Great essays

To Die With Honor or Live Without

Jonah — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:33:47 +0000

Hotspur and Falstaff in “Henry IV Part 1” have strikingly opposite personalities. They are two extremes in the play. Their conceptions of honor are very different, and it is surprising how much it affects their behaviors and actions, and how is affects how they stand at the end of the play. Hotspur, although considered a villain in the play by some, represents the honorable, moral and principled individual. Falstaff contrasts this as being lighthearted, lazy, and selfish and without morals.
Falstaff has a very negative view on honor. It means nothing to him. “What is honor? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Tis insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it now live with the living? No.” (page 1222, line 133). He sees no point in living for honor if you only receive it after you die, when you cannot enjoy it. “Therefore I’ll [have] none of it” he concludes (line 141). Moreover, you can actually see in his attitude throughout the play that he does “have none of it.” I found that because of his lack of honor and his unwillingness to live by it, he is very selfish and unmoral.
Hotspur, on the other hand, strives and fights for his honor. King Henry shows ingratitude towards Hotspur as a knight. He is angry that Hotspur does not hand over any of the captives that the he had won in battle, and Hotspur sees this demand as ingratitude for his duties. This is not “honoring” to Hotspur, and so he goes into a rage and rebels against the king.
The battle scene of the play shows very vividly the character of Falstaff and his views of honor. Prior to the start of the skirmish when Falstaff gathers men for the king’s army, it is apparent that he does not take the battle seriously: “I have misused the King’s press damnably. I have got, in exchange for a hundred and fifty solders, three hundred and odd pounds” (page 1212, line 12). He earned this money by purposely attempting to conscript only “good householders” (line 15) that he knew would bribe their way out of enlistment. Because of his action, he comes out with only a few soldiers that are so battered and week that they look like “scarecrows” (line 38). When Prince Hal enters and inquires of this, Falstaff jests about it unashamed: “Tut, tut, good enough to toss, food for powder, food for powder; they’ll fill a pit as well as better” (page 1213 line 65). That he would rather take people’s money than contribute to the war I think we can agree is very unmoral, and not honoring in the least.
Not only is Falstaff very selfish but he is also cowardly. You can see this in many places in the play. First, he pleads with Prince Hal to protect him in battle: “Hal, if thou see me down in the battle and bestride me, so; ‘tis a point in friendship” (page 1222, line121). Later after the battle starts, Falstaff is in a soliloquy where he mentions his fear of battle and death: “God keep lead out of me! I need no more weight than mine own bowels” (page 1226, line 33). The “lead” he refers to could only mean the sword or bullets. He is praying that he should not die. Prince Hal then enters and sees Falstaff idle while “many a nobleman lies stark and stiff under the hoofs of vaunting enemies, whose deaths are yet unreveng’d” (page 1227, line 42). His lack of will to fight for his own people and even his own friend Prince Hal I find very unmoral, and certainly not honoring. Hotspur on the other hand does not show a fear of death. Even after things seem to go badly for the rebels – for instance his father becomes sick and is not able to help, and Glyndwr is not able to assemble his troops fast enough to join in the battle – Hotspur does not lose a bit of courage. Instead he looks at the bright side and declares how much more magnificent it will be when they overthrow the king without the help of his father (page 1210). This I find this very honoring in Hotspur.
After Prince Hal finds Falstaff idle, he asks him to give him his gun. Falstaff then humorously hands Prince Hal instead a bottle of sack telling him it could “sack a city” (page 1227, line 54). This just shows how unserious he is even at critical times. Likewise, while Falstaff is quick to make fun, Hotspur on the other hand is quick to get angry. He is not one to laugh. Instead, he is very serious – the very opposite of Falstaff. This shows when King Henry demanded that Hotspur hand over the prisoners that he had captured. Not only does Hotspur refuse the king’s demand, but also he gets so furious that he jumps to the decision of rebelling against the king.
When Falstaff finally is attacked after standing around cowardly, he fakes his death. This action can be interpreted from his soliloquy earlier. He was faced with the choices of possibly dying in battle against Douglas, but doing so honorably, or faking his death, guaranteeing him life. Faking deaths, running away, or anything done to avoid combat when in a battle was considered un-honoring in those days as it still is today. Falstaff, believing that there is no real point in honor, decides to fake his death. Because of that he lived. Hotspur, on the other hand, when fighting Prince Hal, had very different feelings. Prince Hal says before the fight, “And all the budding honors on thy crest / I’ll crop to make a garland for my head” (page 1230, line 73). Prince Hal is threatening to claim Hotspur’s honor by killing him. It was a true battle of honor. Hotspur refuses to run away or fake a death as Falstaff did, and in doing so, he loses, and dies by the hand of Prince Hal. However, because of the choice he made, I think we can agree he died very honorably.
The contrasts between Falstaff and Hotspur are striking. Their conceptions of honor give them very different attitudes and it even decided each one’s fate. Falstaff lived because he faked his death dishonorably. Hotspur, however, died because he chose to be honorable in a battle of honor. If Falstaff and Hotspur had different attitudes towards honor, perhaps the story would have unfolded differently. It is interesting however, isn’t it, how their perceptions of honor decided their very fate?

