The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman Essay

The Graveyard Book is a children’s fantasy novel by the English author Neil Gaiman, simultaneously published in Britain and America during 2008. It is set primarily in a graveyard, where the boy Nobody Owens is adopted and raised by the occupants after his family is murdered. Gaiman won both the British Carnegie Medal and the American Newbery Medal recognising year’s best children’s books, the first time both named the same work. The Graveyard Book also won the annual Hugo Award for Best Novel from the World Science Fiction Convention and Locus Award for Best Young Adult Book selected by Locus magazine subscribers.

Chris Riddell, who illustrated the British children’s edition, made the Kate Greenaway Medal shortlist. It was the first time in 30-year history that one book made both the author and illustrator shortlists. (Two years later, A Monster Calls won both medals.)

About The Author:
Neil Richard MacKinnon Gaiman

Neil Richard MacKinnon Gaiman (born 10 November 1960) is an English author of short fiction, novels, comic books, graphic novels, audio theatre and films.

His notable works include the comic book series The Sandman and novels Stardust, American Gods, Coraline, and The Graveyard Book. He has won numerous awards, including Hugo, Nebula, Bram Stoker, Newbery Medal, and Carnegie Medal in Literature. He is the first author to win both the Newbery and the Carnegie medals for the same work, The Graveyard Book (2008).


Nobody Owens ( Bod)
– A boy whose family was murdered and now is living and being raised by the ghosts of the graveyard while learning things that the ghosts do. Silas
– He is Bod’s guardian and stays in the graveyard, he is neither dead nor alive. Miss Lupescu
– She is the lady that subsitutes for Silas while he is gone. She is a Hound of God. Liza Hempstock
– She is the witch that is buried in potter’ feild, the feild next to the graveyard where they bury the people that are not blessed. She is one of Bod’s best friends. Scarlett Amber Perkins

– She became Bod’s friend when they were young and her parents had convinced her that he was imaginay and made up.

The Man Jack
– this is the man that murdered Bod’s family and was also supposed to murder Bod but failed and is still trying to do so. He is a member of the Jacks Of All Trades.

Mr. And Mrs. Owens
– They are the ghosts that adopted and named Bod and agreed to be his parents.


Jack (usually referred to in the novel as ‘the man Jack’) has murdered all the members of a family except for the toddler upstairs. Unknown to him, the toddler has climbed out of his crib to explore. The toddler crawls out of the house and up a hill to a graveyard where the ghosts find him. They discuss whether to keep him until the Lady on the Grey (implied to be the Angel of Death) appears and suggests that the baby should be kept (“The dead should have charity”). The ghosts accept and Mrs. Owens (the ghost who first discovered the baby) and her husband, Mr. Owens, become the foster parents.

The baby is named Nobody Owens (as Mrs. Owens declares “He looks like nobody except himself”) and is granted the Freedom of the Graveyard. The caretaker Silas (strongly implied to be a vampire) accepts the duty of providing for Nobody. The man Jack is persuaded that the toddler has crawled down the hill, and he eventually loses the trail. The book is about Nobody’s (often called Bod) adventures in and out of the graveyard as he grows up. As a boy, he befriends a girl called Scarlett Perkins and she is eventually convinced by her mother that he is her imaginary friend. It is with her that Bod discovers a creature called the Sleer, who has been waiting for thousands of years for his “Master” to come and reclaim him. Scarlett’s parents believe she has gone missing during this adventure, and when she returns consequently decide to move the family to Scotland.

Nobody is once captured by the Ghouls and then rescued by his tutor Miss Lupescu, discovering she is a Hound of God (i.e. a werewolf).  Bod befriends Elizabeth Hempstock, the ghost of an unjustly-executed witch, and, through a short adventure that includes being kidnapped by a greedy pawnshop owner, finds a gravestone for her. Once, he tries to attend regular primary school with other human children but it ends in a disaster as two bullies make it impossible for him to maintain a low profile. Throughout his adventures, Bod learns supernatural abilities such as Fading, Haunting, and Dream Walking, taught by his loving graveyard parents, his ghost teacher Mr Pennyworth, and Silas.

On Bod’s 14th year at the graveyard, Silas and Miss Lupescu both leave to attend some business. Meanwhile, Scarlett and her mother come back to the town as her parents have divorced and she and Bod reunite. Scarlett has also made friends with a historian called Mr. Jack Frost who is living in a house not too far from the graveyard. Researching the murder of Bod’s family, Scarlett learns that the historian lives in the house that Bod once lived in. When showing Bod the room he lived in as a baby, Mr Frost reveals that he actually is the man Jack; Jack Frost is his full, true name. Bod is attacked by the man Jack and four other members of the Order.

Bod and Scarlett escape to the graveyard where Bod is able to defeat each Jack separately, except for Jack Frost. Jack Frost takes Scarlett captive in the chamber of the Sleer but is then tricked by Bod into claiming himself as the Sleer’s master. The Sleer engulfs Jack Frost in an “embrace” and they disappear into the wall. A now-grown Bod is losing the Freedom of the Graveyard and even his ability to see ghosts. Silas gives Bod money and a passport with the name, says his good-byes to his family and friends, and leaves the graveyard to embark on a new life.

Critical Analysis:

“The Graveyard Book is endlessly inventive, masterfully told, and, like Bod himself, too clever to fit into only one place. This is a book for everyone. You will love it to death.”
─ Holly Black co- creator of the Spiderwick Chronicles “After finishing The Graveyard Book, I had only one thought─I hope there’s more. I want to see more of the adventures of Nobody Owens, and there is no higher praise for a book.” ─ Laurell K. Hamilton author of the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter novels “The boundaries are always there─between the graveyard and the world beyond, between life and death, and the crossing of them.” ─ Neil Gaiman author of this book

“This is, quite frankly, the best book Neil Gaiman has ever written. How he has managed to combine fascinating, friendly, frightening and fearsome in one fantasy I shall never know, but he has pulled it off magnificently – perfect for Halloween and any other time of the year.”

