English Literature

To whom much is given, much is expected. And this is the tragedy of being a hero. In the play Oedipus the King, the character of Oedipus is at firs portrayed as the wise one who solved the sphinxs riddle, saved Thebes and became its king. Self determination and confidence round him up, albeit with a mix of hot temper and uncontrolled anger. Beowulf, on the other hand, is the brave and all time warrior of Geatland. Steadfast loyalty to his people and a sense of pride for his successes in battle make him the ultimate hero. What is strikingly common to the two characters, however, is the paradox of their strength being their weakness. In fact, as both the play Oedipus and the epic Beowulf show, their ruthless self confidence and determination pushed them to their fall. It is because society expects a lot from its heroes, that most go into their extremes and ruin their lives.

Oedipus is the man who dared to tempt fate. His confidence is embodied in the belief that he holds his destiny in his own hands. After overhearing a drunk refer to him as a bastard, he immediately consulted an oracle to know how it is possible that he, the son of a king, would be a bastard. Instead, he is told that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Like his real father, King Laius, Oedipus determines to change the wheels of fate. He decides to run away from the palace of Corinth, so as to avoid the oracles prophecy. Unknown to him, this one move, trying to run away from fate, brought him closer to the destiny he sought to evade. He was determine to make things happen his way, but in so doing orchestrated his own destruction.

Beowulf exhibits this trait when he sought to kill the dragon. As king, he was getting old and most likely, weakened by age. But then, he was the most respected warrior that Geatland ever had. Even when it was obvious that challenging the dragon was suicidal, his confidence, perhaps with a tinge of pride, compelled him to take a dangerous course.

But the difference between the two is the circumstances and motives of their actions. Oedipus could not be said to be inspired by the bravery of Beowulf. On the contrary, his self confidence, the conviction that he can do it, or rather he ought to do it, was fed by the fear that the prophecy could be fulfilled if he stayed. Thus, essentially, he was running away from a crisis, rather than facing the challenge. We see a troubled man, not willing to be there when it came to pass. Regardless, we cant say he is exactly a coward, because he has chosen a cause of action which he is determined to pursue to avoid the abomination that the prophecy portends. His motive, however, is not to save or protect like Beowulf in time of a crisis, but to avoid the possibility of it happening. It is at this point that the nave side of his determination is unmasked. If he had the iron determination of a true hero, he would stay and wait for the prophesied time. And instead of fulfilling it, he would simply refuse to kill his father or marry his mother. With the knowledge of the oracle, to kill or not to kill his father is something he would have done willingly. It was this self confidence and determination to be away that ironically brought him nearer to fulfilling it, and closer to his ruin.

Upon becoming king of Corinth, an oracle reveals that the calamity that had plagued the country was rooted in the murder of King Laius. Once again, Oedipus is so determined to get the killer and punish him. When his wife(and mother) Jocasta casually mentions that Laius was killed at a three-way crossroads (symbolic of his trinity nature for being husband and son to his mother, and father to his siblings), he becomes even more determined, but partly to be certain that the man he killed on his way from Corinth could not be Laius. A sense of fear, once again, feeds his determination to know the truth.

Beowulf, contrastingly, is truly confident of himself to the bone. And he seems to realize a lot is expected of him as king. Usually, kings sent warriors to ward off any danger that threatened their people. But then, he considered himself as the one up to the challenge. Other factors such as the responsibility to protect his people and pride (he was proud of his exploits as a warrior in his youth) would have stirred the warrior instinct in him. However, going alone to face the dreaded dragon was stretching his confidence beyond human credibility. The conviction that he will kill the dragon is similar to Oedipus belief that he could change fate. The fact that both failed and perished in the end shows that human beings, by the very nature of their character, pursue paths that lead to their destruction. If only Oedipus was a little less determined, and Beowulf a little less confident, none would have dared to undertake extraordinary challenges.

Beowulf was brave and courageous, and for this he was the hope of his people. He had killed Grendel the monster and his mother. In his youth he had fought and won many battles. And now a dragon, more dangerous than the giants and rival tribes, threatened the people and he was their king. Oedipus, on his part, was supposedly the wise one the one who had solved the sphinxs riddle and constantly sought the counsel of the oracle. And Thebes, his kingdom, was plagued with a calamity. What is captured here is the way the character of each king influenced their reaction to their situations. Beowulf is courageous and believes in his physical strength. Accordingly, he ventured out to fight the dragon. His believe in courage and bravery is portrayed in stanza four, when he went to fight Grendel the monster. He  says

To Hrothgar Iin greatness of soul would succor bring,so the Wise-and-Brave  may worst his foes, --if ever the end of ills is fated,of cruel contest, if cure shall follow.. (Francis 2010).

Oedipus seeks to know first, to gain insight before reacting. He always sent for the oracle when a crisis loomed. In this particular case, he sent for the seer Teireisias for divine knowledge.

Loyalty to the people also comes into play when Beowulf joined the battle and by Oedipus for taking unto himself the peoples troubles. In his response to the congregation sent to see him, he lamented saying Sick as you are, not one is sick as I, each of you suffers in himselfbut my spirit Groans for the city, for myself, for you (Fitts 79).This indicates that both kings were loyal and equally committed to their people. Bravery by Beowulf exposed him to danger, while insight by Oedipus revealed knowledge that spelled his doom. Equally, loyalty and commitment by both kings kept them loyal and committed upon the path that led to ruin. Beowulf did so in the hope of saving his people, Oedipus in the belief that he was doing justice for the murder of King Laius.

During their youth, both Beowulf and Oedipus showed a great deal of pride for their respective positions. It is said that Beowulf used to narrate tales of his battles and victories. He fought not necessarily as a duty to society, but as a means of establishing himself as a hero. The pursuit of heroism is portrayed when he left Geatland and went to Denmark to fight the monsters that had attacked the palace of king Hrothgar. While addressing Hrothgar, he spoke of himself in part VII and XXI

Thou Hrothgar, hail Hygelacs I,kinsman and follower. Fame a plentyhave I gained in youth..
Sorrow not, sage It beseems us betterfriends to avenge than fruitlessly mourn them.Each of us all must his end abidein the ways of the world so win who mayglory ere death When his days are told,that is the warriors worthiest doom (Francis 2010).

 This is in contrast with his battle with the dragon as an aging king. Instead of pride, he was fighting for the common good of society and out of his sense of responsibility. The ending of the poem describes the call of duty that had sent him forth to protect his people

Thus made their mourning the men of Geatland,for their heros passing his hearth-companionsquoth that of all the kings of earth,of men he was mildest and most beloved,to his kin the kindest, keenest for praise (Francis 2010).

But then, his pride and quest for heroism in his youth had prepared him for the throne, which charged him with the responsibility to protect his people, and perish in the process.

Pride could be the one reason why Oedipus killed the stranger who turned out to be his father. In those times, it was the norm for people of high rank to have right of passage first, either on the road or across a bridge. Laius was the king of Thebes and therefore had this right, which was clearly obvious to his guards. Oedipus, even if he was on the run, still regarded himself as heir to the throne of Corinth. Accordingly, he expected to be accorded due respect. But his adversaries did not know this and pushed him out of the way for their king to pass. It was then that a fight ensued in which he inadvertently killed his father. Were it not for pride and a sense of self-importance, he really wouldnt have killed the stranger, whose ghost will haunt and blind him. And like Beowulf, he showed a degree of responsibility in his later life as king of Thebes. Upon learning the abomination he had committed, he took responsibility of his mistakes and accepted to be exiled from the land. Though nobody pushed him, his strong conviction about responsibility would not allow him to take an easier way out.

Nonetheless, he differed from Beowulf by his hot temper and uncontrolled anger, which could have caused him to react so ruthlessly to a harmless insult. At Thebes, he said that the one who led the way, and the old man himself, wanted to push him out of the road by force. As the heir apparent to the throne of Corinth, that was an insult he could not take and as a result, killed his offenders. His quick temper and his self-confidence could not leave him space for any gentler choice. These facts confirm his reliance on his emotions rather than on reason, as good counsel would demand of a great hero. Yet again, these tragic flaws in the character of a hero are what make them to stumble and fall.

In conclusion, the character traits of the two heroes were responsible for the fate they suffered. Oedipus was too much determined to change his destiny. Beowulfs confidence led him to the dragons den. And both kings had a sense of responsibility to their people. Without these, they wouldnt have made the choices they made, which were clearly the harbingers of their fall.

Miguel Street is a novel based on experiences that happened around a street in Trinidad located in the western part of the Port of Spain named Miguel Street. It contains distinctive characters that have various ambitions that are never realized but are remembered by the narrator and recorded in the novel. Unfortunately neither of the characters in the novel leaves Miguel Street apart from the narrator who leaves to make something of himself.

The characters in the book include a Man-man who is depicted to be a mad man who ends up being a prophet, an aspiring poet, B (standing for black) Wodsworth (It is noted that his name was taken from the English poet William Wordsworth) who is said to be working on the greatest poem but it is eventually revealed that he never goes past the first line of the said poem.. Another character is a carpenter who is always working on a nameless item that he never completes. Then there is Laura who is usually happy and in a good mood despite bearing many children with different men becomes sad when she finds out that her daughter gets pregnant and becomes relieved when her daughter commits suicide.

George of the Pink House is depicted as a man who has failed to manage his family and his inevitable failure. He beats his wife to death and turns his frustrations to his children and in particular his daughter. This does not seem to relieve his frustrations and eventually opens up a brothel for American soldiers.

