A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Blog

Stephen's journey to discover who he is as a person changes drastically throughout the novel.  At one point, he is throwing himself to religion, in essence giving himself up to the Lord and ideals that the church present to him.  This act of submission is a result of the troubled home life that Stephen has had to endure, and predictably he turns to the only stable figure in his life that has offered guidance and protection since his days at Clongowes.  In contrast, he struggles to become independent when the debacle at his home begins; his families' ever-increasing financial burdens, the lack of his father's social status, all point to Stephen to trying to separate himself from the mess.

I don't believe that Stephen has displayed any type of evil characteristics; in fact, I would argue that his sentimental mentality and passive nature reflect a unique, intuitive young boy who exhibits many characteristics that put him ahead of his years.  He contemplates everything, critiques the slightest event, and I think it all amounts to a mature demeanor that encompasses the type of human being Stephen is developing in to.  He is on the receiving end of all the bullying in school, which is a result of his quiet, conservative nature.  Stephen isn't one to be taken lightly, however, because I believe he possesses the ability to read people very well.  His encounter with the prostitute is one such example.  Stephen is attempting to escape from the harsh realm of society that surrounds him, yet when he is confronted with a means of escape his first reaction is hesitant.  This, I believe, is because of his over-analytical nature, and contributes greatly to his distinct ability to judge the world around him and make conscious decisions about how the world processes.

Invisible Man Blog

Slavery is such a taboo subject that of course one could say humankind is evil.  The amount of labor and egregious acts blacks were forced to partake in during that time are indisputably horrible things that one person did another.  In Invisible Man, the narrator participates in some activities that would shock today's Average Joe.  For example, the Battle Royale was an event created entirely to humiliate the blacks, and is representative of how the white man was repressive.

However, this novel gives the black man more power and authority than previously given.  The narrator's strong influence through his verbal word creates a following and an image in the city of Harlem that gains him the attention of the civil rights group the Brotherhood.  The Brotherhood is an interesting entity, because I think that while they intend to pursue the interests of the black community, they tend to become sidetracked and misguided when attempting to present their message.  When Clifton is shot dead after his performance on the street with the Sambo dolls, the Brotherhood disapproves of the narrator's speech commemorating him at his funeral.  This entices me to think that the Brotherhood only backs the political views that help them as a party, and not the ones of the individual.  They are a deceiving, manipulating, and unreliable group, and their actions prove to me that they are on the evil part of mankind.

The narrator, on the other hand, is the total opposite.  He always tried to make the best of the situation he is put in, at most times to no avail.

How my Question Relates to Henry IV

The characters in Henry IV exhibit both good and bad traits.  The main culprits are definitely Falstaff and Hotspur, with Hotspur intruding habits that consist mainly of a rash nature while Falstaff fluctuates back and forth between a moral and cowardly character.  Although both characters demonstrate these traits, it is tough to conclude if either is good or bad.  For example, when Hotspur neglects to even glance at the letters the king has sent to him, I wouldn't say that this necessarily makes him evil, it just illustrates Hotspur's stubbornness and pride. 

Falstaff is difficult to decipher because while he exhibits both good and bad traits, each side is not exactly good or evil.  Falstaff isn't out to hurt anyone, yet he doesn't necessarily look to help anyone other than himself.  This is not an evil trait, something that is imprinted in basic human nature.  In fact, Falstaff's character represents the fundamental ideals that make us human.

This novel is tough to relate to my big question, because I think it is hard to interpret whether or not humankind is inherently good or evil from the actions of the characters.  They all display ok and bad qualities, yet none of the actions which the perform would be what I would deem "good or evil."  Albeit there are more examples of good in the novel--like Hal saving his father from Douglas and finally cementing some trust in their relationship--but I don't think they are enough to convince the argument one way or another.