— Diana Wynne Jones author of The Chronicles of Chrestomanci| “I wish my younger self could have had the opportunity to read and re-read this wonderful book, and my older self wishes that I had written it.” — Garth Nix author of The Abhorsen Trilogy| “It takes a graveyard to raise a child. My favorite thing about this book was watching Bod grow up in his fine crumbly graveyard with his dead and living friends. The Graveyard Book is another surprising and terrific book from Neil Gaiman.” — Audrey Niffenegger author of The Time Traveler’s Wife| |

“The Graveyard Book manages the remarkable feat of playing delightful jazz riffs on Kipling’s classic Jungle Books. One might call this book a small jewel, but in fact it’s much bigger within than it looks from the outside.”

— Peter S. Beagle author of The Last Unicorn | “The Graveyard Book is everything everyone loves about Neil Gaiman, only multiplied many times over, a novel that showcases his effortless feel for narrative, his flawless instincts for suspense, and above all, his dark, almost silky sense of humor.” — Joe Hill author of Heart–Shaped Box | “The Graveyard Book confirms what I’ve always thought: Neil Gaiman is a literary genius!” — James Herbert author of The Secret of Crickley Hall|

The Graveyard Book
By Neil Gaiman

Truly a wonderful novel with an amazing story. This novel is a must-read to not only young fellow but also to those who have heart on reading. This adventurous novel, I think, is entitled “The Graveyard Book” because, from the setting, the story happened on or in the graveyard itself and the main character’s life is connected into the graveyard. I highly recommend this book to book-lovers like me. A fictional book that comes from the mind and heart of Neil Gaiman. I love this luminous novel about life and death, love and growing-up, and finding family in the most unlikely places.

“The Black Tulip” by Alexandre Dumas Essay

The book tells about a young man with a lot of money who grows flowers in his spare time, and tries to grow a black tulip. His name is Cornelius Van Baerle. He wants to grow the black tulip because there is a big prize offered for the first man who can grow a black tulip. The prize is 100,000 dutch money. Cornelius’s neighbor, whose name is Isaac Boxtel, is also a tulip grower and he is jealous and is afraid that Cornelius will succeed to grow the black tulip before him and will get the prize before him, so he goes to the government’s office and tells that Cornelius spoke and collaborated with government criminal, calls Cornelius De Witt, stories without any truths.

Cornelius Van Baerle is thrown into prison. After a while in the prison, he meets the jailer’s daughter, Rosa, and falls in love for her.

He tells her about his wish to win and get the prize for the black tulip and she decides to help him to grow the black tulip, and this tulip is the proof of Cornelius’s innocent.

After many tries to raise the black tulip, Rosa is able to bring a new black tulip to show to Cornelius, they send a message to President of Flower Growers of the same area, and write that they are able to grow the tulip. The President accepts the post, but at the same time the black tulip is stolen by Isaac Boxtel. Finally, Rosa manages to convince the prince and the president of Flower Growers that she and Cornelius are the ones who raised the black tulip and the money winners. The story ends with the wedding of Cornelius and Rosa Part of this story bases on things that happened in Holland history.

The brothers de Witt were real people. Johan de Witt was Grand Pensionary of Holland and Cornelius de Witt was inspector of dikes at the Hague. They were in good connection with king of francs and the people of Holland thought that the confections were too good so they didn’t want them as ladders and want incited of them, William prince of orange. The people furs them too sign in a paper that they agreed to William’s lidding. One of the brothers wrote on this paper that his sign was by furs, and the people of Holland were very angry about it. Someone told stories about Cornelius and he was judged to be sending away. It wasn’t enough for the people and they killed Cornelius and his brother.

Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 – A Book Analysis Essay

In his book, Fahrenheit 451, author Ray Bradbury highlights the power and importance of obtaining knowledge through books but decries the impact that technological innovations, particularly the television, pose in stifling intellectual and creative development.

As a science fiction book that was first printed in 1953, many readers — particularly literary critics and students — correlate the book to state censorship and subsequent cultural decay presaging the eras following the book’s publication.

Indeed, it can be easily gleaned from the main character’s occupation as a book-burning fireman that the book burning per se may be emblematic of  a common situation that most societies have found themselves grappling with – specific stages in nations’ histories whereby basic inalienable rights and freedoms were suppressed.

Literary censorship, in particular, has been a recurring theme in many great works of literature. In real life, censorship is something that most governments have resorted to for varied reasons other than as a means of quelling what they categorize as rebellion or insurrection, and in almost every instance, books that echo the sentiments of many great nationalists or radical-thinking individuals have borne the brunt of censorship laws.

Some analysts point out that in Ray Bradbury’s book, Fahrenheit 451, “The book burning is not a government mandated censorship… Instead, it is a society-built degradation of the written word. Society has rejected the black and white messages bound in leather and paper” (Przybyszewski).  The author himself does not dispute this observation.

Whether it is art imitating reality or the other way around, Fahrenheit 451 is a successful attempt in making readers — including those who got to read the book generations after its initial publication — ponder on key social and political issues like censorship, even if the author himself had clarified that his novel “is actually about how television destroys interest in reading literature” (Oleck, par. 1).

A lover of the written word, Ray Bradbury hails from humble beginnings in Illinois, which set the stage for his profound yet realistic insights, searing views and cunning overall approach to his subject matter.