His son, Elias, aspires to be a doctor early in life but despite his hard work, he gets a third grade in his certificate examinations and therefore has to lower his ambitions to become a sanitary examiner. Even at this task he does not seem to be able to qualify even after moving to other areas where it is said to be easier to pass the sanitary inspectors examinations. He attempts and fails for a period of three years. This leaves him disillusioned and alienated from the world and the narrator indicates that he becomes a scavenger in relation to his performance and job as a customs officer. In this way Elias is alienated from the rest of the world attributed to his poor performance and lack of a good job. Elias copes with the alienation by adapting to the circumstances and excuses his dismal job by saying that it is practical and that he enjoys every aspect of it.

Bogart, who was previously known as patience, seems to have at a point aspired to be a tailor, this is shown by his purchase of  a sewing machine and blue and white chalks and more so getting the narrator to complete a sign saying Tailor and cutter, Suits made to order,, Popular and competitive prices. However the narrator indicates that he cannot remember Bogart making a single suit. In the novel it seems that Bogarts is held back by his attitude and lack of interest in the trade. He, however, was not alienated from the society and quite in the contrary he had many friends and the narrator indicates that at a point he was the most popular man despite his soft spoken nature. People considered him to be a smart man and the narrator supposes that he gave the people solace and comfort. Bogart leaves the Miguel Street but it is not indicated whether he left to make a better life like the narrator. His entry to Miguel Street, it seems, was as sudden as his exit.

Big Foot is a character who is feared by the people in Miguel Street. He is depicted to be a huge black man. However, the narrator is keen on pointing out that he is not feared because of his color or his size but by his quiet and sulky disposition. He is said to have once to have thrown a stone at the Radio Trinidad building and broke a window. When asked why he did that he said that he was waking the people up. He seems to be a man without a particular ambition or direction as he becomes a driver of the diesel buses, then a postman and a carpenter. However despite people being scared of him, the narrator finds out he is a coward in an incident at the beach when he runs away on hearing the bark of a dog. Big foot is largely alienated from the society since the people are afraid of him. The narrator does not reveal his cowardly nature since he is scared of what he may do to him, but it turns out to be an understanding between the narrator and big foot.

Introduction
John Miltons Paradise Lost is considered to be one of the greatest in English Language. The poem is about the story of the Fall of Man, the temptation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eve. It is said that the subject matter of this poem has continued to puzzle readers of every age group because of the sheer beauty of its language and power of its characterization. The author does not hesitate to question many difficult questions and turn for the exploration of one of the foundational myths of Western Culture. In this sense, this paper tries to analyze the different chapter of the poem.

Book I
The story of Book I introduces the primary idea of the poem namely the creation, fall and redemption of the humankind and world. The author invokes the support of the deliberate and the Holy Spirit as he sets out to execute things unstamped yet in Prose or Rhyme and by using the medium of epic to justify the ways of God to men.  In the story, the author starts after the enormous battle in Heaven and the collapse of the rebel angels. The poem introduces Satan at the moment after his own collapse into hell. He was described by the author as the darkness of visible sitting on a lake of fire where the flames shed no light. After that, he (Satan) awakened his legions, addressing them in an emotive and stimulating action. Then if heaven is closed to them they are going to create a new one which they may call their own. Satan set his host to work a suitable place from which he call Hell. Thus, the result of their collaborative efforts is Pandemonium. The palace of Satan, and there are numerous number of angels of Hell to begin their council.

Book II
Book II begins when Satan debates whether a new battle is to be made and be hazardous for the recovery of heaven. Thus, a third proposal is mentioned, that is to search the reality of prophesy or tradition in heaven concerning another world is to be created. The council therefore concluded to betake several employments, as their goal lead them to reality until Satan return. He passes on this journey to hell gates and guarded them day and night. At this time, he discovers a great gulf between heaven and hell, and with difficulty and chaos the power of that place were the new world which he sought.

Book III
This chapter begins with God observation of Satans journey and the story on how he will bring the downfall of man. God on this chapter emphasizes that the fall of Man will come as s result of his own freewill and upon his excuses of moral responsibility. Then the Son of God offers himself as a ransom for Mans disobedience and ordaining the Sons future incarnation and punishment. At the end, Satan disguises himself as an angel and arrives at the rim of the universe.

Book III
God saw Satan flying towards the world that He created. He show this scenario to His son who sat at his right hand and then trying to foretell the success of Satan in perverting mankind. He clears his own justice and wisdom from all amputation yet announces his objectives of disgrace towards him (Satan). After that, the Son of God admires his Father for the manifestation of His gracious purpose towards man. His Father reiterated that grace cannot be extended to man without the satisfaction of divine justice. The Son of God freely gives himself as a ransom for man, and then the Father believes in him, orders his manifestation and pronounces his adoration on top of all names in heaven and earth. On the other hand, Satan alights upon the bare convex of his outermost orb and find a place he called Limbo of Vanity. His passage to the orb of the sun leads him to Uriel (regent orb) and pretends a zealous desire to behold the new creation and inquire in his habitation on Mount Niphates.

Book IV
Book IV starts the journey of Satan to the Garden of Eden, where he saw Adam and Eve talking about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. By observing the two of them, he finds out their innocence and beauty and concluded to compel them to do a deed which he should abhor. He tempts Eve while she was as sleep but this was discovered by the angels. In return, angel Gabriel expels Satan from the Garden of Eden.

Book V
When morning comes, Eve narrated to Adam her troublesome dream. On the other hand, God, render man inexcusable, sends Raphael to reprimand him of his obedience and whatever else may avail Adam to know. When Raphael comes down to Paradise, his appearance was described, separated by Adam afar off, and sited at the gate of his bower. Raphael performs his message, reminds Adam of his state and his enemy and everything he needs to know.

Book VI
In this chapter Raphael continues to relate how Michael and Gabriel were sent in the battle against Satan and his angels. His first fight, Satan and his angels retire under light. The he calls his council and invent devilish engines which put Michael and his angels to chaos on the second day. On the third day, god sends Messiah, his Son, for whom he had reserved the glory of victory. In the end, Messiah returns with triumph to his Father.

Book VII
On this chapter, Raphael explains to Adam that God decide to build new world (Earth) and warn Adam not to eat fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. He sends his Son with glory and presence of angels to work on creation in six days. At the end of this chapter, the angels celebrate with hymns and glorification to heaven.

Book VIII
Adam asks about celestial motions and its doubtful answered together to the things that are more worthy of knowledge. In this chapter, Adam desirous to attain Raphael and tells him all about what he remembered since creation. The experience he had after placing him to Paradise, his conversation with God and his discourse with the angel thereupon.

Book IX
Satan went back to Eden and come into a body of a sleeping serpent. He serpent on the other hand convinces Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. In return, Eve was convince by the serpent and takes some fruit for Adam. Although, Adam knew that Eve was tricked by the serpent, he opted to eat the fruit and face the consequences. At first Adam and Eve become inebriated by the fruit and afterwards lost their innocence and cover their naked bodies and fall into despair.

Book X
Gods announces that the entrance of Satan in his paradise could not be prevented. Thus, He sends his Son to judge the transgressors and then resends his judgment accordingly.  Sin and Death were proclaimed because of the success of Satan to tempt human and if sin was committed, he resolve it by putting them in hell. The proceedings of Sin and Death, God reiterated the final victory of His Son over them.

Book XI
The Son of God introduces to His Father the prayer that should be repented and declares the both Adam and Eve will no longer stayed in the Paradise. He sent Michael together with a bunch of cherubim to escort them outside the Paradise. Adam shows to Eve certain ominous sign and denounces their departure with lamentation. On the other hand, Michael begins to clarify the future history of the earth to Adam.

Book XII
Before leaving the Paradise, Michael tells Adam of the eventual coming of the Messiah. According to Michael they have lost the Physical Paradise but now they have the opportunity to enjoy the new one. Adam was greatly satisfied by this revelation of Michael. Lastly, Michael leads them out of Paradise with flaming sword waving behind them and the cherubim taking their stations to watch the Paradise.

That Frankenstein is a story of a monsters scientific creation is difficult to deny created by Victor Frankenstein as a part of his scientific experiment, the monster exemplifies a unique combination of cruelty and suffering, because the world does not give it a chance to satisfy its complex passions. However, not always are readers given an opportunity to see and evaluate the role, which women play and are expected to play in the story. Victors mother Caroline, his adopted cousin Elizabeth, Justine Moritz and Waltons cousin Margaret altogether represent the female element of the story which, despite its presence, cannot change or influence the development of the plot line. It would be fair to assume that women in Mary Shelleys novel are as present as they are also absent they have names but remain virtually inactive they are vague, faceless, and voiceless transparent and inanimate. In this sense, and through the prism of female characters, Mary Shelleys Frankenstein is nothing else but a ghost story, which positions women as faceless voiceless male accessories and emphasizes their inferior gender position.  

Mary Shelley and women present and absent
Frankenstein is often referred to as the brightest example of a monster story and the first piece of scientific fiction ever written by a woman Mary Shelley was able to create an image of a monster, which is equally cruel and unhappy about its existence. Unfortunately, Frankenstein is rarely viewed as an object of a peer gender analysis. Yet, the continuous domination of male characters throughout the novel and the lack of specificity with regard to female characters create the vision of women as of a faceless voiceless mass which, despite its overwhelming presence throughout the story, does not have the power necessary to change or at least to influence the development of the plot line. Women in Frankenstein are as present as they are also absent, playing the role of male accessories and used by men to reinforce their narcissistic beliefs about self. Beginning with Caroline who, as a woman, has to submissively carry the burden of her family responsibilities, through Elizabeth and Justine who give away their lives for nothing, and to Margaret who, as a silent listener, never shows her voice, Mary Shelley tries to emphasize the dominant power of males in society and to stress the limited self-realization opportunities for women. Women in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein are nothing but ghosts  inanimate, voiceless and faceless objects who are too innocent to be reasonable and too feminine to be able to take decisions. More often than not, the presence and or absence of women in Frankenstein is driven and justified by the needs of men men decide their fates long before women are born and require that they silently reconcile with their secondary gender roles.

