The Dynamic Character Elisa in Steinbecks The Chrysanthemums

This essay of literary criticism is going to be on the Chrysanthemums written by John Steinbeck. This short story is considered to be one of the greatest short stories of all time. The author uses characterization to describe Elisa, she is a dynamic character. He shows us that she is a very lonely strong woman in the begging who wants to be loved. Who later changes because of this mysterious man. In this paper, I will prove that the author wanted to show Elisa as a dynamic character and how she changes through the story, from being strong and lonely in the begging, in the middle she because friendly talking to this man, and finally she gets all nice and dressed to go out In this short the Chrysanthemums, written by John stein beck. The†¦show more content†¦There is no affection and they don’t have a smooth relationship and Elisa is described as â€Å"Her face was lean and strong and her eyes were as clear as water. Her figure looked blocked and heavy in her gardening costume, a mans black hat pulled down over her eyes, clodhopper shoes, a figured print dress† (32-39). â€Å"this women harbors an unsatisfied longing for some way of life less settled than that of the rancher’s wife†¦.† (Kempton 322) Henry has little interest in her and her Chrysanthemums. Elisa doesn’t feel appreciated by her husband so she takes care of the flowers. She just wanted some affection from her husband through her gardening, now you’ll see how she starts to change after being shown some affection from the pot mender. Elisa not having any attention is in her gardening area when a mysterious man approaches her. Elisa is interested in this man. The man wants to fix something for Elisa but her being so strong she refused. So the man changes the tactics and shows interest in her Chrysanthemums. Elisa not being complemented about her Gardner and now someone says something so she begins to act differently toward the pot mender. She becomes attracted to this man and wants to do more then just be a gardener. The pot mender says something about her flowers and she feels appreciated. The pot mender leaves and her husband is ready to go out with her for diner, she now has confidence to go out. RightShow MoreRelatedThe Chrysanthemums And The Storm929 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"The Chrysanthemums† vs. â€Å"The Storm† â€Å"The Storm†, was written by Kate Chopin, who was a feminist writer who insinuated that women had an unspoken sexual appetite and longed for independence. She wrote stories that were considerably taboo of her time, including â€Å"The Storm†, which was about a woman in a content marriage, longing for attention and excitement who leans on another man for it. On the other end of the American literature spectrum, there is John Steinbeck, who was also a feminist writerRead MoreAnalysis Of The Chrysanthemums And The Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman1842 Words   |  8 PagesCharacters are an important literary aspect an author uses to communicate their message to their audience. There are multiple strategies an author uses to make their story more compelling and thought provoking. One strategy an author uses is to incorporate a dynamic character into their written work. A dynamic character is a character that changes overtime throughout a story due to confl icts that they encounter. Dynamic characters in a short story serve a purpose. Just the use of a dynamic character

The Catcher in the Rye Story of a Troubled Teen - 956 Words

J.D. Salingers novel, The Catcher In The Rye, attempts to show the reader the life of a regular boy with troubles on his mind. The rich and troubled Holden Caufield is that boy. His parents are quite wealthy and want Holden to be successful in life as well, but they do not nurture Holden with the amount of love that is necessary. Holden feels the absence of love, which causes him to suffer a variety of emotional problems. Holden needs direction in his life because he constantly struggles to find the meaning of life on his own. Schools kick him out because he is not able to focus with all these issues in his life. With all this pressure he faces, Holden escapes from consciousness in what appears to be a psychological defect, but is just†¦show more content†¦I was wondering if it would be frozen over when I got home, and if it was, where did the ducks go. I was wondering where the ducks went when the lagoon got all icy and frozen over. I wondered if some guy came in a truck an d took them away to a zoo or something. Or if they just flew away† (Salinger 13). Holden is not able to gain a consolidated focus in life, and every time someone offers to help he pushes him or her away. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Phoebe is the only person that Holden will listen to and this saves him. Their little talk in Phoebe’s bedroom sets his mind straight. Holden listens to every one of her words and takes them all into account. She tells Holden that he does not like anything and that he is constantly messing up his life. Phoebe forces her brother to think about his actions as she waits for her answer. He tells her how he likes Allie, but she is quick to say that he is dead. This is a significant answer because Holden realizes for the first time that his brother is truly dead and that he must move on. After he leaves the house and goes outside the house he feels the awkward falling sense. â€Å"Then all of a sudden, something very spooky started happening. Every time I came to the end of a block and stepped off the goddam curb, I had this feeling that I’d never get to the other side of the street. I thought I’d just go down, d own,Show MoreRelatedAnalysis of A Catcher In the Ryes Holden Caulfield: Enemy of Himself1686 Words   |  7 PagesJerome David Salinger’s only novel, The Catcher in the Rye, is based on the life events shaping main character, Holden Caulfield, into the troubled teen that is telling the story in 1950. The theme of the story is one of emotional disconnection felt by the alienated teenagers of this time period. The quote, â€Å" I didn’t know anyone there that was splendid and clear thinking and all† (Salinger 4) sets the tone that Holden cannot find a connection with anyone around him and that he is on a lonely endeavorRead MoreAn Analysis of J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye1223 Words   |  5 PagesIn J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield is portrayed as a young, troubled individual. He tells us his story from the mental institution where he is currently residing. Holden is a 16 year old going through many different adol escent changes. He is expelled from his prep school for flunking too many subjects. He drinks, smokes, sees a prostitute, is punched by her pimp, goes on dates, spends a great deal of time in the park, and really does not do a great deal else. HoldenRead MoreSalinger s The Catcher s The Rye 1310 Words   |  6 Pagesphones, laptops, apple watches, flat screen TV’s, electric cars, and so much more exist now. However, there are a few aspects of life that are timeless. Even today, teens struggle with relationships, the quest to find out who they truly are, and the pressure to be the best at everything they do. I believe that The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger is relevant because in today’s society the younger generation struggles with many of the same issues Holden Caulfield struggled with. Even though Holden’sRead MoreThe Great Gatsby By F. Scott Fitzgerald1551 Words   |  7 PagesAmerican novels such as the The Great Gatsby, The Grapes of Wrath, Of M ice and Men, and The Catcher in the Rye, there is now a universal definition for all Americans. An American is someone who persistently seeks completion of an objective. Americans are portrayed as persistent individuals who strive to complete a goal. In Fitzgerald s great American Classic, The Great Gatsby, the plot is centered around a troubled young man named Jay Gatsby who wants to re-establish his long-lost romantic relationshipRead MoreThe Catcher in the Rye: Holden Caulfields Mental Breakdown1384 Words   |  6 PagesJ.D. Salinger s The Catcher in the Rye portrays a troubled teen in New York City. Over the few days the novel depicts, the boy displays his critical and unhealthy mindset. Eventually he has a mental breakdown. Through psychoanalysis of Holden Caulfield, one may suggest that Allie s death, social development, and an identity crisis are large contributing factors in Holden s mental breakdown. Allie Caulfield is an important person to Holden and his death affects him greatly. In response to hisRead MoreA Book Review on The Catcher in the Rye Essay787 Words   |  4 PagesA Book Review on The Catcher in the Rye This book is about a few days in the life of Holden Caulfield, At the beginning of the book Holden is expelled from his private school, Pency. This is just one of many schools he has been expelled from. Holden decides that, as the school term is about to break up, he would go to New York City for a few days until he is expected home. So off he sets one night wearing his hunting hat that Holden loves because it represents independenceRead MoreHolden Is Going Through Teenage Hood1327 Words   |  6 Pagespretend to be something other them self. Holden sees them has these people portray to the world an image. There are obvious signs that Holden seems to be troubled and unreliable. What is that Holden is running away from is it the people around, is it the materialistic society, what is he trying to get rid off. The main character in Catcher in the rye Holden is at a position where he is trying to understand the world around. Where he is concerned with the people of being materialistic. And the fact thatRead MoreAngel Simon. Mrs Kehrmeyer. Ap English. 