He was born on August 22, 1920 in Waukegan, Illinois; studied in a Los Angeles High School in 1938, and furthered his education by working nights in the library and pounding away at  typewriter keys and selling newspapers in Los Angeles by day (“Ray Bradbury Biography”).  It can be noted that Fahrenheit 451, in many ways, pays homage to Bradbury’s Waukegan hometown.  It is in this locality that he developed an enormous and lasting appetite for books and a love for libraries, something which is continually described in his book. As Bradbury himself narrates:

From the time I was 9 up through my teens I spent at least two nights a week in the        town library in Waukegan, Ill. In the summer months, there was hardly a day I could       not be found lurking about the stacks, smelling the books like imported spices, drunk        on them even before I read them (Moran).

Based on the author’s personal narrative, one clearly sees how he obtained the characteristic ease in describing to readers a well-stacked library, and how he skillfully let some of his characters express forceful sentiments about books not just as a storehouse of knowledge and cultural heritage of nations, but as instruments to guide man in living and making decisions about the future.

Ray Bradbury’s Waukegan roots likewise armed him with first-hand knowledge and distinct style of writing about a specific subject matter as firefighters. As another writer gathering from Ray Bradbury’s musings in writing Fahrenheit 451:

Bradbury’s wary respect for fire can be traced back to his Waukegan youth, where he     would pass the firehouse on his way to and from the Carnegie Library and end up            writing down his descriptions (Moran).

Ray Bradbury’s remarkable style is indeed something which has not escaped discerning book readers and analysts. “While a lesser writer would have to content himself with beating the reader over the head with description and exposition, Bradbury is able to make his nightmare world real with economy and subtlety. The horror never grabs you by the throat as in a Stephen King novel; instead it creeps into your soul almost unnoticed” (Wright).

Content-wise, what American writer Ray Bradbury sought to impress on his readers is the fact that humanity stands to be strangled by the very forces – or trappings of modern living —  that had originally been conceived to make life better. Bradbury makes a very good point in singling out television as the piece of equipment that most people have been overly relying on, and it comes at a very huge price: a stifled intellectual development.

Indeed, of all the new modern conveniences or gadgetry the world has ever seen, one medium of communications which remains all-powerful or influential to minds and attitudes of people of all ages is the television. It is evident that Bradbury possessed remarkable foresight in ascertaining early on that people are bound to be enslaved. One of many insightful reviews about Ray Bradbury and his book states:

Bradbury’s novel — or novella, really — is an inspired criticism of what we now call      the “information society,” and the yawning chasm it is creating in our collective soul.          In it he managed to predict with frightening accuracy such current social pathologies            as the dumbing down of popular entertainment and education, our growing addiction     to empty sensory stimulation, the rise of random violence among youth, the increasing anomie and alienation among everyone (Wright).

Indeed, it takes a meticulous eye attuned to his surroundings for a writer to realistically depict current real-life situations as well as future scenarios.

One important point that Ray Bradbury stressed in Fahrenheit 451 is that most of the time, people’s enslavement, whether by societal forces or modern technological advances, do occur from their own volition or free will. “It’s ordinary people who turn away from reading and the habits of thought and reflection it encourages. When the government starts actively censoring information, most people don’t even bat an eye” (Bradbury 183).

It is true, of course, that in the present society, there are many cases of jaded individuals – especially ordinary citizens who wield little or no power to go against the powers-that-be – who initially protest but end up allowing circumstances like government  restraints on media/information to prevail or take place.  It is, however, an inescapable fact that many freedoms, like free speech and expression of ideas through books, are not absolute. This is something that advocates of censorship keep harping on.

Introspection will show that in many ways, people, during these increasingly complex times and informational bombardment, do succumb or let government impose controls as the latter may deem morally and socially and politically fit. In doing so, it becomes a clear case of the antagonist turning into an ally. In societies which do a good job of balancing interests and rights, this may be permissible. There are, however, exceptions to the rule.

There are people may rant and do nothing, but there are some individuals who even band together to form a coalition or cause-oriented group/association to bat for what they perceive as just. To their minds, the words of 18th century political theorist and philosopher Edmund Burke, of letting evil triumph if good men do nothing, may be ringing loud and clear.

Reverting to the other main issue tackled by the book, which is the tendency of people to allow themselves to be enslaved by new technology and turn away from the many virtues of reading books, this is a universal problem pervading modern societies today.

Ray Bradbury may have crafted decades ago a concise book about a dystopian society, but its message reverberates up to the present age, when gadget-toting new generations turn to books only when school requires them to, or when a bestselling book-turned-movie or escapist adult novels catch their fancy. In effect, the firemen’s task of burning books in the novel is actually a metaphor for the way a society’s citizens allow themselves, or their knowledge and future, to be stunted.  “The firemen are rarely necessary. The public itself stopped reading of its own accord” (Bradbury 87).

Saki’s “The Interlopers” vs. Callaghan’s “All the Essay

In the story The Interlopers, Saki writes about two families that have been feuding for generations. He writes about how “interlopers” stop them from rivaling, and eventually bring the two of them to be friends only minutes before they are eaten by wolves. He does this by using dramatic irony. Through the character’s words he tells us what the two will do when they get back to town now that they are friends. This leads you to believe that the feud is over and everything is all right.

The author then, however, allows the characters to be eaten by wolves; contrary to the resolution that could be concluded from the explanation and/or foreshadowing of the resolution. Saki’s purpose for writing this story was probably to get across the point that you should not hold long grudges, especially without knowing the reason, or it might be too late to apologize. His unorthodox style of writing however does achieve his purpose.