Frankenstein and Caroline omnipresence as the sign of submissiveness
Victors mother Caroline should serve the starting point in the gender analysis of Shelleys novel. It would be fair to say that Caroline sets the stage for the development of other feminine roles in Frankenstein and makes it possible to evaluate the hidden causes of Victors attitudes toward women. Caroline positions herself as a woman of obligation and as a person, who should serve her family and her society for the rest of her life. Shelley does not provide any description of her appearance nor does she discuss her character in detail, but that Caroline is eager to minister her dying father for ten month reveals her hidden submissiveness to the dominant power of males This last blow overcame her and she knelt by Beauforts coffin, weeping bitterly, when my father entered the chamber. He came like a protecting spirit to the poor girl, who committed herself to his care, and after the interment of his friend he conducted her to Geneva, and placed her under the protection of a relation. Two years after this event Caroline became his wife (Shelley 19).

Caroline is presented by Shelley as an angel of spirit, who lives her life, helping the poor and giving away herself to save the life of her Elizabeth. However, this very angelicalness, as Dickerson calls it, is the direct reflection of womens ghost image in the novel (85). Women are shown in need for male protection and, simultaneously, play the roles of outside guards and invisible male supporters. Like Caroline, women in Shelleys novel are omnipresent, meaning that they are virtually absent at all. This omnipresence implies the lack of power, complete passivity, and the lack of self-expression. The first time Caroline becomes decisive and goes against her family members will to save Elizabeths life, this decision leads her to death  the event that has far-reaching gender implications. Women in Shelleys Frankenstein are so innocent and so sweet that they can hardly hope to ever occupy a social position at least close to that of men. They are destined to experience painful and unfair death, being the bearers of traditional ideology of love, nurturance, and domesticity at worst, they are passive victims (Dickerson 86).

Passive women and the transition of roles
The death of Caroline Frankenstein is actually an act of transition not only does it lead Victor to realize the true value of his relationships with mother, but it also transfers the power and the pressure of masculinity completely onto Elizabeths shoulders. From now on, Elizabeth is the one to exemplify the eternal transparence of the female social position and to serve a silent guard in Victors scientific and personal endeavors. From the very beginning of her life in Frankenstein family, Elizabeth is given a role of an inanimate object On the evening previous to her being brought to my home, my mother had said playfully, - I have a pretty present for my Victor  tomorrow he shall have it.  And when, on the morrow, she presented Elizabeth to me as her promised gift I, with childish seriousness, interpreted her words literally and looked upon Elizabeth as mine  mine to protect, love, and cherish (Shelley 22-23).

Here, the words protect, love, and cherish are not as important as the word mine, which associates Elizabeth with an inanimate object of proprietorship and forever links her image to that of Victors mother. I thought I saw Elizabeth, in the bloom of health, walking in the streets of Ingolstadt. Delighted and surprised, I embraced her but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death (Shelley 58). Needless to say, the loss of mother is a serious psychological trauma for Victor. Since the moment his mother dies, he has a deep sense of betrayal and abandonment  the feelings which he projects on Elizabeth and which underlie the principles of gender categorization for him (Negra 197). Left without his mother, Victor subconsciously views women as unreliable and shifting, and Elizabeth, like Caroline, Margaret, and Justine, does not have a single chance to improve her social position. She has to comply with Victors decisions and even at the wedding night she is sent away to protect her life but when she dies, Victors decisions no longer look reasonable and justified but once again emphasize the transparency, unreliability, inferiority, and inherent weakness as the determining characteristics of women in Frankenstein.

Women, transparency, and the role of Margaret
Nowhere else is the omnipresence of angel-like women in Frankenstein as visible, as dramatic, and as tragic as in the image of Margaret. That Walton writes letters to a woman who never responds and never reacts to his stories shows Shelleys Frankenstein as an effective tool of aggression against female nature (Seabury 139). Like the sainty soul of Elizabeth shone like a shrine-dedicated lamp in our peaceful home (Shelley 25), Margaret plays a role of a silent observer, a passive guard and a tool of reason for Walton. And now, dear Margaret, do I not deserve to accomplish some great purpose My life might have been passed in ease and luxury, but I preferred glory to every enticement that wealth placed in my path. Oh, that some encouraging voice would answer in the affirmative My courage and my resolution is firm but my hopes fluctuate, and my spirits are often depressed (Shelley 5). However, Walton designs his questions in ways that do not need answers, and Margaret for Walton is just an effective tool of contemplation, which helps him reasonably reevaluate his deeds and nourishes his narcissistic opinions about himself. This is, probably, an idealized representation of women for both Victor and Walton. These expectations and idealized roles imply that women should reframe themselves to the extent, which will keep them and men at a distance. Like Margaret, women in Shelleys novel act like ghosts they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. They are like a masquerade and should be elsewhere, to successfully fulfill their social functions (Gill 95). The omnipresence of women in Shelleys Frankenstein is the direct reflection of their actual absence from the major life activities. Shelley shows women as those, who play the major roles of ghosts in her story. They are neither powerful, nor active. They have no face and no voice. They serve silent guards and reinforce narcissistic reactions in men. Throughout the story, they are not given a role better than being a male accessory, which emphasizes their inferior social position and does not give them a chance for self-realization.

Conclusion
Mary Shelleys Frankenstein is traditionally referred to as a monster story. However, the role and functions which women fulfill in Shelleys novel have far reaching gender implications. Women in Frankenstein are as present as they are also absent. Their omnipresence emphasizes their weakness, passivity, and the limitedness of their gender roles. Women in Shelleys novel have no faces and no voices. They act like silent guards and reinforce narcissistic moods in men. They take positions socially inferior to those of men, and ideally, are expected to keep at a distance. Victor and Walton view women as both fragile and unreliable. Women for them are sweet to the extent, which makes them angel-like and thus deprives them of their decision-making powers. In this crowd of voiceless faceless women, Frankenstein turns into a ghost story, in which women are destined to lead the ghost masquerade.

Russian writer Anton Chekhovs short story, The Lady with the Pet Dog, demonstrates how a literary work -- which uses fluid, non-conventional structure and brilliant descriptive style to treat a topic deemed sensitive during the late 19th century -- can be very effective.

The story takes place in the nineteenth-century town of Yalta in Russia.  Using an ominiscient narrator, Chekhov tackles the topic of marital indiscretion of two seemingly mature individuals who have long been struggling to find meaning in their imperfect worlds but have not been in touch with their emotions  until their paths cross.  In the story, Chekhov presents the main characters, their innermost sentiments, and their predicament in the most objective manner.  Hence, the author does not come out as preachy. Instead,  the author succeeds in piquing the interest and eliciting readers sympathy for the main characters, who gradually get entangled in a situation that can very well happen in real life.

The Lady with the Pet Dog begins in a light, free-flowing manner, and the reader discovers the motives, dominant personality traits, and opinions about women of the main character, Dmitri Dmitritch Gurov,  through his musings at the beginning of the story.  As the story progresses, readers gain insight about the other central character, Anna Sergeyevna, but glean little about their respective spouse.  As such, readers are not able to sympathize with the other characters who are very much a part of the central characters lives but are only tackled in fleeting manner in the story. In so doing, the extramarital affair does not really come out as condemnable.  A cathartic effect is instead experienced by most readers, as the angsts of the couple who plunge into the extramarital affair are brought out in the open.

Anton Chekhovs mastery of the short story genre is showcased as he relates through a third person narrator the metamorphosis of Gurov from a philandering man of leisure to a sensitive human being who has been transformed by love.  Chekhov also employs numerous literary devices like similes, satire, personification, and symbols. There likewise a few lyrical passages that underscore the heightened emotions the main character goes through. When the narrator says, He felt compassion for this life, still so warm and lovely, but probably already not far from beginning to fade and wither like his own And only now when his head was grey he had fallen properly, really in love  for the first time in his life (Chekhov) the reader cannot help but empathize with the main character as the story gently reaches its climax. Because the author does not moralize but simply presents the circumstances as they unfold, readers are left to discern for themselves the takeaway message and to decipher the various symbolisms. An example of Chekhovs deft use of figures of speech like simile is readily gleaned when the omniscient narrator expresses Gurovs thoughts it was as though they were a pair of birds of passage, caught and forced to live in different cages (Chekhov).

Chekhovs intense focus on his characters, and the masterful way he makes them transcend the story, contribute to making The Lady with the Pet Dog a very effective essay. In true Chekhovian style, the plot originates from the inner force of his characters. His characters are seldom guided by the storyline (Jha par. 6).  The settings shift and symbolize the innermost desires or shackles faced by the main characters. The plot moves in well-organized manner, while utilizing methods as flashback, which less adroit writers could not have effectively done. As a storyteller Chekhov had genius for conveying the astonishing possibilities of human nature. His insight into human mind was profound and dynamic (Jha par.6).  This fact, to a large extent, made The Lady with the Pet Dog a very compelling literary work.

