. In some of them, he simply states what it is, or some may have to be inferred. During the time, many social and historical events were taking place, and in some instances, Chaucer chose to base the moral around it. While reading The Canterbury Tales, the audience gets entertainment and a basic knowledge of what life what like through the lessons he presents. All of the tales moralsRead MoreThe Guildsmen In The Canterbury Tales882 Words   |  4 PagesThe Guildsmen of The Canterbury Tales Step 1 Prewriting: The Guildsmen were a group of men a part of a labor union. The carpenter, the weaver, the haberdasher, the dyer, and the carpet maker all traveled together due to their similar trades. They did this so they could increase the prices of their good. These men were all very successful in their respective trades. The men dressed in very fancy attire. The Guildsmen were also very proud of how well they treated their wives. Step 2 Prewriting: ThereRead More Chaucers Canterbury Tales2103 Words   |  9 Pagesforever immortalized as Geoffrey Chaucer the writer, and the Satirist. The true goal of any Satire is to point out the flaws in certain aspect of society, while also inspiring reform to that very same aspect in one way or another. In Chaucer’s Canterbury tales, Chaucer satirizes the corruption Catholic Church and those associated. Chaucer saw that hypocrisy polluted the pureness of the church and expressed his disillusionment through the use of satire. Fearless of discommunication Geoffrey ChaucerRead MoreChaucers The Canterbury Tales1381 Words   |  6 PagesThe Canterbury Tales serves as a moral manual in the Middle Ages. In the tales, Geoffrey Chaucer portrays the problems of the society. For instance, Chaucer uses the monk and the friar in comparison to the parson to show what the ecclesiastical class are doing versus what they are supposed to be doing. In other words, it is to make peop le be aware of these problems. It can be inferred that the author’s main goal is for this literary work to serve as a message to the people along with changing theRead More Canterbury Tales Essay646 Words   |  3 Pages Corruption in the Church nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Chaucer lived in a time dictated by religion and religious ideas in which he uses The Canterbury Tales to show some of his views. Religion played a significant role in fourteenth-century England and also in Chauceramp;#8217;s writing. His ideas of the Church are first seen in amp;#8220;The Prologue,; and he uses seven religious persons to show the influence of the religion in his writing. Although many of his characters appear to portrayRead More The Canterbury Tales Essay972 Words   |  4 PagesThe Canterbury Tales The Canterbury Tales, a masterpiece of English Literature, written by Geoffrey Chaucer, is a collection, with frequent dramatic links, of 24 tales told to pass the time during a spring pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Thomas a Becket in Canterbury. The General Prologue introduces the pilgrims, 29 sondry folk gathered at the Tabard Inn in Southwark (outside of London). Chaucer decides to join them, taking some time to describe each pilgrim. According to the Norton AnthologyRead MoreAuthority And The Canterbury Tales1825 Words   |  8 PagesAuthority and The Canterbury Tales Geoffrey Chaucer, widely known for his influence in medieval literature, expresses a fourteenth century literacy concept of authority and gentility in The Canterbury Tales. There are two forms of authority and gentility that will be covered in this discussion: authority and gentility in Chaucer’s personal life and the one in his two tales, â€Å"The Wife of Bath’s Tale†, and â€Å"The Clerk’s Tale†. Chaucer himself loses a sense of authority over his writing after his death

DostoevskyS free essay sample

Dostoevsky`S # 8220 ; Brothers Karamazov # 8221 ; And # 8220 ; Crime And Punishment # 8221 ; Essay, Research Paper In Dostoevsky # 8217 ; s novels hurting and some heavy load of the inevitableness of human agony and helplessness signifier Russia. And he depicts it non with white baseball mitts on, nor through the blisters of the provincial, but through people who are close to him and his worlds: metropolis people who either have religion, or secular humanists who are so distant from world that even when they love humanity they despise worlds because of their ain inability to accomplish or to create Eden on Earth. His novels The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment are best illustrations of the toxicant consequence of such ideals on the common homo. The rebellion of these humanists against the system and the world of human life becomes more of import, therefore love becomes the filter and the retainer of pride and ideals. The cause of XIX c. progressives becomes more of import to them than the existent homo being that might non suit the image of their perfect and humane society. Through these jobs and antonyms which cross and overlap each other, Dostoevsky depicts societal issues, particularly the job of slaying, through an image of people who go through hurting. He presents a graphical experience of 1s who do non cognize how to cover with humanity and its jobs. Dostoevsky himself does non give a clear solution nor does he go forth one with