The characters in his story finally make-up, but then they are eaten and do not have the chance to tell their families of the news.

If you could continue the story, you would probably be able to assume that then the families continued to feud. The story All the Years of Her Life by Morley Callaghan, on the other hand, contrasts greatly with The Interlopers in this area. In the story All the Years of Her Life, Callaghan writes about a young boy who works at a thrift store and is caught stealing merchandise one day. By the young boy, Alfred, getting in trouble it affects his mother; upsets and embarrasses her, and by watching his mother cry Alfred matures.

The story contrasts to The Interlopers because the author gives you vivid clues to what will be the resolution and there are no tricks or twists. Alfred is confronted by Mr. Carr, the store clerk, and is caught. Mr. Carr then calls Alfred’s mother, Mrs. Higgins, to stop by because Alfred is in trouble. Mrs. Higgins arrives and Mr. Carr makes clear to her the situation. She asks Alfred if it is true that he stole the items, and he confesses so she takes him home. Alfred sees his mother’s pain, and causes him to think some and mature.

He acts more grown up afterwards, and there is no iron y in the resolution of this story. Callaghan achieves his purpose of showing that situations that require acting grown-up can cause you to mature in your thinking. In both stories, the main characters are significantly changed due to circumstances and situations that they face. In the story The Interlopers, the two men were fierce enemies because of the feud that had been going on in their family. By the end they have pity for each other, put aside their differences and become friends.

In All the Years of Her Life, Alfred is changed in the way that he has matured. He realizes that his petty thefts and childish antics deeply hurt his mother; embarrass her because he sees her crying on the night that he was caught for stealing from Mr. Carr’s store. You can say that the characters in both stories not only change but so mature enough to humble themselves to better the problem. I thought that the Interlopers was a well-written story, the plot was good. The liked the purpose of the author and the way in which he chose to achieve his purpose.

The dramatic irony teaches me (the reader) a moralistic lesson: not to hold a grudge, because you know not your fate and might not ever get a chance to apologize. All the Years of Her Life, on the other hand, I thought was a pretty dull story. It was well written, but lacked originality with the plot. The author did much more than foreshadow the ending, he pretty much just laid it out on the table for you; enough to anticipate what would happen at the end at least. That is why it did not hold my attention as the reader as well.

Elements Of Irony In Native Son Essay

Elements of Irony in Native Son Native Son paints a disturbing, harsh picture of life within the “Black Belt” of Chicago in the 1940s. Wright uses irony; sometimes subtly and at other times obviously to shape the view of the reader and as a foreshadowing mechanism. From our initial scene to Bigger’s death, the technique of irony employed by Wright is effective, and devastating. Our initial symbol which foreshadows the fate of our protagonist is the “huge black rat” (5). The rat represents the feelings which Wright explores within Bigger.

The rat is killed right away, before it really has a chance, yet it is able to attack Bigger before it is destroyed. By attacking instead of fleeing, the rat is caught and destroyed, much like Bigger as the novel progresses. Much like the rat, Bigger teeters between the predatory (the initial response to the rat) and the hunted (the rat as killed by Bigger). The fact that the rat is destroyed by Bigger makes this scene even more ironic.

The idea of blindness permeates the novel in several ways.

We can see the psychological and emotional blindness of Bigger, the blindness to reality by the hyper-religious Ma, and the blindness to the real role and ideals of the Communist party by both Jan and Mary. Perhaps the best use of irony is the physical blindness of Mrs. Dalton. Mrs. Dalton is the epitome of blind; she has very sensitive senses (she notices the smell of alcohol in Mary’s room, saying: “You’re dead drunk! You stink with whiskey! ” (86)) but she is unable to see Bigger killing her daughter.

Her extra sensitive hearing and lack of sight give Bigger the reason and opportunity to smother Mary. Yet, the true irony falls into the situation surrounding Mr. and Mrs. Dalton’s participation with groups such as the NAACP. While they believe that contributions of ping pong tables to inner city youth will help, their insulting charity to Bigger, coupled with Mr. Dalton’s excessive rent charges, ultimately causes the death of their daughter. Bigger is the most ironic element of the entire novel.

From his name, we expect this character to make something out of himself, to escape from the ghettoes of Chicago and end up rich, successful and important. Wright does not allow this. The idea that Bigger will be destroyed is planted into his own head and into the readers right away. The naming of this character is a clever device utilized by Wright, though it’s irony is bitter. Bigger is not ironic simply due to his name. His actions also represent a sort of sick irony. Perhaps the saddest, sickest display of this is the rape of Bessie.

While we are uncertain, and it would be impossible to prove that Bigger raped Mary prior to killing and decapitating her, by raping and murdering Bessie, a portrait of Bigger as the violent monster is created. This is important because it not only shapes the view of the public within the novel, but also that of the reader. Wright changes the tone stating: “He had done this. He had brought all this about” (239). Wright seems to do this for a reason, to illustrate how easy it is for the opinion of Bigger to shift, but also to show what a man is capable of when it is expected of him.

The irony is that Bigger has, in effect, done himself in by murdering and raping Bessie. He believes that by killing her and tossing her body down the air shaft he shall escape, though just the opposite occurs. Ma represents a religious and foreshadowing irony that follows her character throughout Native Son. When she warns Bigger that “the gallows is at the end of the road [he] is traveling”, she is foreshadowing the fate of her son by the end of the novel (9). She tells Bigger to acknowledge his manhood by killing (the rat), which manifests into his killing Bessie.