Works Cited

Last, first. “The First Part of Henry the Fourth.” Connections, Literature for Compositions. Quentin Miller and Julia Nash. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 1145-1234.

Breaking from Family Tradition

Jonah — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:31:50 +0000

“Digging,” by Seamus Heaney, is a poem narrated from a writer, whose family’s tradition is to work with the earth in ways that necessitate digging. He is proud of his father and grandfather for their skillfulness in their work. However, he tells us that he wishes instead to be a writer, which will break him away from the family tradition of working with the earth.
“Digging” contains nine stanzas of two to five lines of varying lengths. The only rhyming that this poem contains are a handful of slant rhymes and a single complete rhyme, which causes the poem to be mostly patternless. Perhaps the author breaks the traditional patterns of poetry to symbolize how the narrator is breaking his family’s tradition of working with the earth.
Heaney starts the poem by describing the pen resting in the narrator’s hand, in the writing position. “Between my finger and my thumb / The squat pen rests; snug as a gun” (page 1140, line 1). With this, I cannot help but think that perhaps Heaney is writing about himself. Maybe he himself had broken his family tradition when he decided to become a writer. He also compares the pen to a gun, using the simile “snug as a gun” (line 2). Perhaps he is saying that writing can be powerful or influential like a gun. It is also worth noting that this stanza is also one of the few that have a rhyme. This stanza has a slant rhyme.
The second stanza uses imagery to reveal the setting and the situation. The narrator describes the sound of the shovel digging into the ground under his window by his father, working in the potato drills. He then looks down, perhaps out of his window. The third and fourth lines are the only two lines in the poem that fully rhyme. Then the fifth line has a slant rhyme against these two. This is not an ordinary way to rhyme poems, which further makes this poem patternless.
The next few stanzas I found hard to understand at first sight. The narrator’s father bends low, then comes back up “twenty years away” (line 7). Possibly this indicates that he has been working in the dirt for the past twenty years. This makes sure the readers know that he is not just doing an “every once in a while” dig in the back yard, but that this is perhaps his occupation. The next two lines uses imagery to show that he is going through potato drills, “stooping in rhythm” (line 8). This makes it clear to me that he is tending to a potato patch.
The next stanza describes the father digging out ripe potato plants. Line 10 and 11 describe him pushing a shovel into the ground. The author uses technical words such as “lug” and “shaft,” and carefully describes how he leverages the shovel with his boot and knee. Perhaps this is meant to show that the father’s labor is very manual and physical.
Line 14 is simple to read but has a twist to it: “Loving [the potato’s] cool hardness in our hands.” What was attractive to me is that he said “our” hands. When he uses “our” he is putting himself down there with his father, as if he is remembering helping him with the potatoes from another time.
The fifth stanza has only two lines, which rather singles it out as important. In the first line, it is brought into focus that his father is old, by the way he calls him an “old man.” Yet the narrator portrays him as skilled with the spade. This shows his appreciation for his father. The other line in the stanza, “Just like his old man” (line 16) compares the narrator’s dad with his grandfather, saying them the same, both good with the spade.
The next two stanzas describe the grandfather as apposed to the father. In line 17 and 18 the narrator seems to “brag” about how well his grandfather was at cutting turf. The grandfather is similar to the father in that they both work with the earth. Both jobs require heavy shoveling and physical work in the dirt. In the lines 19-21, the narrator describes how he once carried milk to his grandfather, and how he only spared a second to drink it and then fell back to work. This portrays him as a hard worker.
Line 22 describes the grandfather “nicking and slicing” the turf into squares. This is another one of the few places that rhyme is used. “Nicking” rhymes with “Slicing.” I think the rhyme here rather makes it sound like the grandfather has a fast clean rhythm when cutting the turf.
The second to last stanza starts by appealing to our senses when it describes the “cold smell of potato mould,” the “squelch and slap of soggy peat,” and the “curt cuts of an edge” (line 25-26). This awakening of the narrator’s senses seems to stir up his memories when he says “Through living roots awaken in my head.” To me the narrator seems to be realizing his “living roots,” or in other words his family tradition. He is realizing that his family’s tradition is to work with the earth, and that it is their “roots”. However, he concludes that he has “no spade to follow men like them” (line 28). Of course, he does not mean this literally, but perhaps he is saying he does not have the skill or strength, or even the interest to follow them in their footsteps.
The last stanza relates back to the first stanza. Heaney reiterates how the pen rests in his hand using the exact same words. This time, however, he adds something: “The squat pen rests / I’ll dig with it” (line 30-31.) This last line says a lot and can be interpreted many ways. I believe, however, that he is saying that he chooses to dig his life with a pen, instead of with a shovel, as his father and grandfather have chosen. He instead chooses to be a writer.

