Stephen Simmons AP English/ Mr. George 8/1/09 Essay Topic #2
Unforgiving Happiness
The chance for happiness, prosperity and a slice of the American Dream are reasons why many individuals come to our country. They come to meet a significant other, get a job, start a family, and be happy. Americans also seek their own American Dream and it is this hope that we can move from where we are to somewhere better that keeps us going. As much as we would all love this however, some things we can not decide for ourselves. As portrayed, in grave detail, by F. Scott Fitzgerald in the novel, the Great Gatsby, there is no such thing as being happy and achieving the American Dream You cannot have it all and if you try to be happy and get everything that you want, you will end up like the main character in the novel, Jay Gatsby. Who lost his hopes and happiness because he did not play by life’s rules.
As the pages turn in the novel, The Great Gatsby, all of our attention is drawn to the protagonist, Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is a very interesting character that we see develop physically and emotionally from his first appearance in the novel to his early and spontaneous death in the end. We also gain a better understanding of what it is like to live, through him and the author. When the reader is first introduced to Gatsby, the reader is drawn to his mysterious nature and concealed past, as well as his overwhelming amount of riches. Many questions formulate in our head about his John Doe before we begin to read about the curious case of Jay Gatsby.
In the early pages of the novel, we sense that Gatsby is a very mournful and solemn person. Even though he throws large parties and has all of the wealth in the world, we are struck by his melancholy and mysterious manner. Myself, like Nick in the novel would wonder why Gatsby would do certain things such as “[stretch] out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way,” (Fitzgerald 20) when there is nothing to see but a lonesome green light. It is almost as if he was gazing off into the distance, as most people do after they lose someone. This image leads us to believe that even with all the riches and the appearance of the fulfillment of his American Dream, Gatsby is depressed and there is something missing from his life. According to Sheila Graham, as told by Fitzgerald, “there was no such thing as happiness.” We, as Americans seek our own American Dream which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, often find that we are not truly happy, no matter what wealth or power we have. There is always going to be something, no matter how big or how small, that will move our emotions one hundred and eighty degrees from better to worst. Jay Gatsby had everything anyone would kill for, money, popularity, both good and bad gossip, and friends. Yet, he was still depressed because the one thing that he so desperately desired, but was out of reach, was his lover from years ago, Daisy Buchanan. It is Daisy he seeks to complete his dream but she is now married. Fitzgerald does a phenomenal job of portraying through the characters in the novel, how there is no such thing as happiness in life, because even the wealthiest people such as Gatsby, the Buchanan’s, and the majority of the East Egg population, are still troubled by small things such as, the social boundaries of their society, past lovers and current “secret” lovers. These people may seem like they are living the life, when in reality they struggle with the same issues many poorer, less-privileged individuals do, but they have more time to wallow in their riches and fame.
“…the sense that life is essentially a cheat and its conditions are those of defeat and redeeming things are not ‘happiness and pleasure’ but the deeper satisfactions of the struggle” (Scott Fitzgerald). In the second part of this life theme portrayed throughout the novel, The Great Gatsby, explains how life is never going to turn out the way you want it to be, and by trying to fix things and redeem ourselves, we are digging a deeper grave for ourselves. As Nick reflects at the end of the novel, “Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, [and] stretch out our arms farther,”(182). He says that, after Gatsby’s unlawful death, in which he was accused of hitting a woman with a car, Gatsby strongly believed in Daisy, and that some day they would be together. Nick goes on to say that his behavior and nature got us at first, but now that he is gone, tomorrow is another day, and tomorrow we will be better than we were today, because of Gatsby. This is the most pivotal point in the novel, where Fitzgerald’s theme really comes together and is explained in those few lines when Fitzgerald basically says that Gatsby was living because he was unhappy, and by trying to recreate the past and redeem himself, he only struggled more and figuratively dug his own grave. There are many moments in the novel that explain in grave detail Fitzgerald’s theory on life such as the gazing at the green light across the water (the light on Daisy’s dock), Gatsby’s death, and most importantly, Nicks last words on The Great Gatsby. Death at any time is an unsatisfying thing to experience to those around you., but in this case, the death of Jay Gatsby was a mere reminder that if you try to change the things that you physically and emotionally cannot, than you are the one who is going to change. America, and those in it, like Gatsby, will never live up to their hopes or dreams, because that is all that they are just hopes and dreams. For the characters in the novel, they desire happiness that is beyond their reach. After acquiring the wealth and power they desired they look for something more, they reach for other dreams that test their morality and circumstance. It is these hopes and dreams that never appear, and that eat away at their happiness. Without these dreams, though, we would be nothing and like Gatsby, when his dream died, he did as well.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Essay
Stephen Simmons
AP English/Mr. George
7/15/09
Is Edmond’s vengeance justified? Consider this question within the contexts of just retribution. Based on what he had taken from him, is what he does just?