the certainty of religion for an illustration. He says himself: Finding myself lost in the solution of these inquiries, I decide to short-circuit them with no solution at all. ( From the Author. The Brothers Karamazov ) Through the presentation of offense and the issue of money which is frequently connected to it, Dostoevsky retells a Bible narrative. His reply to the job of evil and human life filled with agony, at least the most persuading one, for a better society and better societal conditions is active love. That is non the love that is directed towards the humanity as a whole, but towards the person: # 8220 ; Strive to love your neighbour actively and tirelessly # 8221 ; ( II, 4 ) . For Dostoevsky such love is a false 1 and he nowadayss it through such characters as Rakitin, Perkhotin and even Luzhin: Consciousness of life is superior to life, cognition of the Torahs of felicity is superior to happiness # 8211 ; that is what we must contend against. ( The Dream of a Pathetic Man, p. 382 ) One of greatest immoralities for Dostoevsky are the alleged progressives who # 8220 ; love humanity more than an single man. # 8221 ; Yet he does non stand for their behaviour as truly evil. Their hatred towards humanity arises precisely from the antonym: love. Secular humanists see so much immorality, offense and inhumaneness, they can non halt it so they rebel. Ivan Karamazov and his rebellion are strictly of that sort. He is non despicable, he merely can non understand that there might be a solution for such agony, particularly in the instance of kids who are guiltless in Christianity. That is why Ivan asks: Love life more than the significance of it? ( II, 3 ) Ivan as any mean rational, wants to cognize. To cognize the significance of life for him is more of import than to really make something about the human enduring. Ivan forgets that one human life is every bit of import as the full humanity. For him humanity is simply an abstraction which go on to be environing him. He thinks that by cognizing and logically, rationally eventually understanding the enigma of life jobs would be solved. For Alyosha, the merely reply is love for life, irrespective of the significance and the logic behind it. To assist people and seek to forgive them if they do incorrect or assist them if they need aid is all that Alyosha wants. Faith in God and people is the merely manner to populate with love. To believe in God and to hold trust in homo nature and fate agencies to forgive and to atone. It means non aching others. Ivan gets trapped by the power of his ain mind and his ain pride: the pride that pulses in worlds who want to cognize more. Ivan contradicts himself with his rebellion. On one side, everything is permitted, because there is no God ( Ivan is an atheist ) , on the other the regulation of despotic Inquisitors who claim that there is God, but # 8220 ; know # 8221 ; the truth: that there is no God. Ivan desires rebellion against the Father and his male parent, the announcement of a man-god, but in the same clip Ivan looks at people like himself as male parents to the multitudes. Raskolnikov does the same. He separates people on ordinary and extraordinary. His demigod is permitted everything: I merely adumbrate that the # 8220 ; extraordinary # 8221 ; adult male has the right # 8230 ; I Don # 8217 ; t mean a formal, official right, but he has the right in himself, to allow his scruples to transgress # 8230 ; ( Crime and Punishment. III, 5 ) Ivan praises the thought of God, # 8220 ; which entered the caput of such a barbarian, barbarous animal as adult male # 8221 ; ( Brothers Karamazov, V, 4 ) . So he besides thinks most of people unworthy. How can a adult male that despises humanity love it at the same clip? If worlds are like that than who has a right to be a Superman or the Inquisitor. Yes, it is true that there are bad worlds, but one can non travel and hatred all of human race for the mistake of some. Without love the redemption and better society are impossible. Sonya and her forfeit for others and her forgiveness are the best illustration. She has God because she knows that she is as large of a evildoer and no better than others, and she still loves people, she does non desire to be better for the intent of narcissistic pride. In Russia at the clip the Church was 2nd topographic point and the values of Western European broad thought were brushing through. What Dostoevsky saw was that none of those thoughts really improved the position of the multitudes. Therefore, the reply has to lie someplace else instead than in the averment of humanists and positivists that work forces are Gods. What Raskolnikov does is precisely that: he gives himself the licence to offend and to make up ones mind to be a God. He Rebels against society and its norms. Raskolnikov hates Luzhin and Svidrigaylov, but by killing the old lady and Lizaveta on his manner to his ain intent he turns into people every bit evil as the 1s he despises most. Once he crosses the line he does non cognize where to halt. Geoffrey Kabat writes: On another, symbolic degree, the slaying is an effort to eliminate a symbol of the oppressive forces of a society in which money gives one power over other people # 8217 ; s lives and in which deficiency of money means dependance on others. ( V, 