Through religion, however, we see the most obvious and devastating irony represented by Ma. She attempts to pray for the soul of her son, and gives him a wooden cross to wear around his neck. This cross, particularly due to its construction, appears identical to the burning cross of the Klu Klux Klan which Bigger sees out his jail cell window. Ma has effectively turned Bigger away from Christianity forever, in spite of her desire to do nothing other than save her son’s soul.

Bigger ends up feeling that he “can die without a cross.. . [that he] ain’t got no soul! ” (338) Irony follows Bigger throughout his life, and ultimately in his death. The introduction of Boris A. Max in Native Son represents a change; this is the first time Bigger has been able to explore some of his feelings, and with a white Jewish man! It is important to look at Max as a Communist and a Jew, because this makes him suspect in the eyes of popular opinion. Max is able to ask Bigger questions which are uncomfortable, but which make him think, which finally make him a man.

Max states: “You’re human, Bigger” (424). This is the only time that anyone really says anything of this sort to Bigger. Bigger recognizes this and makes point of it, ironically, as he is about to be put to death. It is a difficult and important change which Wright employs at this point. Bigger Thomas was doomed from the beginning of the novel. We could see this foreshadowed by the rat, we could quickly sense the irony in his name and his very being. The world in which Bigger Thomas lived was cruel, unyielding in its destruction.

We learn early that Bigger could not beat his fate, and we can see this in David Buckley. The district attorney is able to defeat Bigger and gain public acceptance by putting him to death. There is an ironic twist, if we look back to the beginning of the novel. We can see Bigger reading a sign with Buckley’s picture and the slogan, “YOU CAN’T WIN! ” (13). Sadly, we find this to be true, with Bigger Thomas’s death by the novel’s end. Work Cited Wright, Richard. Native Son.

Freewill vs Predistnation in Dr Faustus Essay

Dr Faustus is a german scholar who shuts himself off from human normal life to achieve his aspirations, he is not only willing to to sell his soul to the devil but also to be the devil himself ” to be a spirit in form and in substance”,Dr Faustus is born to an ordinary family in germany in a small town called Rhode , he was educated at wittenberg a famous German university and obtained a degree in theology.

Faustus is a shakeasperian character he isn’t rich or a king but he is a man of hight social rank,he has a flaw in his character,the hero (dr Faustus) has a problem in his character which leads to his downfall.

Faustus is a great scientist who has a great knowledge,he has an extreme pride and arrogance, he is not happy with the level of knowledge and science that he reaches, he wants to reach a level that fit with his think,he wants to control the earth , to gaine power and full control,to transcend human life Oh what a world of profit and delight”

Of power,of honour,of ominopotance By comparing himself with a “studious artizan,” Faustus hopes to gain all worldly pleasures and goods as the fruits of scholarly work.

He does not understand,everything must be under his command All of these things have left him unsatisfied, so now he turns to magic to black magic Faustus realizes that by practicing the dark arts, he will have extreme power in the world.

This is the turning point in his transition from scholar to magician. Faustus conjured a demon, Mephistophilis, ordering him to go to Lucifer with the offer of Faustus’s soul in return for twenty-four years of power and of pleasure with Mephistopheles as servant to him, Before the time comes to sign the contract, Faustus has doupts, but he puts them aside and signs away his soul, writing with his own blood. Faustus begins his years filled with sinful nature. He feeds greedly on the art of awakening the dead,he realizes his mistake in believing power will bring him happiness,at the end of his 24 years Faustus is filled with fears and he becomes regretful for his past action,yet this comes too late when his fellow scholars find his body torns in pieces and his soul carried to hell.

There is a failure of Christianity at the end of the drama because Faustus fails o repent. He cries out but no one is ready to listen . The ultimate lesson is that if we try to change our label from “Human being” into “God”, ultimate truth will be a punishment and that is terrible damnation,The end of the Faustus is really horrible,Faustus doubts in god’s existence is the worst thing. Eternal damnation is a result of suspicion in God. Indeed, Faustus is a tragic common man.

Karl Marx and Capitalism Essay

In this paper I will examine how Karl Marx views capitalism and, more specifically, the criticisms he has regarding capitalism. In the first part of the paper I will reconstruct and explain the philosopher’s argument. In the second part of the paper I will offer my critical evaluation where I will demonstrate how these critiques are still appropriate in today’s society by providing examples of how capitalism is affecting the lives of American workers even today. However, I will first explain the definition and structure of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system that is most common in the United States and much of Western Europe today.

It is represented by privatization of companies for production of goods or services for a profit, competitive markets, and wage labor (“Capitalism”). These individual skills were initially developed from skills that grew out of the economic time period known as feudalism and has evolved into individuals who possess certain skills that can demand payment.

Although this may seem like it would be an ideal situation for workers and provide a platform to provide a service in return for payment of some sort, it soon became evident that there were people who would use this new system of economics to their advantage.

Instead of doing the work themselves, they would find skilled workers to provide the service or product under the umbrella of their organization to which they would market and sell the goods for profit. The business owner would make a profit and, in turn, pay the worker a portion for his services provided. Unfortunately, there were others who were unable to make the system work for them in such an advantageous manner. Karl Marx had two basic criticisms of capitalism – especially in his lifetime of the beginning of the industrial revolution and the formation of factories.

His first was the thought that the worker suffered from alienation on several different levels. As a capitalistic society succeeds by gaining profit for the companies and business owners, the overall cost of goods needed to live also increases. If the wages earned by workers went up consistently with the profits of society and, thus, the increase in the cost of living, all would be good and balanced. However, that is not the case in most circumstances, in fact, as Marx points out, “the worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more goods he creates” (Johnson 261).