The elaboration of the things that drive the main character Gurov to engage in extramarital affairs - during an era when everyone considered it a major moral transgression -- is expressed through the characters thought processes. Dialogue is effectively used to convey the innermost sentiments of the central characters and to serve as jump-off point for other details. The female reaction to infidelity is shown through the stirring dialogues between Anna with Gurov, as shown in the portion in the story when Anna is preparing to return to her husband upon receiving a letter  Its a good thing I am going away its the finger of destiny (Chekhov). Personification is used in this line which underscores the central female characters sad acceptance of her fate as a wife who must go back and face her marital obligations.

By employing his trademark stream of consciousness narrative style, Chekhov lets readers gain a more profound understanding of the thoughts and actions of his two central characters Gurov and Anna, thereby arousing reader interest and holding attention up to the very end.  This approach also shows readers how two intertwined souls struggle to be true to their innermost longings and  to live above the mundane. Chekhov writes in a very compelling manner, thereby making his characters seem so alive. When the story ends with the line, it was clear to both of them that they had still a long, long road before them, and that the most complicated and difficult part of it was only just beginning (Chekhov), the author leaves it to the readers imagination to figure out the subsequent events and work out in their minds what they feel may be the most probable ending to the love story.

The Lady with the Pet Dog is, from all angles, a well-written literary piece that stands out for the authors unique writing style, brilliant use of literary devices, focus, organization and elaboration.  A short story like The Lady with the Pet Dog is highly absorbing not only because of the brilliant writers fluid and creative writing style but also because it presents aspects of real life without flourish. It proves that one need not adopt the traditional structure of a short story or essay to gain and hold the attention of readers, or in short, to be effective.

1984 is the famous dystopian (anti-utopian) novel written by George Orwell. Many years after, the novel remains to be one of the most influential writing ever issued against the dangers of the totalitarian society. Orwell was able to show the worst human society imaginable through the life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One where people are in the world of unending war, invasive government scrutiny, public mind control and cancellation of citizens rights. He wrote 1984 to caution the people about the possibility of this type of society that could actually exist if trends in the novel continued. These are chauvinism, oppression of the working class and the erosion of language that expresses the history of human existence. Orwell wanted his readers to see that people have to fight in order to avoid this kind of future. He created the character of Winston Smith to show the struggle of a common civil servant. His poor existence disillusions him into rebellion against Big brother, which leads to his arrest, torture and conversion.

The long years of war has left the society of Airstrip One in absolute poverty. By the year 1984, Airstrip One is already in ruins given the beatings of the civil war, atomic wars and Eurasion rocket bombs. As Winston goes around the urban areas, there is nothing left to see but the rubbles, decay and collapsing structures. The government has no effort to rebuild London. Aside from the well-maintained and bombproof Ministries, all towns and cities all over Airstrip One are left to rot in the same desperate condition. The people have very poor living standards. Many things are scarce and hard to obtain and those goods that are available are of very poor quality. The poor living condition of the people is being justified by the Party by claiming that everyone should make sacrifices for the common good. The war effort is taking too much resources from the people. The truth is, war is being sustained in order to get rid of the surplus of industrial production that could actually alleviate the condition of the people.

The figure below is the structure of Airstrip One Society. Big Brother is the perceived leader of Oceania. Though he may not actually exist, he is an extremely important figure in the society. His image is everywhere, bearing the message Big Brother is Watching You.

The Inner Party is the smallest population at the top level of Oceanian society and has the highest standard of living. OBrien, a mysterious and powerful man, is a sophisticated member of the party. He is living a relatively comfortable life, living in a clean apartment, eating high quality food such as wine, coffee and sugar. People like him also seem to have slaves who are captured from the disputed zone. These things are not available to the rest of the population. When Winston accompanied him in his apartment, the former was shocked to see that the elevators in the latters apartment actually work. However, the life of the Inner Party Members enjoy is still far below those of societys elite before the revolution.

The Outer Party Members, or the Middle Class of Oceanian society, have poor living standards. They are only allowed to consume low quality, synthetic goods. Their main alcoholic beverage, Victory Gin, is industrial-grade and their cigarettes are trashy. They eat black bread and other synthetic meals served in the workplace. Winston, a member of the party, lives in the ruins of London. He has a one room apartment in Victory Mansions and goes to work at the Ministry of Truth.

The Proles, majority of the population, are at the bottom of society. They are treated by the Party as animals, allowing them to live in pure filth and poverty.  They do not revolt about their condition as they are silenced with enormous quantities of cheap beer, widespread pornography and a national lottery. However, these amusements cannot hide how dangerous and deprived the lives of the proles. They live in the section of the cities which are ridden with disease and pests. They are left to cater for their needs. But they enjoy more privacy in their lives because they are less subject to scrutiny than Party members. For example, the proles whom Winston meets in the streets and in the pubs are more carless when they speak and behave. Further, the prole criminals whom he meets during the first phase of his imprisonment are far less cowed than the educated political prisoners. In fact, they are not afraid to rudely jeer at the telescreens with evident impunity.

The framework of the book follows the social theory that revolutions are always started by the middle class and not by the lower class. Based on Karl Marx social conflict theory, the working class, who are exploited by the bourgeoisie, will eventually gain their true class consciousness or a sense of shared identity based on this exploitation. Therefore, the middle class are so closely controlled that the regime can infiltrate what they are thinking and the minute details of their daily lives, the lower classes can be left to their own devices and pose no threat. Hence, it is Winstons belief that the true hope lies with the proles.

The Iliad is a war story written over 3000 years ago by Homes, a blind artist, and is characterized with dread, death and love. Its made up of blood drenched episodes, treachery, ruthless battles and abandonment. The Iliad begun while the Trojan War was still in progress. Homes presents the character of Achilles, a fierce Greek warrior, as immortal but still vulnerable like other human beings. Paris, a prince of Troy, eluded with Helen who was the wife of Spartan king called Menelaus. The king sought the services of his elder brother called Agamemnon, who was the commander in chief of Achaean troops, to win back Helen (Bloom, 7). The sail to Troy marked the beginning of a war that was to last ten long years.
               
Agamemnon alienates Achilles who in turns becomes outraged and vows not to represent the Achaean army until they come begging for him. According to Bloom (1987), the Greeks fight the Trojans for nine long years without success and the battle grounds are brutal and gruesome made up of impaled men, crushed skulls and gouged eyes, (p.31). The brutality continues and at one point, Menelaus overpowers Adrestrus and hesitates before he kills him after he begs for mercy. His brother reminds him that they have come to finish the Trojan race and Menelaus kills him. The gods strike lightening to the Greek warriors and they become disoriented and start to disperse. Hector, the leader of the Trojan forces continues to strike the Greek army and multiple deaths threaten to force the Greek to surrender. Agamemnon agrees that he made a stupid mistake in sidelining their greatest warrior and prepares gifts to lure Achilles back. Dolan, a Trojan soldier is caught and tortured to death after giving information about the location of his troops. The Achaeans head for Thracian encampment and kills a sleeping man, Rheusus, as well as twelve of his cohorts.
           
Agamemnon kills many warriors among them being two of Antenors sons but gets wounded after killing Coon. Hector takes the opportunity to slaughter multiple Achaean men who scatter in different directions. A god named Zeus continues to give victory to the Trojans, while Idomenus fights back and kills some of the Trojan great troops. The lockrians holds back the Trojan warriors by shooting them with arrows thus scattering and killing many of their greatest troops. The Trojans regain strength and drive the Achaeans towards their ships (Bloom, 18). Patroclus begs Achilles to aid his countrymen who are being attacked from every direction.
             
Patroclus, wearing Achilles armor, assists in repelling the Trojan troops and mercilessly kills the enemies best warriors. The Achaean troops win every assault but as the Trojan retreats back to troy, Hector with the help of Apollo, a god, kills Patroclus and glorifies himself over his corpse. The Achaeans put their lives on the line to protect Patroclus body and the two sides fight for honor and what transpires from the war marks the largest battle in the Iliad.
               
Achilles learns of the demise of his beloved friend, Patroclus, and proclaims that Nothing matters to me now  But killing and blood and men in agony (19.226). He failed to understand his mothers prophesies that his request for a glorious death would culminate to the death of his friend. Achilles assembles his troops and heads for Hector and while on the way, they encounter Aeneas and engage in a fierce battle(Bloom, 44). The Trojans are filled with fear after seeing Achilles while the gods prepare to assault each other Ares against Athena Leto against Hermes, Apollo against Poseidon. In the act of reckless violence that ensues, Achilles slaughters many Trojan warriors such that the River Scamander gets clogged with their gore and mutilates begging fighters with blood thirst, animalistic character.
             
He solely divides the Trojan army and drives one part towards the city and the other towards the river. He hacks them to pieces angering the river god known as Xanthus, who aids Asteropaeus to injure him. Achilles proceeds to kill him and slaughters more Paeonians fleeing in terror. The river god protest asking Achilles to desist from clogging her waters with corpses. Achilles agrees on condition that all Trojans retreats back to the city and hector is killed. The god of fire come to the help of Achilles who is being attacked by Xanthus, and many corpses and plants in the plains start to burn while the marine life continue die (Bloom, 65).
           
Achilles runs after Hector around the walls of troy and Hector tries to cut a deal with him.  He asks him to swear that the winner will respect the corpse of the loser. Achilles retorts that there are no deals that are cut between lambs and wolves, nor between men and lions. After killing Hector, he wishes he had the guts to consume his raw flesh and proceeds to drag his lifeless body around the city. The final memories of the Iliad are those of doomed Trojans filled with great sorrow, and the lack of celebration among the Achaeans.