An eye for an eye?
Revenge is not something that you take based on free will or undirected anger, but it is an act of avenging yourself by punishing those who punished you. The act of taking revenge is not something that just ignites itself in your head or is a random thought or action; it can be something that builds up over time before the avengeing takes action. Edmond Dantes in the Count of Monte Cristo, planned his revenge while he was imprisoned for fourteen years. His vengeance was not an immediate reaction to what had been done to him, but a well thought out plan to take matters into his own hands and to punish those who tortured and sent him to prison. As he implements his plan we are left to question whether his actions to those who imprisoned him were justified. Does he as a person have the authority to seek revenge and justice and does it in the end give him what he seeks.
The Count of Monte Cristo tells the tale of a man who was sent to prison on false pretense, mistakably talked into revenge while imprisoned and sought out to avenge himself for the years that were taken away from him. He ultimately saw these final actions as the only way to seek justice and to bring closure to the fourteen years he spent in prison. During his time in prison, Dantes made this decision to disobey and play the role of God or of an all-great, all-powerful being. “During these hours of meditation, which had passed like so many seconds, he had formed a terrible resolution and taken a fearful oath.”(Dumas 97). What he did was beyond God and beyond himself. He knew, after reflecting on the circumstances that lead him to prison that he was not going to stop until he settled the score and pursued his, “terrible resolution.” Dantes’ revenge was not something that could potentially be seen as just, even by some of the wisest people. One of which being Hammarubi, who said, “[An] eye for [an] eye, [a] tooth for [a] tooth,” which states that if something was taken from you, that it is your obligation to take something of equal value back. Dantes might have been attempting to follow this code of law, however, the repercussions of Dantes’ actions stretched far beyond the limits of the code because he took more than what was taken from him. It did not start out to be that way but innocent people were ultimately victims of his plan.
Dantes was not justified for doing what he had done considering the continuous effects of his actions. In today’s world taking the law into your own hands and determining for yourself what can and can’t be done is unacceptable. That is why we have a system of law and a government, and although many people do not follow this system of law or government, if needed, we can refer to it in order to restore justice., Dantes’ decision to avenge himself and take matters into his own hands is against the teachings of the Bible and the codes of our modern society. He adopted the role of Abbe Busoni and The Count of Monte Cristo to be above the law and to take fate into his own hands.
As Dantes’ act of revenge stepped out on stage in the beginning of the novel he was very sure that what he was doing was the right thing to do, even though others did not believe so. As he slowly grew closer and closer to those that he internally despised he became more and more eager to finish with a bang. Initially, Dantes’ main goal was to punish the wrongdoers in a way that others would not be affected by his actions. Unfortunately, many more were harmed in his act of revenge than even he had expected. Villefort’s wife and son had died and many other horrible things had happened due to Dante’s actions. Throughout the novel, I as the reader, was almost certain that Dantes’ was completely conscious of what he was doing and would not feel remorse. However, I was wrong. After analyzing the repercussions of his actions it seemed as if Dantes felt that his vengeance was not justified because he contemplated if what he had done was worth doing. “And as though fearing that the walls of the accursed house would fall and crush him, he rushed into the street, doubting for the first time whether he had the right to do what he had done.” (568 ). Dantes did what he had done and felt no remorse or regret for what he had done in the beginning. However, in the end, after visualizing with his own eyes that Villerfort went mad and many people had died, it seemed as if he felt no satisfaction or pleasure in what he had done. Ultimately, he did not feel that what he had done was in his power to carry out. He did not have the right to seek the revenge that he did.
To summarize, Dantes had all this time in prison and after to plan and brood over the circumstances of his life. This lead him to see that the only way he could come to terms with what happened to him and justify what had happened was if he took the matter into his own hands and punished those who had sent him to prison. We see that at the beginning of the novel he feels he has the authority and right to carry out his actions. Later in the novel we see that Dantes sees the ripples of his decisions and begins to feel remorse. He begins to question if what he had done was just. We sympathize with Dantes because we know what was done to him and in a way we want him to take revenge because we feel that this is the only fair. The violence, however, and the innocent people who are affected by his actions get in the way of our sympathy and we are forced to question whether that kind of violence for any reason is just. In Dantes’ terms and context, his actions were unjust because they went against the moral, ethical and religious laws of his society and ours. He chose the path of vengeance when he should have chosen the path of forgiveness.