In other words, as the production increases the cost to produce is lowered. The business owner sees those profits in the gross profit obtained by the sale of goods; however, the worker is generally not compensated in a fair and equitable manner. This turns a skill which may or may not have been a passion at one time into something that the worker is forced to do whether they desire to do so or not. Even if a worker enjoyed his occupation, chances are, he or she is being forced to comply with guidelines or standards set by someone else.

As a worker you are still not truly free to produce your work according to your standards so you are, in essence, alienating yourself from the product of your work. According to Marx, capitalism has also produced an alienation from nature. He states that the capitalistic society conceals this alienation because it does not examine the direct relationship between the worker and production (Johnson 263). Essentially, the labor of the worker may produce wonderful and beautiful things for the wealthy individuals but oftentimes the working class population may never get to experience the beauty for themselves.

Furthermore, the workers identity is often lost within their job and they do not have the means to express their individuality. This is identified by Marx as being alienated from yourself and from your labor. Most people do not proclaim their uniqueness in ways that focus around their occupation. Even in a highly sought after job you may, for a time, feel as if that encompasses who you truly are, but it is only a small part of your being – your essence. This also ties in to another alienation theme of Marx which is the alienation from your species as a human being.

According to Marx, “the worker feels himself to be freely active only in his animal function – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most also in his dwelling and in personal adornment – while in his human functions he is reduced to animal” (Johnson 264). In other words, as workers we are often free only when we are allowed to do what we want to do instead of what is demanded and required of us at our jobs. When this happens, we are often reduced to a more animalistic approach to fulfilling our needs.

Finally, Marx contends that in a apitalistic society, the worker is alienated from others. Because there is so much competition in capitalism – which is the driving force for production and profits – it causes a hostile environment among workers. Many are competing for the same position or the same customer or account. This competition causes a friction within the frame of society that pits individual against individual which is what leads us into the next matter of contention with Marx in his views of capitalism which is exploitation.

He claims that “private property has made us so stupid and partial that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital or when it is directly eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc. , in short, utilized in some way; although private property itself only conceives these various forms of possession as means of life, and the life for which they serve as means is the life of private property – labor and creation of capital” (Johnson 266). People have become so materialistic in our capitalistic society that they are driven to all means by which to obtain their measures of status.

Because of this, the workers are driven to give into demands made by their employers in order to make the wages necessary to maintain their standard of living. Since the workers are plentiful, the products are also plentiful, which discussed earlier creates a larger bottom line for the profit of the company or business owner. However, even though the profits are increased for the business owners of the capitalistic society, the wages are often not as high as the profit. Thus, the value of the product is high while keeping the value of the worker low.

This is a classic example of exploitation. I think that the criticisms offered by Marx are still applicable in today’s society in the United States. I think that the worker is indeed alienated from his true identity as an individual. Before the onset of industrialized production there was a certain pride associated with one’s occupation; whether that was as a craftsman in wood, as a blacksmith, tailor, or bricklayer. No matter your profession, you were able to express your individuality and impart your character into the product of your work.

Sadly, this is not the case with the workers of today. They are often subject to limitations and expectations that hinder their creative ability and they are forced to produce that are a poor representation of their ability or personality. Most people are forced into positions they don’t even want to be in professionally because they need to make a certain amount of money to pay for their wants and needs. This creates a frustration and dissatisfaction that reaches far beyond the walls of the factory or office.

It is no wonder that most workers today dread Monday mornings and count the days until five o’clock Friday afternoon. Again and again, the energy level increases as the weekend approaches. There is a common sentiment that states everybody is simply working for the weekend. This is because workers are dissatisfied with their jobs and feel undervalued and taken advantage of in many circumstances. Once the workday ends, the freedom begins for the worker. This is often why the bars have a “happy hour” as this is where the worker can forget the troubles of the day and throw back a drink or two and finally relax.

The economic conditions of living in an industrialized society has turned the ordinary worker into a materialistic consumer that generally far outreaches his or her ability to afford to keep up with the Jones’. Because many feel the pressure of this forced societal expectations to possess certain items, live in a certain neighborhood, d rive the right car all while wearing the right clothes and accessories we as workers in the United States have been put in the unfortunate and unbalanced position of much more want than means by which to provide it.

As long as that continues, we are stuck in a cycle of never ending wants that never truly satisfy because they are not meeting what is truly needed in our lives. Marx claims that “the human being had to be reduced to this absolute poverty in order to be able to give birth to all his inner wealth” (Johnson 268). In a capitalistic society it is encouraged, and even necessary, to consume what is being produced in order for capitalism to continue to grow.

Today’s worker can do this in moderation, without putting themselves or their families in such a position to further add to the frustration of meeting expectations and demands at a workplace that is unfulfilling to their existence. Furthermore, I think that labor unions were formed in the early 1900’s in order to protect workers from exploitation of greedy business owners. At the turn of the century, many workers were expected to work long hours almost every day of the week.

There were unsafe working environments s well as high quotas being placed on workers from employers with minimal compensation to the workers. All of this was so the profits could rise as production was increased. There seemed no reason to pay more in wages by adding workers or in higher salaries for the existing employees when the business owners could simply demand more from their current workforce. Also, working conditions were often unsafe while trying to maximize workspace with the maximum number of workers without actually increasing the area being used.

Because of labor unions working conditions have improved greatly for the worker in America; there are 40 hour work weeks with compensation for additional hours worked; guidelines have been implemented to make for safer working conditions; and there is more room for negotiation for fair wages without fear of retaliation by employers. Although labor unions are still in existence today, they have much less impact than they had in the past.