124 ) The job of money and its oppressive and evil character is an of import issue in Dostoevsky # 8217 ; s novels. Raskolnikov is originally troubled because of his fiscal jobs, Sonya is a cocotte to supply for her household, Mitya wants to kill his male parent for money. Judas betrays Jesus for money. This subject is repeated in Dostoevsky, but there is ever something more: in the terminal the money ( as in the instance of Rodion or Mitya ) is of lesser importance than the existent rebellion against the society and the effort to alter the societal conditions which are about intolerable. They both consider perpetrating self-destruction, but do non make it because they are lucky plenty to run into and to follow a Christ figure. Jesus would hold forgiven Judas, but Judas did non inquire for forgiveness. He felt guilt, but the feeling of guilt is a necessity if one knows of guilt and possesses fear. To cognize the guilt is non plenty: to atone is important. Grushenka and Sonya forgive because they have to forgive, but in the first topographic point they know that the guilty have to forgive themselves and take the way of penitence. Otherwise, reason at its best turns a adult male into a autocrat, on a smaller graduated table than the Inquisitor, but still a autocrat. This self-importance and child rebellion ( against every male parent possible ) of Rodion kill Alyona and Lizaveta and that is why he hurts his female parent and sister. Joseph Frank writes: By this clip, Raskolnikov has begun to understand how easy a prideful egoism can get down with love and turn into hatred. ( Dostoevsky: The Old ages of Ordeal 1850-1859.I, 7 ) The option to the behaviour of Svidrigaylov and Raskolnikov in the Crime and Punishment is Sonya or Sofia. Her name implies that Dostoevsky even through this wants to demo how foolish the Greco-Roman foundation for the Western idea is. The lone individual that possesses the ultimate wisdom and the key to felicity is Sonya. The adult female of Russia who believes and takes an the function of the female parent for her sisters and brothers every bit good as for Rodion .She loves actively # 8211 ; with her organic structure she sacrifices herself for her household. Sofia is the 1 with the reply: Travel at one time, this blink of an eye, stand at the cross-roads, foremost bow down and snog the Earth you have desecrated, so bow to the whole universe, to the four corners of the Earth, and say aloud to all the universe: # 8220 ; I have done murder. # 8221 ; ( V, 4 ) Raskolnikov will non travel because for him authorization is another representation of amorality, no better than himself. They do non care about his psyche or his compunction. They want to happen the liquidator and penalize him. The point that follows out of is that no judicial system is adequate to do one truly experience sorry. The issue of penalty is non what affairs. Surely Sonya does non want Raskolnikov to turn himself in because she hates him or because she thinks that he is a vile and evil animal. She wants to salvage him and she knows that the first way to the Jesus is the entree of one # 8217 ; s ain wickedness, and want already exists. Sonya knows that Rodion will non be saved if he is simply sent to Siberia. She follows him with the offer and the illustration of her Christian love, carry throughing her words and actively loving, trusting that his evildoing will non force him off from the universe back into his ain interior universe in which cipher else has a topographic point. Opposite to Sonya is what # 8220 ; humanists # 8221 ; make, what the # 8220 ; extraordinary # 8221 ; work forces do. Their thought becomes more than the existent humanity, more than the existent substance of that thought. The inevitableness of human enduring becomes obvious if one is seeking for an reply. Therefore merely like Raskolnikov and Ivan rejection of such society and life comes, which leads to the # 8220 ; cold and inhumanely indurate to the point of inhumaneness # 8221 ; ( Crime and Punishment, V, 2 ) . In order to get the better of evil 1 has to get down with the premise that there is goodness. To arise violently because of a kid # 8217 ; s decease merely brings greater immorality. Ivan does non love others nor does he love himself. He does non accept the most of import of all, and what is important to Sonya and Alyosha: forgiveness. He can non forgive himself, for he is impeaching himself of Fyodor # 8217 ; s decease, and he goes mad. The Grand Inquisitor and Ivan come really near together in their hatred towards humanity. They hold the sentiment that Jesus made a error when he sacrificed for the human race. What they do non understand is that Christ, with his buss, once more and once more dies and forfeits hims hob. Jesus does non lose religion in worlds and in the possibility of goodness, even though there is evil. He forgives. Sonya forgives, she expresses wisdom with her actions. In The Brothers Karamazov, and Crime and Punishment, active love is the highest value and the lone redress to all of humanity # 8217 ; s jobs! Sonya # 8217 ; s manus motions, Zosima # 8217 ; s bow, Christ # 8217 ; s busss are a definite and the ultimate reply that Dostoevsky has to offer to the people. Father Zosima makes this thought really clear: If you are repentant you