Works Cited

Heaney, Seamus. “Digging.” Connections, Literature for Compositions. Quentin Miller and Julia Nash. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 1140.

Challenges Clashed

Jonah — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:51:09 +0000

In “Sonny’s Blues,” James Baldwin tells the story of two brothers and their challenges in life. Their challenges deeply intertwine, and yet they are very different. While the narrator’s challenge is to take responsibility for his brother, Sonny, Sonny’s challenge is, however, to be independent from his brother’s responsibility, or anybody else’s. The irony is that these two challenges counter each other. Sonny’s challenge is to become self-sufficient, while the narrator’s challenge is to help him become self-sufficient. It is funny, isn’t it, that to be independent, he must first accept help from another?

The narrator’s feeling of responsibility towards his brother initially started when his mother told him of the ghastly death of her husband’s brother. A group of white men in a car had run him over. After she told the narrator this, she added: “I’m telling you this because you got a brother. And the world ain’t changed. […] You got to hold on to your brother” (Baldwin, 993).

After this moment, the narrator forgets what his mother had told him for a period until she dies. “Two days later I was married, and then I was gone [...] and I pretty well forgot my promise to Mama until I got shipped home […] for her funeral” (Baldwin, 993). Then, at the funeral, remembering his mother and his responsibility, he asks Sonny about what he would like to do with his life. Sonny tells him he would like to be a musician, and, feeling music as a badly paying career, he tries to dissuade him. “Its not going to be so funny when you have to make a living at it, let me tell you that” (Baldwin, 994). This scene reflects how the narrator strives to take responsibility for his brother and feels the need to push him in the right direction.