Politicians are close bedfellows with the corporate executives across our nation and policies are ever changing to benefit the corporation and business owners while causing the worker to suffer the consequences. Even though there have been great improvements in regard to the criticisms of alienation and exploitation that Marx had against capitalism, I believe they still exist. Marx may have not been of this century but I feel his observations are still valid in today’s world.

Charles Darwin Essay

Charles Darwin was a British scientist who came up with the idea of the theory of Evolution. He was also a botanist which would be one of the reasons what lead him towards inventing his Theory of Evolution.

Why and How?

Charles Darwin travelled to the Galapagos Island as a biologist. He travelled on a ship which was undertaking surveys of the Pacific Ocean. His voyage was to examine plants and animals on the islands through which he came up with Theory of Evolution. Charles Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution after surveying birds on each island he went to. He saw finches but they all had different beaks, one finch had a long beak the other had a short beak and another had a dipping beak. After seeing all this Charles Darwin started thinking and so he thought why does one bird have a long beak and the other have a small beak. During his voyage on the beagle he carried on observing and found fossils and also saw consistent results for which he came up with the theory of evolution.

His theory explained that all living things have a common ancestor. The finches he discovered had different beaks and so he came up with the conclusion that all of these finches had a common ancestor and then they all evolved from that common ancestor.


Charles Darwin’s hypothesis was that every living thing has a common ancestor and that we all evolve from that common ancestor. His reason for us all evolving was that so we can adapt with the nature around us and survive. For example giraffes have long necks, according to Charles Darwin these giraffes had a common ancestor who had short necks from time to time a mutation resulted in a giraffe having a long neck. The reason being is so that, the giraffe could reach the trees better and get extra food and be more prone to stay alive and reproduce than all of the other giraffes. Eventually, the attribute would be passed down until generally most giraffes had long necks.

Evidence and proof

Jean Baptise Lamarck, who was a French naturalist, discovered his own theory before Charles Darwin discovered his Theory of Evolution. Lamarck’s theory was that organisms would pass their attribute down to their generations for example if someone was to loos their arm then their coming baby would be born without a arm and then it would get passed down the generation and then eventually you would find most people without an arm. Charles Darwin’s theory contradicted to Lamarck’s theory and so people didn’t believe in his Theory of Evolution. Also Charles Darwin lacked in evidence because he had no evidence that all the finches have a common ancestor or that all organisms have an common ancestor and so because of him not having enough evidence he lacked proof and so his theory wasn’t reliable.

You may also be interested in the following: compare lamarck and darwin theories of evolution

Beowulf: Sigemund Episode Essay

One of the best literary devices the author of Beowulf uses is the use of episodes and digressions. Each of these episodes and digressions tell another story apart from the main plot of Beowulf, but sets up an introduction to the main plot. One such episode, the Sigemund episode, tells of valiant King Sigemund who received glory and honor through his killing of the dragon and possession of the hoard. Sigemund became a noble and experienced king, only to be betrayed and brought to his downfall.

Beowulf was much the same as Sigemund, and both were great examples of heroes.

The Sigemund episode introduces a comparison to Beowulf, foreshadows Beowulf’s downfall, and parallels the irony of Beowulf’s shortcomings. As we see in the following lines: “Sigemund’s name was known everywhere. / He was utterly valiant and venturesome, / a fence round his fighters and flourished therefore” (897-898), the author introduces Sigemund as an excellent comparison to Beowulf. The author uses the Sigemund episode to set up a better understanding of the character of Beowulf by describing a king much like himself.

This allows the reader to understand the character of Beowulf and know what a noble and valiant character he was. The author presents Sigemund as a brave warrior who defeated the dragon, much like the victorious warrior that Beowulf was. And within the Sigemund episode, Heremod is introduced as a wicked king, an exact opposite of Sigemund and Beowulf. This allows the reader to compare the three kings, and promote Beowulf as a noble king such as Sigemund. Another purpose of the Sigemund episode within Beowulf is to foreshadow Beowulf’s defeat and downfall.

Sigemund is a noble and mighty king, but is led to his defeat in the following lines: “… The king was betrayed, ambushed in Jutland, overpowered / and done away with” (901-903). This defeat of Sigemund foreshadows Beowulf’s defeat and death during the battle with the dragon. As Sigemund and Beowulf are both valiant kings, they both are led to their failure and death. This part of the Sigemund episode gives the reader a glimpse of what is to come for Beowulf in the rest of the poem. From this episode, the author uses irony that Beowulf will become a great and mighty king, but also will come face to face with his destruction.

The author uses this irony to connect the characters of Sigemund and Beowulf. Not only does the Sigemund episode foreshadow the downfall of Beowulf, but it also sets up a choice that Beowulf has to make. Beowulf has to either chose to be like Sigemund, a courageous and noble king, or take the path of Heremod, an evil king. This gives the reader a sense of uncertainty of the choice Beowulf will make. As the reader, the choice that Beowulf will make is obvious, but this is a huge choice of character for Beowulf.

It gives a chance for Beowulf to prove his character, and allows the reader to understand the trustworthiness of Beowulf once he does chose to be a noble king. Among the various episodes and digressions within Beowulf, Sigemund’s episode sets up the best foreshadowing of Beowulf’s life. In all, Sigemund’s episode clues the reader in with what type of character Beowulf is. Sigemund is the perfect comparison to Beowulf, and this allows the reader to expect what is to come for Beowulf. Sigemund’s hymn apart from the main plot of Beowulf accomplished the task of introducing and setting up the destiny for Beowulf.