William Faulkners A Rose for Emily follows the sad love affair of a noble mans daughter. The storys two main characters, Emily and Homer, meet their tragic end not entirely because of their own doing they become unlucky victims of the society that they are in.

Emily Grierson, the main protagonist, is living in isolation in her inherited house, shutting herself from the outside world. Her fixation to an upper class life makes her abhor the townspeople. She carried her head high enough. It was as if she demanded more than ever the recognition of her dignity as the last Grierson (William Faulkner, Collected Stories of William Faulkner 125). Not only her mental state deteriorates, her physical appearance shows ugliness as well. ...a small, fat woman. She looked bloated (Ib 121).

She is not entirely to blame for her deterioration, though her father plays a great part of it. He controlled her life since her childhood until his death, conditioning her mind to a kind of life ideal to him a hypocritical noble and respected existence that makes everybody else insignificant. ...the Griersons held themselves a little too high for what they really were.(Ib 123). Emily has never experienced the excitement of being wooed by a man because of her father. We remembered all the young men her father had driven away (Ib 124). After her father dies, Emily holds on to the belief that she is still superior. Her mind is consumed by the past which clouds her ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. See Colonel Sartoris. (Colonel Sartoris had been dead almost ten years) (Ib 121). Despite her eccentricities, the townspeople do not consider her crazy. Incidentally, the townspeople also have a significant part in Emilys fate their incessant interference with her life and her affairs makes Emily to detest them more. They take delight with her misfortune....and in a way, people were glad.(Ib123). Worse, they even desire death for her. When Emily buys a bottle of poison, the people presumes that she will kill herself, and they all agree that it would be the best thing(Ib 126).Emily is aware of all the gossips, but the mighty air in her forbids her to stoop down to the level of the people she considers inferior. Her hermitic life suddenly shows color when she meets Homer Baron.

Homer is a physically attractive man, who easily captivates and fascinates the townspeople, perhaps the ladies as well, with his charm however, when he starts to show interest with Emily, it is the same people who scrutinize him and deem him as unworthy of Emilys attention since Homers social status is way lower than Emilys. They doubt his intention to her because they learn that Homer liked men, and it was known that he drank with the younger men in the Elks Club--that he was not a marrying man.(Ib 126). Here, one side of Homer can be assumed he is a homosexual. Perhaps he is only using Emily as a front to conceal his other side and maintain his masculinity. On the other hand, though, this can also be viewed as the way of a bachelor who cannot let go of the pleasure brought by being a single.
 
Their love affair pushes through, yet the townspeople continue to condemn the couple.... it was a disgrace to the town and a bad example to the young people.(Ib 126). But Emily seems to be determined to keep his man to herself, even if she has to kill to do it. Emilys crime, poisoning Homer, is a clear indication of an insane obsession. However, in a closer look, she does it for two reasons a revolt over the happiness that was deprived by his father when he was still alive and defiance to the townspeople who oppose her relationship with Homer. This time, she is not to be denied of her happiness.

Society drives Emily to prefer living in isolation and deteriorate in a world she creates, leading her to commit such unspeakable act. Similarly, the same factor leads homer to his unexpected end. Nevertheless, the two lovers defy all odds and prove that till death do they part. Perhaps in another lifetime, they can find the happiness that they long to have.

The main character of the William Faulkner short story A Rose for Emily is the eccentric Emily.  Born in the times after the Civil War and cared for by an overbearing father, and Colonel Satoris, Emily is a character on the brink of insanity from an early age.  However, not only does Emily represent herself, but she represents the Old South, in light of the new order of the world.  It is through the events that are most memorable in Miss Emilys life that one can understand the symbolic themes that surround this character. Taking the several events within the story, the reader can watch the sanity come and go, as well as the changes of the world between the old and the new.

In section one of the story, the discussion starts with a focus on the Jefferson County taxes that the aldermen of the county say are owed by Miss Emily.  This is the first inkling that there is something amiss with Miss Emily.  She seems to live in the past.  She refuses to acknowledge that she owes taxes.  She also refuses to believe that the sheriff holds any real power.  Her belief in Colonel Satoris is enough, and she tells them to go and talk to the colonel.  However, the reader knows as do the townspeople, Colonel Satoris is dead.  For Miss Emily, he is alive and he will explain everything.  The examination of section one shows the reader the insanity that is attributed to Miss Emily in her elder years, but it also reminds the reader that Miss Emily is old south and the aldermen are new south, and the two do not mix well.  She holds on to the old ways, just as did the old south (Nebeker 3 Watkins 509).

Section two focuses on the two deaths in the life of Miss Emily.  The first death is of her father.  With that death it takes the townspeople three days to talk her into letting them take her father and bury him the second death, Homer Barron, no one really acknowledged, even when a stench broke from Miss Emilys house.  Instead of confronting her about the stench, a group of men placed lime around the house in hopes that the smell would go away (Nebeker 8 Watkins 509).  These two deaths are representative to the sanity of Miss Emily and the representation of the death of the Old South, and the demise, but not quite the death of the aristocracy and the entrance into the new world (Nebeker 10).

The death of Miss Emily allows the townspeople into her world of insanity at the end of her life. The fact that a hair of Miss Emily was found on the pillow beside the corpse of Homer Barron, can only account that at some point in the forty years since his disappearance she laid with the corpse (Nebeker 9).  This also shows that Miss Emily was not ready to give up on love.  Her father had frightened off all of her suitors and then died on her.  This is one of the possible reasons that she would not give up his body right away, because it was all she had.  Then when she fell in love with Homer Barron, she had to kill him to keep him.  It is mentioned in section four, Homer liked men and therefore, the only way to keep her love was to kill him and hide him in a room, which is exactly what she did.  She now had someone with her forever.

The fact that Miss Emily is insane is shown to gradually grow with each stressful event in her life, starting with the death of her father, unto her own death.  The symbolism of the Old South and the southern aristocracy that is found in her is also apparent in its demise within the story in the deaths of people and changes to the world around her (Nebeker 11).  Miss Emily is not just a story of an eccentric old woman, but the story of the death of the Old South and the new order of the North.

Introduction Exposition
The story starts as Mr. Roger Button was anxious of the new addition to his family. A girl or boy it may be, he rushed to the hospital with unease. Meeting hospital staffs with odd expressions as he introduced hes Mr. Button, it added up to his fret with the way he was dealt. From unanswered questions to clumsy reactions, he finally saw his son. Benjamin Button was born to a case foreign to people. As a baby, he looked like a man aged 70. Shame was all over the hospital and is Mr. Roger Button is. Benjamin Button seemed to be a disgrace to the social status his father has in the society. Still, he was taken in the same way a real father would do to his own son. Moreover, Benjamin had to like and do the things that a boy of his age is expected to do. He had to endure boredom in weaving papers and shaking rattles.

Rising Action Conflict
Benjamin Button entered as a freshman in Yale University but he was thought of as a lunatic insisting as 18 despite having the physical appearance of a 50 year-old. He inherited his fathers business, Roger Button  Co., Wholesale Hardware, at the age of 20. Benjamin fell in love, was engaged, and eventually married Hildegarde Moncrief. The relationship of the couple had issues not only to General Moncrief, Hildegardes father, but also to the society. The business Benjamin inherited prospered and he fulfilled General Moncriefs dream of having published the History of the Civil War which 15 prominent publishers have rejected.

Climax
It seemed that theres a new vigor with the blood as it flowed through his veins. Benjamin started to look on the gay or happy side of life which in turn became the subject of jealousy by his contemporaries. The people would make remarks saying He seems to grow younger every year. to Benjamin. Unlike before, he already started to cease liking Hildegarde. What seemed beauty to him years ago is fading away now that his wife has reached the age of 35. Benjamin entered the army because his home had lesser appealing charm than it used to be. He acquired a medal and went home since his business needed attention. Along with that, he noticed that he has indeed becoming younger. The world turn upside down and from the gossips of having a lovely young lady being with an old man, it has now been changed to a young man stuck with an old lady. Benjamin was at its height being a bachelor who danced with young married women and debutantes while his wife sits along with the chaperones. As Benjamin goes stronger and youthful, he entered Harvard and defeated the Yale football team as he handed over the business to his son, Roscoe.

Falling Action
As Benjamin reached third year, his body grew smaller to the extent he was taken over by the freshmen. He entered St. Midas, a preparatory school for college. He went home along with his Harvard Diploma having his son to live with since Hildegarde moved to Italy. Benjamin received a letter stating he was wanted back to service in the military but he failed to due to his unbelievable appearance. He started to feel doing what he had used to love but he couldnt. He grew younger than and what seemed to be the grandfather of Roscoes son is a mere kid. Roscoe felt shame and humiliation if the real truth about his father comes out.

Resolution Conclusion Denouement
Benjamin, just like a kid, entered kindergarten school and had the same nurse with his grandchild. He discovered happiness while weaving papers and he was happy with things. Benjamin had experienced being youth at an old age and old age at the age of youth. For three years he stayed at kindergarten, he was finding school a hard thing to manage. He latter enjoyed learning how to say elephant and jumping on bed. He had his last days on his crib with fading images along with the milks scent.

Was the change sudden or gradual Was there an epiphany
The change was gradual because it took time before Benjamin grew younger. It took a time of 70 years for the entire change to take place.

