Albert Camus' The Stranger and Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot Many differences and similarities are found between Albert Camus' novel, The Stranger, and Samuel Beckett's play, Waiting for Godot. The characters in each story is very different from their society and at the same time, thy are very similar to each other. To understand in what ways they are similar, there must be and understanding of how they are different from the society in which they live in. First of all, the major difference from the novel and the play is their desire for God's salvation. Recall when Meursault was in jail, he did not want the magistrate to pray for God to save his soul unlike Vladimir and Estagon, who waits many years for their god. They both live their life for one reason: to wait for Godot. However, to wait for someone who is not going to come is just as pointless as not doing anything at all, just like Meursault who lives his life at the spur of the moment. Neither of them makes important goals in their lives. Meursault can care less about his promotion and Vladimir and Estragon could have done something worth while with the last fifty years of their lives. Because of this, they found ways of passing time. Vladimir and Estragon tries hanging themselves and call each other names while Meursault goes smoking, drinking with Raymond, listen to Salamando and have casual sex all because they do not have anything else to do. They all feel their very existence is insignificant. Whether they live or died would not change anything. One life is as good as another. Vladimir and Estragon's expression of their emotions contrast to Meursault's lack of emotions. After Vladimir and Estragon fight, they resolve their disputes by embracing each other. Meursault's honesty prevents him from showing any emotions that he does not have. These ways of expressing their emotions reveals their views of life. Meursault knows who he is in life but is just indifferent to it. He did not care if everybody thought he was strange or his associates is a pimp. However, Vladimir and Estragon does not know who they are in life. To wait for someone who is not coming is pointless.
The male protagonists, Shinji and Romeo have many differences. Hatsue and Juliet are perhaps not as different from each other than Shinji is to Romeo but still, the distinctions are abundant, as are the resemblances. Both young women seem to be a puppet of their families. Without consulting her first, Juliet’s father chooses Paris to be his daughter’s groom. Juliet obviously despises Paris and loathes the very thought of their marriage, stating that she would rather leap off the battlements of any tower, walk in dark alleyways, be chained to roaring bears, or hide in a mortuary covered with dead men’s stinking limbs and rotting bones (4.1.78-90). Hatsue, too, is forced unwillingly to marry someone whom she obviously has no interest in: Yasuo Kawamoto. When Shinji asks about the marriage on page twenty-two, Hatsue dismisses it with a laugh and says “Silly! It’s a big lie.” It indicates that Hatsue is looking forward to be bonded in holy matrimony with Yasuo about as much as Juliet is looking forward to the day that makes her the wife of Paris. Juliet’s family is wealthy, and so has the adequate amount of money to go through with the wedding. Also, in those days, it was common for fathers to marry off their daughters to a stranger of his choosing. The reader discovers that Hatsue’s family is also wealthy, her father being “Terukichi Miyata, the wealthy owner of two coasting freighters chartered to Yamagawa Transport” (page thirteen). These two rich and noble men both marry off their daughters to a stranger. It is obvious through this that the daughters, Hatsue and Juliet, are merely puppets to their fathers. To bolster this piece of evidence even more, Yukio Mishima reveals in a paragraph on page thirteen that Hatsue was sold becaus...
In the road of life, the right path may not always be where the road signs lead. The road to self-discovery is found by following one’s heart and mind and to wherever they may lead them. Within the plays Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, and Our Town by Thornton Wilder, parallel pathways and contrary connections can be established between the characters coinciding in both. In Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman is the portrait of a sixty year old man reflecting upon his past, one of lies and hopelessness. Upon coming about his past, he finally and fatally, discovers himself at the end of his life. Mr. Webb from Our Town plays the figure of an editor of Grover’s Corner Sentinel and loving father of Emily. Early in the play, he displays knowledge over his own self-discovery, which he hopes to tell others. The self-discovered Mr. Webb raised Emily coherently as a woman who in the end recognized the value of life. Married to George Gibbs, her life was very much comparable to Linda Loman, married to Willy Loman. Linda Loman was a woman dedicated to the needs of her spouse, but also therefore blind to the real needs that Willy desired. In the end, she still was left wondering why or what had gone wrong. Interlocked by protruding parallel traits of progressive self-awareness, these characters promoted the two plays to a higher level of understanding.