love. And if you love you are a God. All things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a evildoer, even as you are, am stamp with you and have commiseration on you, how much more will God. Love is such a invaluable hoarded wealth that you can deliver the whole universe by it, and aby non merely your ain wickednesss but the wickednesss of others. ( Brothers Karamazov. II, 4 ) From the narrative # 8220 ; Akulka # 8217 ; s Husband, # 8221 ; in which there is everything but sorrow on the side of the slayer, religion in God is the lone way to saneness. Dostoevsky was a immature adult male when he heard these narratives. How could he populate otherwise, if he truly actively loved people, but take the belief in God as a necessity? The belief that the thought of God should be at that place because otherwise everything would be allowed is Ivan # 8217 ; s position. His claim that society should be based on the Christian tenet, and that offense should non be merely against the province, but besides against Christ, is precisely the antonym of what to believe and to truly love Christ means. Christ did non set out to penalize the transgressors, but he gave them all the love that he could give: forgiveness and love: Remember peculiarly that you can non be a justice of anyone. For no one can judge a condemnable, until he recognizes that he is merely such a condemnable as the adult male standing before him, and that he possibly is morethan all adult male to fault for that offense. ( Brothers Karamazov. VI, 3 ) For Ivan, ageless justness does non be, and he besides does non believe that there are guilty. But after that he accuses people of being evil and he does non forgive them. So he needs a prevarication to cover the fact of the human mortality. The lone job is that God is non a prevarication, at least non for Dostoevsky. Ivan would set up the regulation of the Inquisitor: he would set up a system that uses Christ for its ain endurance. To actively love agencies to believe and non to cipher or believe merely nine hours a twenty-four hours or when it is helpful to one # 8217 ; s survival Through the act of rebellion against the societal norms and the Christian tenet secular progressives, or humanists, bury about fellow human existences as being fallible as much in idea as in action. In those minutes, great guardians of broad idea and love for humanity forget that they might non hold the definite reply, therefore they fall into the same trap as their predecessors who thought that they knew what is the best for people and enforced their thoughts. They all become Grand Inquisitors and # 8220 ; populating gods. # 8221 ; They all want to save worlds from the load of their ain egos, # 8220 ; for merely we, we who guard the enigma, shall be unhappy. # 8221 ; They preach prevarications alternatively of the truth, therefore they develop a different sort of love: oppressive love. The Christian love has to be free. This is where the societal issue of slaying, as in the instance of Akulka # 8217 ; s hubby comes in. He evidently does non experience compunction because he owes something to the authorities or the system, or to his married woman: Forgive me, I # 8217 ; ll rinse your pess now and imbibe the H2O too. # 8221 ; ( Akulka # 8217 ; s Husband ) He feels no compunction for the slaying and the ill-treatment of the adult female. The authorization did direct him to prison, but what he feels is nil else but the feeling of being punished. There is no compunction and seems that there is no forgiveness. Possibly that is why Dostoevsky does non brood on his imprisonment excessively much. He does non desire his ain penalty to turn into pride: so society does non derive anything from the penalty of the 1 who transgressed, but plain averment of its ain power. This lapurlative political orientation, system for the interest of itself, does non convey the solution. There has to be remorse and existent recognition and confession. Not confession for the interest of mere forgiveness, nor that same sentence, # 8220 ; I can non forgive myself. # 8221 ; For Dostoevsky, that is simply an alibi for pride and self-pity. Peoples find safety in their theories or in other external factors, such as being deprived from something by birth, burying that the quality of life is one # 8217 ; s ain pick, # 8220 ; wear # 8217 ; t do to others. # 8221 ; In a secular society every category feels responsible merely to its ain # 8220 ; natural # 8221 ; or instead inadvertent surrounding: The inmate is about ever disposed to experience himself justified in offenses against authorization, so much so that no inquiry about it of all time arises for him. However, in pattern he is cognizant that the governments take a really different position of his offense and that hence he must be punished, and so they are quits. ( Ideology and Imagination. IV, 147 ) Dostoevsky # 8217 ; s solution lies in precisely the antonym from the category battle and the solution that it brings. All of those strives bring merely displacements and bends but are still based on hatred and non on love. When one thinks of God it is non in footings of category one belongs to, or sex or age. One either accepts the Word or one does non, one either believes that even the sparrow has its topographic point in God # 