Sonny also has many challenges. His first is to deal with his addiction so he can proceed to a better, more fulfilling life. His challenge is also to become independent. There is evidence of this when he tells the narrator he wants to leave Harlem to join the army and consequently skip school. Fearing for Sonny’s education and life, the narrator strongly discourages him from leaving. “I know how you feel. But if you don’t finish school now, you are going to be sorry later that you didn’t” (Baldwin, 996). Eventually he convinces Sonny to stay, but Sonny does so reluctantly. At this point, Sonny has little money. He wants to join the army to get out of Harlem, and so that he does not have to be dependent on Isabel. This in effect shows his want to become independent. When the narrator feels his responsibility towards Sonny and tries to dissuade him, their challenges clash. The narrator’s challenge to be responsible for Sonny clashes with Sonny’s challenge to be self-responsible.

The resolution of this story is interesting, because both Sonny and the narrator mutually conclude that life can never be free of suffering. The narrator even stated, “there’s no way not to suffer” (Baldwin, 1001). Towards the very end, he also says, “I heard what [Sonny] had gone through, and would continue to go through until he came to rest in earth” (Baldwin, 1006). Though it never actually says Sonny gave up drugs, they come to an acknowledgment of each other’s suffering. This is symbolized by the cup of trembling (which in turn symbolizes suffering) that the narrator imagined in his mind’s eye hovering above Sonny’s head: “For me, then, as they began to play again, it glowed and shook above my brother’s head like the very cup of trembling” (Baldwin, 1006).

In the end, Sonny never seems to fulfill his challenge. It is implied that he is still dependent and still addicted to his drugs by the fact that they conclude that there must be suffering. The narrator however does succeed in his challenge. He takes responsibility for Sonny in the end. He was there for him.

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. “Sonny’s Blues.” Connections, Literature for Compositions. Quentin Miller and Julia Nash. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 984-1006.

Jacques-Louis David: A Man of Pathos

Jonah — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:07:17 +0000

Jacques-Louis David was born in Paris, on August 30, 1754, and died 77 years later in Brussels on December 30, 1825 (Roberts, 3). He was taught by Vein, one of the most known painters of the time (Friedlaender, 12). Many of his painting, including the two I have chosen, represent very emotional events that had happened during and around the time that he lived. David was able to capture these events on canvas and really bring out its pathos and emotion.

The two works of art that I am going to analyze by David are The Oath of the Horatii and The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons. I have chosen these painting because they are two of David’s most emotional pieces of work. These two paintings also have very deep historical meaning as they portray historical events.

The Oath of the Horatii was one of David’s earlier paintings. It is one of the two or three paintings of which he is best known for. In nearly any book on Jacques-Louis David you will find that The Oath of the Horatii is one of the first paintings to be described, as it is such a popular one.

He was inspired to paint this picture of Roman bravery when watching Horace, a play written by Corneille, while in Paris. He started painting it there in Paris, but, feeling he could only paint a picture of roman courage and bravery in Rome, he moved to Rome to finish the painting (Friedlaender, 15).

On the left side of the painting you see the Horatii standing side by side, mentally preparing for the fight against the Curatii. The Horatii are Roman male triplets while the Curatii are Alban male triplets. Rome and Alba are in a dispute. It had been decided that the battle that will commit between the Horatii and Curatii will settle the dispute between them (Bryson, 72).

The older man on the right, who is handing the Horatii the swords, is their father. You can see his left foot is placed in an uncertain position, and he’s leaning backwards in a kind of a slouch. This gives him a rather weak look. The Horatii, on the other hand, have very well described stances, feet squarely placed on the ground, their arms held out in oath. They have a look of bravery and valiance upon them. They are ready to take on the task set before them. Like most of David’s work, this is a very emotional picture. The father, to weak to fight, is about to put all of Rome in the Horatii’s hands. Their father, presenting his sons the swords is a symbol of power being bestowed from the father to the swords to the sons.