2 March 2017. The1086 Words   |  5 PagesAngel Simon Mrs Kehrmeyer AP English 2 March 2017 The Island of Isolation Holden Caulfield, the main protagonist in J.D. Salinger s The Catcher in the Rye, illustrates the endless struggle of becoming an adult, without actually growing up. Psychoanalytical theory provides a closer lense into the character development of sixteen year Holden Caulfield, a six foot two grey haired child who’s afraid to grow up and face the problems of an inevitable reality. There’s many factors that contribute toRead MoreEmotional Damage, Hidden Truths, and Accepting Responsibility in J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye 1996 Words   |  8 PagesEmotional Damage, Hidden Truths, and Accepting Responsibility in J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye When one finds themselves in a reader’s position, they search for things in the novel that they can relate to. J. D. Salinger wrote a story that contained countless topics that people, past, present and future, can relate to in several ways. The novel follows the story of a troubled boy named Holden who leaves school due to his poor academic performance, an altercation with his roommate, and complicationsRead MoreComparative Study of Death of a Salesman and The Catcher in the Rye1981 Words   |  8 Pagesthere was little concern for the welfare of the minority and no apprehension that ones success could lead to the downfall of another. ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ by J.D Salinger and ‘Death of a Salesman’ by Arthur Miller are both texts that were written throughout this time of social, cultural, spiritual and economic metamorphosis. ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ through the portrayal of Holden Caulfield, explores an individual’s tumultuous tale throughout city living and teenage years of post WW2 America

Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant Free Essays

What is the central difference between metaphysics as Kant conceives it, and metaphysics as Aristotle conceives it? Argue in support of one or the other view. Metaphysics is usually taken to involve both questions of what is existence and what types of things exist; in order to answer either questions, one will find itself using and investigating the concepts of being. Aristotle  proposed the first of these investigations which he called ‘first philosophy’, also known as ‘the science of being’ however overtime his writings came to be best known as ‘Metaphysics’ in which he studied being qua being with a central theme of how substance may be defined as a category of being. We will write a custom essay sample on Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant or any similar topic only for you Order Now Kant who is a nominalist criticized both Aristotelian and therefore realists’ ideas of metaphysics by suggesting that they seek to go beyond the limits of human knowledge. Furthermore Kant argued that the structure of the world as it is in itself is unreachable to us; metaphysicians must be content to explain the structure of our thinking about that world. In this essay I will examine the two main exponents of such a doctrine in favor of realists by looking at the main differences of Metaphysics as Aristotle and Kant conceive it, which is centered on the all important question of whether metaphysics is a science of mind or of being. There have been disagreements between philosophers about the nature of metaphysics; Aristotle sometimes characterizes the discipline as the attempt to identify the first cause or better referred to as the unmoved mover and other times as the very universal science of being qua being. It is however important to remember that both of these characterizations identify one and the same discipline. On the other hand the empiricists and Kant were critical of both Aristotelian and rationalist ideas of metaphysics, by arguing that both disciplines seek to exceed the limits of human knowledge. Kant argued that the structure of the world as it is in itself is inaccessible to us and that metaphysicians must be content to describe the structure of our thinking about that world. Realists such as Plato and Aristotle maintain that for language to even exist there must be some universal quality to phenomenon. To elaborate, human beings do not discuss each object as a completely independent entity to be analyzed but rather draw comparisons to other known objects to compile a series of properties to categorize it. Nominalists, on the other hand, while not denying that humans group things together by virtue of certain qualities, maintain that this is simply a convention of language based on people’s perception of them. Just because two objects share the same perceptible quality does not necessarily warrant grouping them together in any real way; it’s simply a human way of making sense of reality through the senses. As soon as one asks the most basic questions of ‘what is Aristotelian Metaphysics? What study does Aristotle believe himself to be undertaking in these essays? you find yourself, baffled immediately. ‘Metaphysics’ is in fact a compilation of a number of Aristotle’s writings that later on editors put together. It has a central theme of an inquiry into how substance may be defined as a category of being. Book Gamma appears to start on characterizing something which Aristotle calls ‘the science of being qua being’ and then goes on to a discussion of the principle of non contradiction. â€Å"There is science which investigates being qua being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own† (Warrington, 1956, P116). In order to study being qua being, one has to simply study those qualities which hold of entities in virtue of the fact that they are entities. What sort of attributes are