8217 ; s clemency or one goes around raving against God, at the same time speaking of his necessity. Dostoevsky shows such attitude, such portion clip apologizing as worthless and really frequently unsafe: self-destructions and slayings. He genuinely despises it and pitilessly onslaughts those wickednesss with all his strength and his equivocal words. Zosima # 8217 ; s gives an history of what being without Christ can make: They, following scientific discipline, want to establish justness on ground entirely, but non with Christ, as earlier, and they have already proclaimed that there is no offense, that there is no wickedness. And that # 8217 ; s consistent, for if you have no God what is the significance of offense? ( Brothers Karamazov. VI, 3 ) This is the danger of Raskolnikov and Ivan # 8217 ; s logic. The society around them and around Dostoevsky is one which makes kids suffer and turns immature, beautiful and wise animals, like Sonya, into cocottes. What is the reply? Is one reply possible to it at all? Can one travel on life with the idea of how much agony there is? Does one Rebel against the society, so seek to set up a new one, burying that society does non come to be of itself, but is built by human existences: existences imperfect and ready to ache and arise against their male parents, against the thought of # 8220 ; old, # 8221 ; or the society of the past and present. If that is taken into history the lone people who make do sense out of human being, which is best showed and expressed through agony, are people such as Ilyushka and Sonya. Their statement is much stronger. They are better for the cause of the betterment of societal issues than the existent speechmakers for the multitudes. Why? They offer the solution for peace in one # 8217 ; s psyche. They offer it with religion in God, non the rational way of the Western mind or with the denial of a Russian nihilist, but with a spring of religion that charms one against existent, barbarous, universe. The autocrats, the intellectuals, the Ivans can non be prevented, but religions can get the better of them, over and over once more. The bow and the busss have to be. Children dice, kids suffer, society is unfair, people kill for stupid grounds and base, despicable feelings. In a universe that is hopelessly destined to travel on like that, religion, God, are the best replies to our desperation. Intellectualism evidently does non convey much advantage or peace # 8211 ; religion and love bash. With God one # 8217 ; s pride can be defeated, one # 8217 ; s duty recognized, one # 8217 ; s active love awakened, one # 8217 ; s psyche saved: By the experience of active love. Strive to love your neighbour actively and tirelessly. Insofar as you advance in love you will turn surer of the world of God and of the immortality of your psyche. If you attain to hone self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbour, so you will believe without uncertainty, and no uncertainty can perchance come in your psyche. ( Brothers Karamazov. II, 4 ) ) Ivan recognizes that same necessity and utility of God. However, he does non truly believe in God, therefore he can non forgive, he can non forgive himself, and most significantly he does non believe in the immortality of the psyche and in justness. He does non love. Without a belief in the being of justness offense has no significance. His thought of God is worthless because he is an atheist, he does non believe. The lone manner out is non through the prevarication, with which the Church for centuries managed its personal businesss, but through true and honest belief that things have a intent and that it does count to be good and non to ache others. One can non work out society # 8217 ; s jobs unless one truly believes that what is done has a intent. That is non the manner because when one starts looking at humanity as a whole one will non happen many good things and one will neer hold any felicity. Merely by looking at the person can one get a minute of felicity and ecstasy of the psyche, such as Alyosha # 8217 ; s experiences in the field. Faith is non rational way, but it equips one with love. Merely by holding certain values and love for others can the household as the basic unit of the society survive. Family Karamazov is surely a barbarous illustration of what the society may come to if society does non keep values which produce love: we are all responsible for each other and we have to forgive each other. To better the society and societal conditions and to free people from immorality on Earth is impossible. The belief that there is immortality of the psyche and that there is God who takes attention of worlds is necessary. Dostoevsky goes farther than Voltaire. He believes that you have to hold true religion in order to achieve felicity and to make the land for better life. Intellectual treatment and the recognition of the necessity for the God as an thought or a Prime Mover becomes worthless the minute it is meant as a prevarication. It has to be the Truth, there has to be faith. If one lives a prevarication his resentment that the dream and the ideal are impossible will merely take to madness, hatred, and finally suicide or slaying. One has to give active love. So the ultimate reply to the agony and the unfairness in the universe is love. What higher feeling and more positive there is in human being? Again there is no rational manner to explicate and to truly take one on that way of religion. The possibility of such belief is existent because worlds are able to love. That means that they must be able to endure for others, they besides must be able to forgive. # 8220 ; Love all work forces, love everything # 8221 ; are Zosima # 8217 ; s words. Dostoevsky can non travel further than that. 37c