Was this a coming of age or initiation of story
For me, it was the coming of age. Though it started as something old ending to something young, it cannot be called an initiation. It is for the reason that age came to Benjamin in a reverse manner having the latter to be experienced first and the start experienced as last. Benjamin broke the norms by having to grow younger than older because of an unidentified reason other than he was born in that way.

How sympathetic a character is he or she at the beginning The end
From the beginning until the end, Benjamin became a very sympathetic character for me. A lot of things were deprived from him because of his condition. He had to be ashamed of and he also had to experience humiliations not only because of him but also because of his family and the people around him.

The stories Soldiers Home by Hemingway and How to tell a true War Story by O Brien are two very different stories that deal with the same theme of war.  In the first story by Hemingway, however, the story is told from a third person perspective and is about a young war veteran, Harold Krebs, who comes home from the war years later than the rest of the soldiers.  The story unfolds as Krebs narrates his perceptions using the war as a contrast reality in his narrations.  The other story by O Brien deals with the same war theme but is told from the perspective of an unknown narrator who recounts the events that happen to some of his friends during the Vietnam War.  The narrator uses these events to illustrate how to tell a war story the way it should be told.  In both of these stories, the narrators express certain attitudes towards patriotism.  In these two stories by both Hemingway and OBrien the narrators perceive patriotism as something that is deeper and more tangible for a person who has been exposed to such violent circumstances such as war that patriotism is a deeper form of respect for what they themselves fought for.

While these two stories do not directly refer to patriotism, there are many incidents in each of the stories that suggest attitudinal perceptions of the characters toward patriotism.  In Hemingways story, patriotism is viewed as something that has to be respected, hence, the line, But they lived in such a complicated world of already defined alliances and shifting feuds that Krebs did not feel the energy or the courage to break into it (Hemingway) referring to the young girls whom Krebs had been watching from his porch.  In this line, one instantly sees that the protagonist in the story recognizes the status quo with his description of the current period as having already defined alliances and shifting feuds.

(Hemingway)  With this recognition of the status quo, the protagonist admits that such status quo should be kept as it is, like innocence that should not be shattered by one who has a more privileged view of the whole picture, hence the protagonist does not want to complicate matters more by breaking into the status quo.  This particular line suggest that the protagonist knows that what the young girls are enjoying is a result of what he had been fighting for, and breaking into this status quo in the interest of making known what he had gone through as a soldier would be like spoiling the fruits of his fights for his countrymen who are the reason for his sacrifices.  Here Hemingway, through the story, implies that while patriotism is viewed as love of country for most people, from the soldiers point of view this love is manifested with a deeper and sometimes indifferent view of the status quo.  In the same thread, in the same story, the narrator reveals the inner thoughts of the protagonist in the lines, Besides, he did not really need a girl.  The Army taught him that. (Hemingway)  Here, the implied patriotism is in the rigor that a man has to go through when going into the army.  Men need girls, and for the army to teach its men that they did not need girls was breaking away from normalcy.  Young men who were drafted into the army had to give up their normal lives (with girls) to fight for their country.  Here, we find a deeper sense of patriotism in that the narrator suggests that the price of patriotism is the loss of normalcy  a sacrifice too great and too often underestimated.  This loss of normalcy in the protagonist of the story is validated with the mother and the father of Krebs encouraging him to take on a normal life towards the end of the story (Hemingway) highlighting how significant the effects of the war were on Krebs psyche, another sacrifice that he had to make for love of country.  The story closes with Krebs deciding to go over to the schoolyard and watch Helen (his younger sister) play indoor baseball.

(Hemingway)  This final line in the story wraps up how the protagonist still holds on to the thought that the sacrifice he made for country should not stop with his returning home, and an internal battle of preserving the status quo for the benefit of his countrymen over being adamant to calls for his return to normalcy still rages on within his head.  In effect, Krebs, even when already home, still clings on to his concept of patriotism which is to preserve the peace and suffer internally, instead of make his experiences bother other people other than himself.  Hemingway, in this story gives patriotism a more personal tone  which each person can be patriotic in his own right, and there are some who do more to this effect than others.

In the second story, How to tell a true War Story by Tim OBriens patriotism is still perceived in almost the same way as the first story, but in contrast to the first story, where patriotism involved respecting the status quo, in this second story, patriotism is viewed as not shattering the illusion of adventure and heroism of those who have not gone to war themselves.  Many times in the story, the narrator refers to telling a war story as lying because, If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie.  (OBrien)  While the narrator, with this line, suggests that telling a war story in all its truth can be very disturbing, he also implies that there is no need to tell a true war story by referring to it as a terrible lie hence, discouraging the audience to want to know what that lie is all about.  Here we see how the narrator implies at patriotism being able to allow those who enjoy the fruits of war to live peacefully in the illusion of peace to keep their spirits intact.  Again, what we have here is a soldier sacrificing the truth for the sake of country.  In another line, the narrator suggests that patriotism is blind allegiance to the country that one is fighting for this is found in the line, thinking about the coming day and how we would cross the river and march west into the mountains, all the ways I might die, all the things I did not understand (OBrien) where the narrator reveals that a soldier is prepared to die for his country even without logical cause.  In addition to patriotism being the intentional concealment of the truth for the sake of order, we also have the line, You recognize whats valuable. Freshly, as if for the first time, you love whats best in yourself and in the world, all that might be lost. (OBrien)  In this line patriotism is given a deeper meaning  which being the recognition of what has been lost, and what could be lost with the exposure of the truth.  At the end of it all, we find the narrator delivering the lines.

In the end, of course, a true war story is never about war. Its about the special way that dawn spreads out on a river when you know you must cross the river and march into the mountains and do things you are afraid to do.  (OBrien)

These lines suggest that the narrator, while being wary of what truth to reveal, also considers war a form of patriotism  a true war story is never about war in addition, the narrator says, a true war story is, about love and memory. Its about sorrow. (OBrien)  So, with these final lines one can easily conclude that the tangibility of patriotism is not often in how one perceives war but in what war was able to achieve for those who have not gone to battle.

Regarding the settings of both of the stories, the first one is set at the home of Krebs where his story unfolds, and the second one is set in the wilderness of Vietnam.  These settings give both stories a distinct contrast.   In the first story, the setting serves to give the reader a sense of remembrance of what soldiers have to go through, not at war, but when they return, for the sake of keeping things together and for the sake of patriotism.  The second story, while set in Vietnam, is already a recounting of events, and has the same effect of allowing the audience to appreciate what transpired in the comfort of a page.  Both of these settings serve to highlight the effects of war even more and make the horrors more real.  While the settings both serve to reiterate the terrible effects of war, these also serve to allow the reader to appreciate and value what war achieved more.

In reading both of these stories, it becomes clearer that what Hemingway and OBrien were able to achieve was give their readers a more informed understanding of war, thus enabling a deeper appreciation for what the men and women of these wars had to go through, a deeper sense of identity and a healthy respect for what has been earned, what was fought for, and the price that had to be paid for the privileges we are all enjoying today.

Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch and Head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms (Her Majesty The Queen, n.d.). Christened Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, she ascended the throne in 1952 upon the death of her father King George VI. Her mostly peaceful reign has lasted more than five decades and is marked by enormous changes in her countrys powers and its peoples lives (Queen Elizabeth II Biography, n.d.).

Queen Elizabeth was born on 21 April 1926 as the first child of The Duke and Duchess of York who later became King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (Her Majesty The Queen, n.d.). Her sister, Princess Margaret Rose was born in 1930, completing the family of four. In the initial years Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret were educated at home. After her father succeeded the throne in 1936, she became heir presumptive and was taught constitutional history at prestigious Eton College (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, n.d.).

Princess Elizabeth married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, a fourth cousin, in a simple ceremony in Westminster Abbey on 20 November 1947. The couples first child, Prince Charles, was born in 1948 and Princess Anne was born in 1950, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were born in 1960 and 1964 respectively, after Princess Elizabeth became the Queen (Her Majesty The Queen, n.d.).

Princess Elizabeth spent the first few years of her married life enjoying the life of a naval wife and a young mother. During this time she also paid official visits to several countries, accompanied by Prince Philip. On 6 February 1952, during her visit to Kenya, she got the news of her fathers death and her accession to the throne. The Coronation ceremony took place on 2 June 1953 (Her Majesty The Queen, n.d.).

The 1980s saw the wedding of Prince Charles with Lady Diana and Prince Andrew with Sarah Ferguson. However, both the marriages were marred by marital difficulties and ended in divorce. Princess Dianas death in 1997 was a major blow to the royal family and the Queen stood by the side of her grandsons as she comforted them through the trying times (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, n.d.).

In 2002, the Queen completed fifty years of her reign. She turned 80 in 2006 and celebrated her Diamond Wedding Anniversary in 2007. She is perhaps the most widely travelled monarchs in the British History. Queen Elizabeth has witnessed sweeping changes in the society during her lifetime. Yet, through all the ups and downs of her reign, the Queen herself has remained a highly respected figure.

Capital punishment is a term used to refer to death penalty. It is used in the current days, just as in the ancient times as a way of punishing the various crimes committed. According to Katz, Levitt  Shustorovich (2003), execution does not in any way influence the rate of crime. In fact, any other type of punishment, like incarceration, has a greater effect on recidivism rates than the death penalty. In further support of the death penalty, they argue that there is no recorded evidence which shows the influence of execution on crime rate. On the other hand, the Holy bible and the Koran have strongly supported death as payment for any sort of murder. Man requires to be treated with dignity. Therefore, the only way the cry of justice can be met is by executing those tried of murder. According to the group, Religious Tolerance (2005), justice and vengeance is only gotten when the convicted murderers are executed. The public is assured that once the murderers are convicted, there is no reoccurrence of the crime, or what is known as recidivism. This essay seeks to justify the effectiveness of capital punishment in relation to deterrence, retribution and the relationship of the convictions to the race of the offenders.