AP English/Mr. George
7/15/09
Is Edmond’s vengeance justified? Consider this question within the contexts of just retribution. Based on what he had taken from him, is what he does just?
An eye for an eye?
Revenge is not something that you take based on free will or undirected anger, but it is an act of avenging yourself by punishing those who punished you. The act of taking revenge is not something that just ignites itself in your head or is a random thought or action; it can be something that builds up over time before the avengeing takes action. Edmond Dantes in the Count of Monte Cristo, planned his revenge while he was imprisoned for fourteen years. His vengeance was not an immediate reaction to what had been done to him, but a well thought out plan to take matters into his own hands and to punish those who tortured and sent him to prison. As he implements his plan we are left to question whether his actions to those who imprisoned him were justified. Does he as a person have the authority to seek revenge and justice and does it in the end give him what he seeks.
The Count of Monte Cristo tells the tale of a man who was sent to prison on false pretense, mistakably talked into revenge while imprisoned and sought out to avenge himself for the years that were taken away from him. He ultimately saw these final actions as the only way to seek justice and to bring closure to the fourteen years he spent in prison. During his time in prison, Dantes made this decision to disobey and play the role of God or of an all-great, all-powerful being. “During these hours of meditation, which had passed like so many seconds, he had formed a terrible resolution and taken a fearful oath.”(Dumas 97). What he did was beyond God and beyond himself. He knew, after reflecting on the circumstances that lead him to prison that he was not going to stop until he settled the score and pursued his, “terrible resolution.” Dantes’ revenge was not something that could potentially be seen as just, even by some of the wisest people. One of which being Hammarubi, who said, “[An] eye for [an] eye, [a] tooth for [a] tooth,” which states that if something was taken from you, that it is your obligation to take something of equal value back. Dantes might have been attempting to follow this code of law, however, the repercussions of Dantes’ actions stretched far beyond the limits of the code because he took more than what was taken from him. It did not start out to be that way but innocent people were ultimately victims of his plan.
Dantes was not justified for doing what he had done considering the continuous effects of his actions. In today’s world taking the law into your own hands and determining for yourself what can and can’t be done is unacceptable. That is why we have a system of law and a government, and although many people do not follow this system of law or government, if needed, we can refer to it in order to restore justice., Dantes’ decision to avenge himself and take matters into his own hands is against the teachings of the Bible and the codes of our modern society. He adopted the role of Abbe Busoni and The Count of Monte Cristo to be above the law and to take fate into his own hands.
As Dantes’ act of revenge stepped out on stage in the beginning of the novel he was very sure that what he was doing was the right thing to do, even though others did not believe so. As he slowly grew closer and closer to those that he internally despised he became more and more eager to finish with a bang. Initially, Dantes’ main goal was to punish the wrongdoers in a way that others would not be affected by his actions. Unfortunately, many more were harmed in his act of revenge than even he had expected. Villefort’s wife and son had died and many other horrible things had happened due to Dante’s actions. Throughout the novel, I as the reader, was almost certain that Dantes’ was completely conscious of what he was doing and would not feel remorse. However, I was wrong. After analyzing the repercussions of his actions it seemed as if Dantes felt that his vengeance was not justified because he contemplated if what he had done was worth doing. “And as though fearing that the walls of the accursed house would fall and crush him, he rushed into the street, doubting for the first time whether he had the right to do what he had done.” (568 ). Dantes did what he had done and felt no remorse or regret for what he had done in the beginning. However, in the end, after visualizing with his own eyes that Villerfort went mad and many people had died, it seemed as if he felt no satisfaction or pleasure in what he had done. Ultimately, he did not feel that what he had done was in his power to carry out. He did not have the right to seek the revenge that he did.
To summarize, Dantes had all this time in prison and after to plan and brood over the circumstances of his life. This lead him to see that the only way he could come to terms with what happened to him and justify what had happened was if he took the matter into his own hands and punished those who had sent him to prison. We see that at the beginning of the novel he feels he has the authority and right to carry out his actions. Later in the novel we see that Dantes sees the ripples of his decisions and begins to feel remorse. He begins to question if what he had done was just. We sympathize with Dantes because we know what was done to him and in a way we want him to take revenge because we feel that this is the only fair. The violence, however, and the innocent people who are affected by his actions get in the way of our sympathy and we are forced to question whether that kind of violence for any reason is just. In Dantes’ terms and context, his actions were unjust because they went against the moral, ethical and religious laws of his society and ours. He chose the path of vengeance when he should have chosen the path of forgiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)