qualities of entities qua being? Aristotle insists on unity or oneness as such a feature, on the grounds that everything – everything which exists is one thing. However Aristotle’s characterization of the subject raises a few doubts: why is there a need to restrict logic to entities? Is the word ‘qua’ appropriate? No doubt each entity is one thing but is it one thing qua being, or insofar as it exists? Although book Epsilon is rather brief, it shows a return to the science of being qua being and also passes some remarks on truth. â€Å"If there any immovable substances, then the science which deals with them must be prior, and it must be primary philosophy† (Loux, 2006, p14). This shows that the immoveable substances are divinities. Book Zeta appears to restrict our subject matter in a rather different way: ‘the question which, both now and in the past, is continually posed and continually puzzled over is this: what is being? That is to say, what is substance? This question defines the nature of Aristotle’s inquiries, at least for a large part of the Metaphysics, and it thus offers a fourth account of the study or science of metaphysics. â€Å"The science of first principles, the study of being qua being, theology, the investigation into substance – four compatible descriptions of the same discipline? Perhaps there is no one discipline which can be ident ified as Aristotelian Metaphysics? And perhaps this thought should not disturb us: we need only recall that the metaphysics was composed by Andronicus rather than by Aristotle. But the four descriptions do have at least one thing in common: they are dark and obscure† (Ross, 1996, p174). Books Zeta, Eta and Theta, together form the central part of the Metaphysics, with a focus on their general topic ‘substance’: its classification and relation to matter and forms, to actuality and to potentiality, to change and generation. According to Aristotle, there is one kind of being which is in the strictest and fullest sense, substance. What we don’t see in Metaphysics is Aristotle treating the categories as a whole. The substance is the whole thing, including the qualities, relations etc which form its essence and this can exist apart. Secondary substances being universals, cannot according to Aristotle’s own doctrine exist apart, but must be supplemented by the special qualities of their individual members. Substance is prior in definition; in defining a member of any other category you must include the definition of the underlying substance. Substance is prior for knowledge; we know a thing better when we know what is than when we know what quality, quantity or place it has. In this realist point of view substance is evidently being thought of not as the concrete thing but as the essential nature. And this double meaning spreads through Aristotle’s whole treatment of substance. The existence of substance and the distinction between it and other categories is for Aristotle self-evident. Kant on the other hand seems to suggest that the necessity for metaphysics is a psychological one, arising out of men’s desires which is the main difference between Aristotle and him; however I would argue against Kant that this is not the case and it is a logical necessity. It arises out of the mere pursuit of knowledge thus that pursuit, which we call science, is an attempt to think in a logical and systematic manner. This involves unraveling the presuppositions of our thoughts. Furthermore it involves discovering that some of them are relative presuppositions which have to be justified and that others are absolute presuppositions, which neither stand in need of justification nor can in fact be justified; and a person who has made this discovery is already a metaphysician. Kant intends to defend metaphysic and scientific knowledge by providing an accurate analysis of human reason. His theory is based on his discovery of synthetic a priori knowledge, judgments that are both informative and necessary. However I would argue against this nominalist point of you as there’s a problem with explaining how much judgment should arise, as well as to give an explanation of their truth. In other words The Critique of Pure Reason argues that the necessary metaphysical principles underlying all hypothetical knowledge originate in the pure forms of feeling and the intellect. Furthermore In Kant’s point of view, there are no universal concepts underlying reality, simply the phenomenon in front of us. Realists, on the other hand, maintain that all things that share the same property — for example, greenness for all things with the color green — are therefore linked by this property. Sharing this property implies possession of the same universal form. Nominalism posits that what is perceived is what exists in reality, whereas realists view a perceived object as the manifestation of a universal concept. Consequently, perception is not a one-to-one process of seeing something as it actually exists, but a synthesis of the underlying concept and real phenomena. Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason not as a piece of constructive metaphysical thinking, but it was placed before the public in order to move away from errors which had obstructed and did obstruct metaphysical thinking. In his preface, he argued that his view of Metaphysics is concerned with God, freedom and immortality; however as well as dealing with these subjects, it also signified an inquiry to which men could never be indifferent and which they would never renounce thus the question was no longer about whether people should have metaphysics or no metaphysics but whether they should have good metaphysics or bad metaphysics. He also argued that metaphysicians were to blame for this state of things and that a sounder metaphysics was not to be looked for until those errors had been cleared away. Kant’s way of accommodating both the Aristotelian and Newtonian world pictures alike- both natural teleology and natural mechanism is to ground both in the necessary possibility of rational human nature. According to Kant, the natural world is an objectively real material world in which human persons actually do exist, and consequently in which human persons must also be possible† (Hanna, 2006 , p15). Kant’s point is that if metaphysical knowledge is possible, it will share some of the distinctiveness of logic. For Kant, any science must be based on necessary principles as one would not be able to be certain of what theories are true if scientific principles were only contingent. However unlike logic, which is purely formal, metaphysics has content because it is the science of reality. For Kant, The Laws of logic are not absolute or universal they are in fact left with everything else knowable as phenomenal. ‘Nominalist is true’ and ‘A and Not A, cannot both be true’ are both true statements but only and only because this is the way our subjective minds structure and condition reality. They can never true in the universal and absolute sense without this phenomenological caution. For Kant these statements are not necessarily true (though it may be) outside of phenomenal experience. There is no question that Kant intends his theory of pure concepts to replace Aristotle’s theory of the categories. In his categories, Aristotle identified ten classes as the fundamental ontological types under which all things fall: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, posture, state, action and passion. He thought that things falling under all categories could be subject of essential predications, but only substances can keep their identities while undergoing change in time. In general the categories express metaphysical principles that set limits on meaningful discussions. Kant’s idea of categories differentiated from Aristotle’s in the sense that, he argued rather being empirical, in order for the categories to be successful, they must show that the concepts are pure and have originated in understanding rather than sensibility. In addition the list must include only fundamental concepts, and it must be systematic to ensure completeness. Kant believes it is possible to obtain a complete list because pure concepts express functions of the understanding, thus the key to a complete list is to assume that the understanding has one function. It can be argued that this method is an improvement over Aristotle’s who merely conducted an empirical survey of concepts, which can never guarantee the systematic completeness of the list. In Aristotle’s case it is unclear whether he saw it as a doctrine about things and their basic properties or about language and its basic predicates; whereas  Kant  quite explicitly used his categories as features of our way of thinking, and so applied them only to things as they appear to us, not as they really or ultimately are† (Barnes, 1995, p75). In conclusion Aristotle and Kant’s metaphysics differentiate in the sense that one is arguing in favor of rea lism and the other is arguing in favor of Nominalism. Although there is no doubt that both ideas have faults, the account I agree the most with is indeed Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics as it focuses on the logical necessity of metaphysics rather than psychological. The main differences between the two accounts can be seen in their treatment of perception, treatment of universals and treatment of language. Bibliography Ackrill, J. L. 1995. Aristotle. London: Routledge. 161 Allison, H. E. 2012. Essays on Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press Barnes, J. 1995. The Cambridge companion to Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Buroker, J. V. 2006. Kant’s Critique of pure reason: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Page 8 Collingwood, R. G, 1966. An essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hanna, R. 2006. Kant, Science and Human Nature. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Loux, J. 2006. Metaphysics a contemporary introduction. London: Routledge Ross, D. 1996. Aristotle. London: Routledge Shields, C. 2007. Aristotle. London: Routledge Gardner, S. 1999. Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge Smith, N. K. 2007. Critique of Pure Reason. London: Palgrave Macmillan Warrington, J. 1956. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. London: J. M. Dent Sons How to cite Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant, Papers