Capital punishment is an effective deterrent
An article by BBC (2010) gives an analogy that brings out the relationship between capital punishment and its deterrence. When a child puts his or her finger in the fire, he or she gets burnt. As a result, the child avoids such a situation again. When execution is used as a form of punishment, potential offenders avoid any crime that would lead it. According to the Legal Dictionary (2010), the term deterrence is well understood in two fold. Specific deterrence refers to the act of persuading the offender in court so that he or she can avoid committing further crimes. General deterrence is meant to warn other members of the society who have an intention of committing crimes. Andenaes (1974) argues that the purpose of any form of punishment to offenders is to send certain stimulus to the members of the society, as it sends messages to the whole society. The stimulus restricts the society members to attempt any undesired actions. The criminal laws that are set down become threats to the public.

BBC (2010) states that capital punishment deters people from committing crimes. Most criminals reconsider their criminal acts when they realize that their lives are at stake. Additionally, it gets rid of homicides that might recommit their crime. Human beings have the nature of always seeking protection of their lives. Therefore, the fear associated with death deters human beings from committing crimes. When executions are humiliating and painful, they are viewed as horrific. Therefore, they deter others from committing crimes. Death penalty is more likely to deter people who have time to think about the effects of a crime. The effectiveness of capital punishment is best seen when the punishment is administered immediately the crime is committed.

The group Capital Punishment (2010) states that in Singapore, the level of crime rate is very low. Research has revealed that the low crime and recidivism rates are as a result of capital punishment in the countrys legal system. This is a high indication that death penalty is a deterrent of criminal activities in this country.

Campbell (2004) gives an example of Charles Manson case as one which portrays recidivism. Though he was out and in of prison before his last trial, he still continued with criminal activities. Charles Mansons murder case has been rated as one of the most bizarre cases in the U.S. He was arrested for mass murder in 1971.His trial set a number of records, including one which lasted for more than nine months. Previously, Charles had been arrested for a number of times as a result of human rights violation, theft and forgery. The method of punishment that had been used on him did not deter him from continuing with his criminal activities. Charles Manson was sentenced to life imprisonment even after the concrete evidence showed that he was responsible for the seven acts of murder, which he called  the helter skelter.

Retribution and capital punishment
Concerning retribution and capital punishment, Religious Tolerance (2005) argues that the argument behind retribution in justice is that all criminals deserve punishment. More importantly, the guilty people deserve punishment which is equivalent to the crime that they have committed. Real justice requires that all guilty people have to suffer for their wrongdoings. In this case, a murderer deserves death as it is the only way his or her crime can be paid. Retribution is often supported with the argument an eye for an eye.

 BBC (2010) carries a story claiming that proper imposition of punishment is the one that responds to the societys cry for justice. It is the response which satisfies the families of the offended .The group Religious Tolerance, (2005) states that the supporters of capital punishment have one argument, that It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life.

According to Rule, (2007), Theodore Ted Bundys trial is a good example of retribution in relation to capital punishment. Bundy was involved in a homicidal rampage which took three years. This was as a result of a breakup he had with his girlfriend, Stephanie Brooks. It was found out that Bundy only killed ladies who had long dark hair with a part in the middle the same way Stephanie did hers. The resentment that Bundy had towards Stephanie made him murder at least eight women in Washington. He later relocated to Colorado where he continued with his homicide rampage. In 1978, he abducted and raped a twelve year old girl, and later murdered her in Florida. This was the last criminal act that Bundy had ever committed. On January 24, 1989, Bundy was executed in an electric chair.

The Group, Religious Tolerance (2005) argues that there is great controversy on the issue of race in relation to capital punishment. Many critics of capital punishment argue that the targeted groups are the racial minorities. This is however not true. The prevalence of minorities is simply a reflection of the rates at which different races in the U.S. commit murder. Several studies have found out that the prosecution of white victims is higher than that of black victims as far as capital punishment is concerned. In June, 2001, the Department of Justice issued a report on race in relation to capital cases prosecution. The report indicated that there was evidence based on ethnicity or race in the U.S. as far as application of capital punishment was concerned.

As recorded in the Capital punishment (2010) website, the laws of the Supreme courts state that accused offenders are not supposed to claim that they have been received sentences on racial basis. The offender should seek for a specific person who has discriminated him on the basis of his race, either the judge or the prosecutor. Otherwise, no other evidence would show that an accused person has been discriminated on a racial basis.

Conclusion
Capital punishment is a very effective way of curbing criminal activities. This is because it deters the potential criminals from participating in criminal activities. It is also a perfect way of retaliation. It ensures that the rights of the murdered have been met. There is no racial bias when capital punishment is applied to criminals in the U.S. All members of the public are treated fairly, and they get the punishment they deserve any time they act against the U.S. law. Therefore, capital punishment is justified, and it is the only form of punishment that can ensure recidivism rates are low in the U.S. The U.S. and the world in general should work towards ensuring that it is supported through funding.

In Genesis, the story of creation is very simply stated. According to Genesis, God first created heaven and Earth, and then he created Light (Genesis 11-5). In Genesis, God alone created everything from nothing. This story of creation is very similar to the one in Metamorphoses in that God created the Earth and sky from chaos. But in Genesis, God continues to create the sun, moon and stars and finally man. But in metamorphoses, there is ambiguity as to who created man and according to Ovid, it could be either God or the newly formed Earth that made man (Metamorphoses, Book 1). These stories of creation are vastly different from the Babylonian account, Enuma Elish. According to Enuma Elish the creation was the result of mating of the make God Apsu and female God Tiamat. Tiamet gave birth to all the Gods and the Earth. One of these Gods, Marduk, the God of light, was chosen as the king of the Universe. Marduk created the four winds, the Heaven, stars and finally humans so that Gods would stop fighting among themselves for superiority and humans would serve all Gods (Smitha, 1998). The main difference between Enuma Elish and the other two is that here there are a number of Gods and the chaos is due to infighting between the Gods and Marduk ended this chaos by creating humans.
In Genesis, the fall of man is the result of direct disobedience to God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Later, the Earth becomes populated by wicked men and so God decided to end the world by flood. Metamorphoses explains the gradual process by which Earth became populated by wicked people and divides it into the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age. In Gilgamesh, the fall was in the form of Gilgamesh and Enkidu becoming extremely audacious and killing the Bull from heaven which was avenged by Gods by killing Enkidu.

The flood myths of the three texts in question are very similar. In Genesis, God warns Noah, while in Gilgamesh, one of the Gods, Enlil brought about the flood while another God Ea warned Utnapishtim. In Metamorphoses, the flooding of Earth is decided by a council of Gods. There is no warning from the Gods in Metamorphoses. In Genesis, the flood lasts forty days, while in Gilgamesh it lasts seven days. Metamorphoses does not mention the length of the flood. However, in Metamorphoses, the raft stops at Mount Parnassus, in Gilgamesh it is Mount Nizir and in Genesis it is Mount Ararat. In all three, only one family survives the flood which then goes on to repopulate the Earth.

Ancient practices by man are reflected in the modern world as per particular aspects or observations of culture, current events and personal experiences. Man is an element of ancient world and also his activities are reflected in todays society activities. Man is always part of the society both in modern and ancient world whereby his practices reflect more on some cultural practices and other forces. Some observations by man in the ancient world are also observed in todays cultural believes and current affairs. The surrounding environment is a main factor that is significant in todays life of human beings (Wills, 1995). The level at which these ancient surroundings reflect the modern world is the case where man believe that natural phenomena has an impact in his own life.

In the ancient world, some changes in the environment were used as a reflection of something about to happen. This is a popular cultural believe in the world today by modern human beings. A good example and life experience is a situation where the ancient man believed that changes in atmosphere was a clear indication of bad or good weather. The modern man especially scientists use this natural phenomena to predict rain or drought season (Mirecki, Meyer, 2002). This culture has been there for a long period of time and it is one of the major aspects of environmental changes.

Cultural believes and practices in the modern world have evolved from practices of the ancient man. The extent of these practices is reflected in current affairs of religious believes by human beings. Religion is one of the common practices in the ancient world that is reviewed in modern society.

Almost all man kind in the modern world believes that God is the maker of the universe and there is need to worship Him (Irani, Silver, 1995). The way of worshiping is done inform of religion that was even practiced in the past.

The quotation money makes the world go round was first used in a musical play Cabaret, it was written in the 1960s. The play was a melancholy one, in one of the songs the female lead expresses her wish for love, the male protagonist replies with this line in the song. The main aim of this line was to say that it is money that makes the world turn, not nobility or love.  It highlights the fact that our society is heavily dependent on money. Charles Dickens further stresses this point in his novel Dombey and Son where Paul asks his father about the powers of money. His father replies it can do everything, little Paul then intelligently questions his dad as to why money did not save his mother. Charles Dickens very clearly portrays both sides of the argument.

The phrase basically means that everything in this world would stop without money. To some extent this statement is true because without money you cannot afford a shelter on your head, have food, go from point A to point B, etc. It is often said that money can take you places, in many instances it proves true because money can and often does open up many doors for a person.

 However, in todays world we are all too preoccupied with the notion of acquiring wealth, so much so that other aspects of life that are equally important are neglected. The main reason behind this is our distorted view of success. The word success is usually taken to mean material success the more the money the more successful one is. This includes the amount of money one earns, the type of car he drives or the size of his house.