“What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?” (Burgess, A Clockwork Orange, part two, chapter 3)
Room' is a story made to prove that there is no such thing as the
Protagonists are like the tricksters of the jungle, the margays. Margays imitate baby monkeys, tinamous and agoutis. Then when the adults of the species go to investigate the cries, they are attacked by the margay. Protagonists may not devour their prey, but they are cunning and deceptive. On the outside they look like the hero of the story, but on the inside they are evil. This was supported by the books of prose, The Crucible by Arthur Miller and The Scarlet Letter written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Scarlet Letter took place before The Crucible, but in both of the settings the townspeople were religious worry warts who blamed witchcraft (a sin) for the their troubles. Both were Puritanical societies, meaning that enforcement of the laws was very strict, as sinning was generally taken very seriously back then. One sin that was found in both books was that of adultery. Adultery can be defined as essentially a sexual relationship between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. Adultery leads into the focus of this paper. John Proctor and Hester Prynne (the protagonists of The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter respectively) were bad influences because they were protagonists.
Organizational Behavior, as defined in our text, is the study of human behavior in organizations (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 2005, p. 17). How organizations behave within their ranks is in my opinion what truly can make them successful. The concepts of culture, diversity, communication, etc; need to be addressed so that employees can work well together and business can run smoothly.
Everybody has places to go and people to see but what about those times that you don’t have anything on your schedule. What do you do when somebody invites9 you to do something? Do you automatically say you’re too busy or do you let yourself face that absence of work? Tim Krieder states that people “commuting by the bus to three minimum-wage jobs who tell you how busy they are; what those people are is not busy but tired. (Krieder 982)” Krieder presents a work situation,
In William Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV, Falstaff and King Henry IV share father-figure relationships with Henry “Hal,” Prince of Wales. The former, a drunk and cavalier knight, acts as a surrogate father to the prince, while the latter, a determined and distanced monarch, is his blood. Yet, who is the better father-figure to Hal? Although Falstaff and Prince Henry share a strong, quasi father-son relationship, the former’s manifestation of the tavern atmosphere, venality and dishonor are obstacles to the Prince’s goals; King Henry IV, on the other hand, is the better father-figure because he motivates his son to realize his ambitions, and embodies the setting of the court and the monarchy in which the Prince belongs and will one day inherit.
The motivations and behavior of key characters in Strindberg's Miss Julie and Beckett's Waiting for Godot will be analyzed according to Eric Berne's method of transactional analysis. Eric Berne deals with the psychology behind our transactions. Transactional analysis determines which ego state is implemented by the people interacting. There are three possibilities which are either parent, adult, or child. The key characters in Waiting for Godot are Vladimir and Estragon. Vladimir is the more intellectual of the two and Estragon is more emotional. Their ego states are always shifting from minute to minute. In Miss Julie the key characters are Jean and Miss Julie. Jean shifts his ego state according to his situation either to compliment the ego state of the person he is talking to or to exploit the situation. In the relationship between Miss Julie and Jean their ego states interchange as Miss Julie begins as the parent, then she falls so they are equal on the adult level and eventually she is on the bottom so Jean is on the top as parent ego state.
<< In the play Hamlet by William Shakesphere, the main character, Hamlet, has a high level of intelligence. In Denmark, Hamlet is the son of the king who had recently passed away, and the queen who betrayed her husband to marry Hamlet's uncle soon after his death. Hamlet is hurt and uproared by his mother's betrayal and his uncle's rise to become king. He has an extraordinary understanding and comprehension of others and himself.
self identity and is trying to figure out his place in society. His characterization is important
Camus and Mulisch present that the past and present are interrelated. The authors do this through the two characters, Meursault and Anton. Through Meursault, we see that his past actions affect the outcome of his trial. Through Anton, we see that his present situation constantly brings him back to his past despite him trying to escape it. Thus the authors stylistically link the past and present to demonstrate that they are inevitably related, where certain events are unavoidable or the past is undeniable.
Organizational behavior is the study of the many factors that have an impact on how people and groups act, think, feel, and respond to work and organizations and how organizations respond to their environments. (George & Jones, 2005) Organizational behavior is particularly important to managers, who are responsible for supervising the activities of one of more employees.
Understanding the structure of an organization plays a vital role in laying the blueprint for how a company will be managed and organized. It provides a well-defined framework that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each employee in a particular company. It shows how each employee interacts and works one another in achieving the goals of a company. In other words, organizational structure is a reflection of the working relationships that govern the workflow of the company. It has a profound effect on a company’s structural dimensions, which includes formalization, specialization, hierarchy and centralization.
According to Hatch and Cunliffe (2006), there are three major perspectives about the study of organization theory (OT): modern, symbolic interpretive, and postmodern. Each of these perspectives comes with its own assumptions and methodologies. Hatch and Cunliffe provided an introduction text about the concepts and characteristics of the three OT perspectives. Tsoukas and Knudsen also compiled a comprehensive handbook summarizing all facets of the meta-theoretical perspectives. In this post the writer will discuss the basic concepts of three perspectives, present Hatch and Cunliffe’s reasons why a multiple perspectives approach to organization theory is important, and compare Tsoukas and Knudsen’s introduction to the Hatch and Cunliffe introduction in their books.