You may also be interested in the following: kugelmass episode

Irony and Foreshadowing in Poe’s Short Stories Essay

In Poe’s short stories, he uses literary devices like irony and foreshadowing to increase reader interest in his stories. Irony and Foreshadowing helps to create suspense, anxiety, and humor in his works. They also help to capture the audience’s attention and draw them into the story. Poe’s irony and foreshadowing are integrated in “The Cask of Amontillado” and “The Fall of the House of Usher”. “The Cask of the Amontillado” is one of the best examples of irony and foreshadowing in Poe’s works.

In this story, almost every detail seems to stand for something else. These ironic details foreshadow Fortunado’s horrible death.

Poe’s uses irony and foreshadowing to develop suspense and mood throughout this story. The first example of irony in this story lies in the character’s name. The name Forunato is ironic because it sounds like the word fortunate. Also Fortunato translates to “fortunate one” in Italian and suggests good luck. As we know from the beginning of the story, Fortunato is not so fortunate and his future lies in the hands of Montresor.

Other ironies abound in the setting of the “Cask of the Amontillado. ” This story takes place in Italy during Carnival, which is a joyous and happy time full of family, friends, and food.

Carnival is the last place one would think of committing a murder. This ironic setting is one of the reasons Montresor is so successful and is why Fortunato is so surprised. A more visual and humorous irony lies in Fortunato’s apparel. “The man wore motley. He had on a tight-fitting parti-striped dress, and his head was surmounted by the conical cap and bells” (Poe “Cask”). His festive outfit contrasts with the impending doom that awaits him. Also, it is ironic that Fortunato believes that he is intelligent on the subject of wines, but he is dressed as a fool.

In addition to irony, forshadowing is evident in the opening paragraph of the “Cask of the Amontillado”. Montresor’s first words to the reader are: The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge. You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that gave utterance to a threat. At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely, settled –but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk. I must not only punish but punish with impunity (Poe “Cask”).

Clearly, Montresor has serious intentions for Fortunato, and these comments foreshadow Montresor’s vengeance on Forunato at the end of the story. Montresor says he must not only punish but punish with impunity. This foreshadows how an insult drove Montresor to take justice into his own hands and implies that Forunato’s punishment was deserved. Later in the story we see how this justice is really just an excuse for murder. Another instance of foreshadowing is when Montresor and Fortunato are in the vaults, looking for the cask of Amontillado. Fortunato begins to cough and says, “Enough, the cough’s a mere nothing; it will not kill me.

I shall not die of a cough” (Poe “Cask”). This foreshadows his death because Fortunato was right in that he would not die of a cough but that he would die of something much more sinister. The clueless Fortunato also mentions that he has forgotten what Montresor’s family coat of arms looks like. Montresor describes his coat of arms as “A huge human foot d’or, in a field azure; the foot crushes a serpent rampant whose fangs are imbedded in the heel” (Poe “Cask”). This symbolically foreshadows Fortunato’s death because Montresor represents the human foot crushing the serpent, which represents Fortunato.

This coat of arms shows that Montresor was not the first in his family to take justice into his own hands, a hint that Fortunato does not pick up on. “The Fall of the House of Usher” also makes good use of irony and foreshadowing. It is one of Poe’s most well-known short stories and is considered one of his best. This story shows us how important irony and foreshadowing are to a gothic tale by providing suspense and humor to Poe’s stories. One instance of irony in “The Fall of the House of Usher” is in one of Usher’s many paintings. In this painting, Usher paints a vault for the burial of a body.

This is ironic because it portrays the tomb in which Madeline will be buried. It also shows how Lady Madeline would be buried alive. This painting signifies Usher’s dark thoughts and leads us to believe that he planned to bury Lady Madeline alive. Another example of irony is when the narrator reads Usher the story the “Mad Trist”. The narrator reads this story in order to calm both his and Usher’s nerves. This is ironic because the “Mad Trist” is a parody about a medieval romance. Poe introduces this story at the greatest moment of tension in the story; the Narrator cannot sleep, a storm rages outside, and Usher is on the brink of hysteria.

The narrator could not have picked a worse time to read this book. (Poe “Usher’). Probably the most ironic part of the story was the change that Lady Madeline experiences before she is buried and after she is buried. When the narrator first sees Madeline, before she is buried, she is lifeless and can barely move or talk. After she comes back from being buried alive however, she has much more of an impact on the people and things around her. When she comes back from the dead, she has enough strength to tackle and kill Usher. This shows us that Lady Madeline has grown since her death.

“The Fall of the House of Usher” is known for its Gothic elements. In this story Poe describes the house as bleak, gloomy, and close to crumbling down. When the narrator first sees the house at the beginning of the story he says, “I know not how it was — but, with the first glimpse of the building, a sense of insufferable gloom pervaded my spirit” (Poe 139). The gloom and bleakness of the house foreshadows the doom and horrors that will occur inside the house later on in the story. Poe lets us know from the beginning of the story that something execrable will happen inside that house.

Poe’s description of the Lady Madeline as having “affections of a partially cataleptical character” (155) predicts her early death. The word cataleptical means to be in a state in which consciousness and feeling are lost and the body assumes a death-like rigidity. Lady Madeline’s description foreshadows her death because she is described as lifeless and lost. She seems as if she was already dead. The most obvious example of foreshadowing in this story lies in the title. “The Fall of the House of Usher” foreshadows what will happen to not only the physical House of Usher, but also the symbolic House of Usher.

Symbolically, the House of Usher represents the bloodline of Ushers. When the house crumbles to the ground at the end of the story, it represents the end of the Usher bloodline. “The Cask of Amontillado” and “The Fall of the House of Usher” give a multitude of examples of both irony and foreshadowing. Poe uses these literary devices to develop suspense and mood in these stories. Without these literary devices, his stories would seem flat and boring. Poe’s literary devices are what captured and maintained my interests thought his stories.