On the right, pushed to the side, you see two woman weeping, and, behind them, a nurse with children. The heroic masculine men on the left seem to contrast to the women. The women, according to David, do not support the Oath. The girl in white is a sister of the Horatii and is also engaged to one of the Curatii. She weeps because no matter what the outcome, she will lose one of them. The girl in brown weeps because she is the sister of the Curatii and the husband of a Horatii. She will lose someone also. The nurse is baby sitting the children of the Curatii sister and the Horatii husband (Bryson, 73). The Horatii, unconcerned with the lament of their own women creates a very masculine image. This is a picture of “Spartan and Roman heroism” (Friedlaender, 17).

The next painting I have chosen to analyze, The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons, is a much more political image, yet still another very emotional one. On the left, sitting on the chair, is Brutus. According to Friedlaender, Brutus threw the monarchy out of Rome and replaced it with the Roman Republic. His sons then betrayed him and attempted to restore the monarchy to Rome. Trying to do the best for Rome, Brutus ordered his sons killed (Friedlaender, 18).

In David’s painting, the feet of only one of the dead sons is visible, the rest of the body is cut off by the left edge of the painting. He is being held on a stretcher, which in turn is held by what are probably servants. There seems to be a soft light across the body. I believe this is to help it catch the eye, as it is the main theme of the picture. It also helps separate the dead body from Brutus in front of it.

On the right you see Brutus’ wife and three daughters. The body was probably just brought into the room and the women seem to be showing their initial reactions. The wife is stretching her hand towards her son, lamenting of his death. She has a look of shock and horror upon her. The daughter on the left is covering her eyes. She can not even look upon the body of her brother. The second daughter on the right seems to have fainted from fright. The last girl in blue, on the right, is also clearly weeping. In short, all the girls are weeping.

Brutus, however, is clearly not weeping, like the rest of the family. He seems to be brooding in his own little corner. He looks as if he didn’t really want to kill his sons, but he felt he had to for Rome. The shadow that is cast over him helps to make him look gloomy and depressed.

The settings of these two painting I have found to be very similar. David put pillars in both his paintings, and in both paintings the back sides of the buildings are blotched out in darkness. He shows no back walls in either of these paintings. The backsides of the buildings seem to just “go on.”

In The Oath of the Horatii I noticed the legs and the arms of the solders are very muscularly painted, with definable muscles and veins running around the skin. In The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons there is only one man that has visible flesh: Brutus. He does not, however, have muscles or veins depicted on him. It makes me wonder if David changed his style a bit after the painting The Oath of the Horatii, or if he wanted Brutus to not be viewed as a man of war, but instead as a man of politics.

From the valiant Horatii preparing for a battle while a wife and sister weep in The Oath of the Horatii to the father who ordered his own son killed in The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons, it is obvious that Jacques-Louis David’s was an awesome painter who really knew how to bring the emotion and pathos out in his paintings. Without painters like David we would not be able to view history with all the emotion as it was viewed by the people of that time – and that’s a valuable thing.

Works Cited

Bryson, Norman. Tradition & Desire: from David to Delacroix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Friedlaender, Walter. David to Delacroix. Harvard University Press, 1952.
Roberts, Warren. Jacques-Louis David: Revolutionary Artist. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

The Gun Ban – Will it Work?

Jonah — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:54:27 +0000

One difficulty the world has always been faced with is crime. We have put penalties on crime, such as flogging and beating in the older days, and today we have more civilized methods such as jailing and the death sentence. But we still have crime. It would be ridiculous to think that we will ever fully get rid of crime in this imperfect world. Even so, we are still always striving to come up with new ways to lower the crime rate. One much disputed method to reduce crime is a gun ban – to ban all guns. Banning guns is a very dramatic thing to do and it deserves to be thought out. Something that seems to be neglected by a lot of anti-gun advocates is that criminals will still have the black market as a way to attain their guns even if they are banned, and for this reason I do not think a gun ban would turn out as expected.