The Pros and Cons if “Sonny’s Blues” has a Different Ending Essay Example

The Pros and Cons if â€Å"Sonny’s Blues† has a Different Ending Paper The Sonny’s Blues novel of James Baldwin has a very fundamental and decisive ending. The scene of the ending is in the jazz club where Sonny, brother of the undisclosed narrator in the story, is one of the musicians. The narrator agreed to with his brother to the club which he prejudged as full of darkness not beneficial and favorable to his brother. Sonny has an addiction to heroin which made him more distant to his brother because the narrator wants his brother to have a good life. This good life he is speaking of is like his life where he sees all things under idealistic view. But in this ending, the narrator learned to â€Å"listen† to his brother about his addiction. If the ending could have been different, one of the pros behind is that the message of the story could have been different. The symbolisms and the idioms within the story will relate different notions to different readers. There is also the possibility that the impact of this novel to the literature world could have been different as well. It may lead to a more famous James Baldwin if it turned out better or an average Baldwin because this novel has been the beginning of James Baldwin recognition in the literature world. There is also the possibility that the scope of readers it covers is wider aside from the depressed and anguished. The impact could have been better if the ending is revised in a different way as long as the continuity of thoughts of the story must not be disintegrated or disengaged. We will write a custom essay sample on The Pros and Cons if â€Å"Sonny’s Blues† has a Different Ending specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Pros and Cons if â€Å"Sonny’s Blues† has a Different Ending specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Pros and Cons if â€Å"Sonny’s Blues† has a Different Ending specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The original ending is very â€Å"pro† in relation to the whole story because it reveals and bares the degree of changes in the narrator’s life and view. This is further emphasized through a flashback of the narrator’s last conversation with his mother where his mother warned and requested him to hold onto his brother and to not let him fall no matter what is happening to his brother and no matter how evil he gets to his brother. She told the narrator that he might get evil to his brother many times but he must not forget what his mother told and requested him (Baldwin, 2002). Without thinking, the narrator made a promise to his mother that he will not allow anything to happen to Sonny. Her dying mother smiled because she was amused of the innocence behind that promise. Through the ending in the jazz club where Sonny was on stage playing and the narrator met his brother’s friends, fellow musicians, and patrons, he saw the appreciation they had to Sonny in a way the narrator is never was to his brother. The narrator starts to appreciate, recognize, and realize the importance of jazz and blues music to Sonny. Instead of aiming and forcing Sonny to fit and adapt to his world, the other way around, he was in Sonny’s world or rather his kingdom were he grasp that n this world flows a royal blood in Sonny’s vein compared to his. The narrator analyzed that jazz music was his brother’s and other artists’ way to express their agony, suffering, and fear instead of being addicted to heroin. What then plays in Sonny’s music was his life along with other artists’ lives. The misery and distress of the brothers from the beginning of the story and how they struggled to handle these problems made them different. The narrator handled it through keeping it within himself like an ice that made it all hard for him. Thus, he even considered Sonny’s struggles as his own that made him cautious anytime if Sonn y’s addiction will come back. Compared to Sonny, he is strong enough to face the reality of his problems and faced them through his music to release it. This final scene further exemplifies the tragedies that befell his parents, the death of the narrator’s daughter of polio, and sorrow of his wife which are the other highlights of the story as well. The narrator was touched with the music and felt its power that let him faced his pain right then. On the other hand, one of the cons if the ending could have been different is the possibility that the impact to the readers of the novel might be towards the negative side. There is also the possibility of discontinuity of thoughts of the story. If the style of the ending would be changed too, the impact of the story and its purpose is diverted or changed. But with the prowess of Baldwin in writing, even with a different ending this might not occur.