How My Question Relates to Catch 22

     I originally thought that this question would be simple to answer, because my book contains a setting in the middle of a war.  War is often thought of as a very traumatic, evil event, and rightly so.  Humans naturally create conflict between each other, and that idea is prevalent throughout Catch 22.  The consistent turmoil that occurs in the novel demonstrates an almost primal nature that exists in mankind, and detrimental to the men's overall health and stability.  Interestingly enough, the egregious acts committed in the novel are not enemy against enemy, but ally against ally.  For example, the teasing Major Major Major receives is synonymous with childhood bullying; others make fun of a certain attribute that one has and uses it to hurt him.  It also represents it because Major Major is a Major, many ranks above those of the other men, and it is also another outlet for the men to make fun of because he holds a title that ironically utilizes his name.  Is this trait just part of human nature, or it it something we as humans consciously decide to do?

     One of the primary characters, Yossarian, does not want to fly in the air force anymore, and simply wants to be sent home.  His crazy captain, however, keeps raising the amount of missions a soldier must go on before he can be sent home.  In order to stay out of the missions, though, Yossarian fakes an injury and attempts to camp in the hospital for as along as he can.  I'm not sure whether or not this evasive nature displays the good or evil in him, because one could argue that he isn't performing the duties to his country which he signed up for, but on the other hand is just a scared soldier who doesn't want to deal with the atrocities that are literally bombarding him daily.   

   

   

   

How My Big Question Relates to Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights is hard to identify as good or evil, in relation to my big question.  Particular aspects of the novel lean towards both parties, and it is up to the reader to determine what characteristics define the good and evil idea.  For example, as Heathcliff is ranting to Catherine about her involvement with Edgar he states "Yes, you may kiss me, and cry; and wring out my kisses and tears: they'll blight you - they'll damn you. You loved me - then what right had you to leave me? What right - answer me - for the poor fancy you felt for Linton? Because misery, and degradation, and death, and nothing that God or satan could inflict would have parted us, you, of your own will, did it," insinuating that she is only involved with Edgar because she has betrayed her own heart in marrying him.  The relationship that evolves between Catherine and Heathcliff is a complicated one, and the one may argue that the essence of their being is united by what Heathcliff says in this quote.  Heathcliff is exemplifying good in the quote because he is exposing Catherine for what she has done, and confronts her with the consequences.

There is also aspects of evil present in Wuthering Heights as well.  Catherine is the obvious target for criticism when it comes to this area of discussion, and rightly so.  However, Heathcliff is a good example as well as someone who exhibits traits of evil.  When Heathcliff is talking about his revenge on Hindley he proclaims "I meditated this plan – just to have one glimpse of your face, a stare of surprise, perhaps, and pretended pleasure; afterwards settle my score with Hindley." Heathcliff is driven unequally by two aims: love and vengeance. Catherine knows that Hindley deserves Heathcliff's vengeance (because she was a victim of it as a child), and so she never intervenes on his behalf.  His rage towards Hindley is only one example of the evils that exists in Wuthering Heights.  

How Oedipus Address my Question

This question is particularly difficult to apply to Oedipus, I think, because Oedipus is not really a story about good and evil.  Jocasta may be interpreted as evil for leaving her son in the wilderness, but then again she only did it because a oracle told her to.  Oedipus the King may be evil because he slept with his own mother, but at the time he didn't know it was her.  Maybe.  I don't think that Oedipus is a good example of whether humankind is inherently good or evil, because it doesn't contain a real hero or a real villain.

Why I Chose My Question

I decided to go with the question about humankind being inherently good or evil because I see so much juxtaposition of the two in the world today.  There will be support groups down in Africa helping tribes become vaccinated and protected from diseases, yet there will also be terrorists who are bombing an innocent town of women and children that disagree with their beliefs. I think this question has a lot to do with perspective, because someone may interpret something as good, and another may think that it is evil.

I like to survey the world around me, so this question was particularly interesting because I can take my observations and determine for myself if what I am observing fits within the definition of good and evil.  But then again, I'm not quite sure what the definition of good and evil IS, as it again relates back to the perspective each individual has of the words.  

I also like this question because I think it can relate to many of the stories I'm going to read this year.  The human condition is a ongoing topic discussed regularly about the true meaning of the term, and I think that this question will allow me to delve further into the discussion and hopefully exit with a better understanding of it.