One important item to study if I am to argue against a gun ban is how criminals are attaining their guns currently. According to Dan Noyes, most criminals in fact attain their guns through the illegal market (pbs.org). Criminals are avoiding legal gun shops for a number of reasons. First, many criminals are barred from legal gun purchases due to prior convictions (Riviera). Second, most criminals are poor, and prefer cheaper, inferior guns that are sold on the black market. Criminals often dispose of their guns after using them in a crime anyways and thus don’t want to spend a lot of money on a gun that will only be used once (Riviera). According to a report by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, actually only 13 percent of guns used in crimes are bought from legal gun dealers (nytimes.com).

You are probably wondering why it is important that we know how criminals are currently getting their guns. Well, if we declare a total gun ban, what does that mean? It means that it will be illegal to possess or attain guns. However, criminals already get their guns illegally. Naturally, than, how would a gun ban help?

Ok, so if we banned guns all currently legal gun factories in the US would be shut down and we would stop importing them from China, legally. All legal gun trading would be over. The 13 percent of criminals who attained their guns legally will not be able to get them the same way. Likewise, the law abiders who have guns will also have to give them up. However this does no good.

How would criminals get guns in a gun ban? I mean even if they got them illegally from illegal street dealers and other such illegal ways, how would the people they bought them from get the guns they sold? Well, this question is similar to the question of how people get illegal drugs. I have a major argument here. Drugs are imported illegally, everyone knows that. I don’t even have to cite a source for that. What would keep guns from being imported illegally just like the drugs? Nothing. They’d come in right with the drugs, probably in the same crates that drugs are smuggled in. People would start creating private gun factories in their basement to sell to others, and the black market would boom.

Some of us law abiders also like to keep guns, for self defense, for hunting, or incase we need to take up arms against an invading country if our government were to fail. In addition we sometimes have guns to defend against robbery. Now imagine guns were banned. All guns currently in possession of civilians must be turned in and gun stores must be shut down. As a law abider I would turn in my gun. Most of the law abiders would turn in their guns. On the contrary though only a few of the criminals would turn their guns in. If they attained a gun legally, it may be on file, and they would know that. To not get in trouble, the 13 percent mentioned earlier may turn their guns in. However the next day they may get a new gun that was smuggled.

Ok, so now what. Law abiders turned in their guns and criminals have not. Talk about literally giving power straight to the criminals. Criminals are now free murder and steal with less worry than ever before. Criminal activity may even increase.
A gun ban would increase criminal activities? That’s what I believe. There’s evidence too - in 1996, Australia passed a gun ban (geoffmetcalf.com). Not a total gun ban mind you – but a ban on most of them. Before the ban the crime rate had been historically low – and it was lowering even more, steadily. Estimates of 2.8 million of now illegal guns were supposed to be surrendered to the government when the ban was ordered (geoffmetcalf.com). Who do you think turned in their guns? Not the crack pots, criminals or gang-members. Rather it was the law-abiding citizens that turned their guns in. Now the results have come in – just after a year from the ban, homicides increased 3.2 percent, assaults increased 8.6 percent, and armed robberies increased by a whopping 44 percent. In the state of Victoria alone the homicide rate with firearms increased by a smashing 300 percent (geoffmetcalf.com).

If we ban guns, I strongly believe that all it would do is remove guns from the law-abiders’ hands alone. Many countries have attempted to ban guns in the past with no better results than Australia had. With this evidence I believe that a gun ban will not hinder crime in the least bit, and may even increase it.

Works Cited

Butterfield, Fox. “Gun Flow to Criminals Lain to Tiny Fraction of Dealers”. The New York Times. 8 July 1999. Retrieved 4 May 2008. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903EEDE173DF932A35754C0A96F958260.
Noyes, Dan. “Hot Guns: How Criminals Get Guns”. PBS. Not Dated. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html.
Tidswell, Keith. “AUSTRALIA: The Results Are In”. Sporting Shooter’s Association. Retrieved 4 May 2008. http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html.
Riviera, Sudo. TTY interview. 11 May. 2008.