The importance of money becomes very clear when a person has no money, Money for a poor person is everything, it becomes very important for him to earn so that he can fulfill his basic needs. However, recently everyone has become consumption oriented. We want to buy anything that is new on the market and catches our interest and we are falling prey to the attractive packaging and advertisements of a product. Thus we buy things that we have little need for which in turn makes us want more money.

Money enables us to afford a better quality of life more money means bigger and better houses and cars, better quality products, better entertainment etc. Another advantage is less stress in paying bills and other household expenses. Money may also allow a person to pursue his dreams, for example a person who wants to attain higher education may not be able to without money. Literature also supports this in many places, one such example is where Charles Dickens in another Novel A Christmas Carol shows how love is pushed aside for money. This happens when young Ebenzer Scrooge had made a promise to a girl Belle to provide for her, however Belle chooses a crooked businessman Jacob as he offers her a quick gain of fortune to the girl.

A number of quotations from the book the great Gatsby by F.Scott Fitzgerald also highlight the importance of money. One such quote mentioned the effect that money has on Gatsby when he is unable to even speak in front of Daisy Buchnan as he gets intimidated by her wealth.

This shows how wealth encompasses every aspect of our lives, so much so that it even reflects in the voice and mannerisms of a person. Another description from the same book is about a character Tom whose wealth has given him a lot of power. It allows him to treat others how ever he likes and his elitist nature also makes him condescending towards other people.  Thus another thought is that wealth gives one power.

Money may be a motivator it influences human activity from geological exploration to politics. Money itself may not be evil, it is the greed for money that becomes the root of evil. Despite popular arguments I believe that money does not make the world go around. We have created the monster and allowed it to take over and control our lives. Even though money does have some importance in our lives as every aspect of our lives revolves around money, but if we tried to be content with less we may not face such dependency. The variety of products that we are faced with makes it very difficult for us to be content with what we have.

We have made money so central to our lives that we place it above life and even happiness. This never ending pursuit of money has made the society a selfish one.  People forget that there are many things that money cant buy. A Chinese proverb summarizes this argument very well by saying that money can buy a house but it cannot make a home, that it can not buy time, sleep knowledge, health, respect and a good life only the material aspects can be bought but not ones that come from within. Stephen R.

Covey in his book seven habits of highly effective people also mentions that some of us tend to be centered around money and so our sense of security and happiness is directly related to how much money we have and since its human nature to never be satisfied with what one has he is likely to remain unhappy most of the time. Even a huge increase in wealth is unlikely to satisfy such a person. For this purpose we need to alter our centers to what we really want at the end of our lives.

Money can buy a lot of things but it cannot buy good health, respect, love, inner peace etc as these only come from good principles. A person can have million in his bank account but still feel poor because he is not content with his life more money gives him only minimal satisfaction.  Security come from within from knowing that what you have is enough for you to be happy, it comes from believing in your self. All of us tend to think that happiness comes from outside i.e. through money. A short story that supports this notion is A Christmas Memory by Truman Capote it is the story of a child who does not get anything for Christmas except handed down and worn out except for a kite but he is still satisfied and goes out to fly it. In another instance was when the family was offered money for a new Christmas tree but they refused it believing that their old tree was more precious and nothing could replace it. Both these examples reflect the importance of contentment and satisfaction over money.
One important error that we make is that we equate money with success, this is not true. Success can be divided into 8 categories, these are health, personal needs, family, career, spiritual, financial and community. To be truly successful you need to be more than just financially successful.

There have been many cases whereby a rich man was unable to spend all his fortune due to his health and died despite his accumulated wealth. Such a man cannot be called wealthy as all that he accumulated was left behind, and it was not able to help him when he needed help the most. Thus a rich person who lacks in other aspect of life is as good as being poor. Let us not get carried away with the idea of acquiring wealth and money and fail to consider other aspects of our life.

I have always been fascinated by the word Hedonism, initially by the sound of it  perhaps due to the ancient Greeks origin which surrounds it with a mysterious and mythic aura, and then by the meaning underneath the word and the message emitted. Pursuit of pleasure (Collins English Dictionary), devotion to pleasure (American heritage dictionary), the belief that pleasure is the most important thing in life (Oxford Dictionary) are some of the meanings attributed to it, which, if taken to the extreme, can be quite dangerous. Rock stars epitomize this pursuit of happiness and pleasure and we should not leave out Hollywood young stars like Paris HiltonorLindsay Lohan. In other words, as the philosopherPaul Carusdefines it, hedonism is the view which bases ethics upon the consideration ofpleasure and pain and goodness is one that affords the greatest amount of pleasurable feeling (Carus 374). Hedonism, according to him, in the crudest form is selfishness. Quite contrary to the meaning of pleasure as the sole doctrine, in this paper, I will argue that Hedonism today is merely a sad escape from reality, like anti-depression drugs which give you temporary peace of mind.

Before proceeding to defining hedonism, most importantly we need to understand what pleasure is. According toStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, pleasure broadly means all pleasant feeling or experience such as elation, ecstasy, delight, joy and enjoyment. Immediately, we see nightclubs, drugs, liquor, sex, etc amongst this broad picture. But how do we differentiate the exuberant feeling of being drunk from the delight and joy of being able to achieve a goal, say, when you get the job you desire One can answer that there are obviously two consequences from such merriment one is progressive and one is wasteful. But both the one who drinks and the one who works hard are in the pursuit of pleasure if we believe in the above definition, and thus are both considered hedonistic. Another example is those who run regularly. They will perhaps tell you that doing so keeps them fit. In reality many of them are addicted to the adrenaline rush and the good feeling after a long run (Sachs, 1998). Therefore, everyone can be broadly considered hedonistic because one either works or plays, from which they can derive joy and delight, perhaps with the exception of those ill-health people who refrain from doing so. However, a mountain can not be called tall amongst other equally tall mountains similarly, no one is hedonistic if everyone is hedonistic. Therefore, we need a less ambiguous definition for this word.

First, hedonism is pleasure-seeking and often arises from theseven deadly sins lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. It is quite easy to see how one derives pleasure from such sins. For example, scientific research shows that certain food such as chocolate and other sweet foods can trigger the release of endorphin which makes you happy. Envy enables you to derive pleasure from seeing your competitors misfortunes and lust helps the entertainment industry flourish. Second, hedonism is usually associated with excess and indulgence. We all have needs in fact according to Maslows hierarchy of needs, the mostbasic needsare food, drink, sex, sleep, etc (Simons et al 1987).

But there is a line between enough and excess. For instance, we know well that we are consuming an excessive amount of food if we are taking in 4000 calories instead of the recommended 2000 calories or that we are too greedy if we illegally earn our wealth. Finally, hedonism is an individualistic and independent belief in the goodness of indulgence and excess because the pleasure derived can only felt by the one directly involved and, for the time being, we can assume the spill-over effects of one happy person on society are negligible.

Based on my definition of hedonism, I will explain why I call hedonism a sad escape from reality. Normally, when we say escape, we usually mean a movement from our current position to a better position under certain constraints. A sad escape, to me, means a desperate movement from one sorrowful position to another bad position unrealized by the escapist. A clear example is betweendeveloping countriesanddeveloped countries. Some developing countries receive a huge amount of loans from rich countries under the impression that rich countries are helping them to escape poverty. The reality is that rich countries know well that the poor countries, especially those are oil-rich, will forever depend on such loans because they will never be able to pay back both the annual interests and the debts. Back to hedonism, a hedonist basically is a pleasure seeker so it is safe to say that he primarily wants to move from his current state to a more elated and delightful state. In other words, he is trying to escape his current condition. Drinking makes one exuberant punishing someone relieves one from ones wrath eating calms one down. However, the pleasure is transient and the final position that the escapist lands on is often worse than the initial one. Reality is ones position amidst what is morally right and wrong, the social norms, traditions and values, which is often associated with rationality, logicality and reason. Excess and indulgence in the seven original sins place one visibly outside this realm because first of all, we know they do more harm than good but we choose to continue indulging ourselves. We know that drinking is bad for our liver. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were more 13000 cases of alcoholic liver disease deaths in 2006. But in the US, 50 percent of adult are regular drinkers. Excessive greed, envy and wrath are all potential source of crimes insider trading, money embezzlement, slandering, domestic violence. Sloth is equally unrealistic because one has to learn and work in order to survive. Therefore, in order to find temporary pleasure, one may end up an alcoholic, being infected with STDs, inflicting pains on others, etc.
   
It is inevitable that my definition of hedonism has its limitations. Hedonism is, of course, not all negative. For example, connoisseurs in cuisine and wine are those who love food wholeheartedly and set apart substandard and excellent dishes and wine types. They gain their expertise through incessant dining and drinking, sometimes in excess, but they help us develop better understanding about tastes. Secondly, in my definition I assume that the hedonist is initially in total control over his decisions because he has choices and thus overlook Benthams motivational hedonism in which pain and pleasure act as a motivation for ones action.
     
Hedonism has a long history. Oscar Wildes character Dorian Grays hedonistic behavior in the novel The picture of Dorian Grays hardly measures up to some of modern celebrities lifestyle. In general, the word usually conjures up images of excessiveness which are, more than often, associated with glamour and money. However, as I have argued above, hedonism is simply an escape. If you can minimize it like Madonna, you end up with a substantial amount of money in your bank account and an enviable body even in your 50s otherwise you will end up with declining health and hope like Lindsay Lohan.