The thesis in the article ‘The origins of the World War’, by Sidney B. Fay, can clearly be stated as the explanation for World War I. Fay states that no one country is responsible for the creation of the war. Furthermore, he goes on to explain that each of the European country’s leaders did, or failed to do ‘certain’ things to provoke the other countries into a war. Fay states, “One must abandon the dictum of the Versailles Treaty that Germany and her allies were solely responsible. It was a dictum exacted by victors from vanquished, under the influence of the blindness, ignorance, hatred, and the propagandist misconceptions to which war had given rise.” (Fay, The Origins of the World War). His main arguments are his explanations of how each country was responsible for the creation of the war. His first explanation is that of how Serbia was partly responsible. Fay explains that Serbia knew that by not co-operating with the Austrian government over the implications of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand assassination they were indirectly preparing for a war they would fight but did not want. Fay says that Austria was more responsible for the war than any other power but not in military attack, but more in the form of self-defence. He makes it clear that Austria was justified in their battle and that they didn’t have to, “sit back and await the dismemberment at the hands of its neighbors.” (Fay, The origins of the World War). Fay believes that Berchtold wanted a local war with Serbia but knew and was content with the fact that the rest of Europe could very easily become involved with the war. Fay’s third country’s explanation was that of Germany. He believed that Germany did not want a war and tried to avert one completely. It is his belief that since Austria was Germany’s only dependable ally, they were dragged into the war. Furthermore, he explains that Germany’s geographical location, being in the middle of the conflict between France and Russia, they had little choice in the matter and had to defend their territory as well as Austria-Hungary’s. Fay’s fourth country and major power discussed, was Russia. He believed that Russia supported Serbia because of the frequent guidance and encouragement given at Belgrade, and if a war were to break out they would more than happy to fight along with the belief of France and Britain helping out. Furthermore, at the same ...
... middle of paper ...
...to win this continental war, if it was to come to that. They also in turn had the belief that ‘France may panic, and advise peace’. This would have been a diplomatic win in the German’s books. This would have ‘split Russia from France and isolate both without war’. Although this second point was believed to be unlikely by the German’s it still was a happy, and reassuring possibility. Fischer then went on to say that Hollweg told Bulow that any war that was to occur would last at the most three to four months. Hollweg then went on to explain the possibilities of a ‘friendly relationship’ with England, and then through England, a similar friendship with France. He then stated that this would bring forth a triple alliance with England, France, and Germany all extinguishing the existence of Russia, which would easily threaten the civilization of Europe. Fischer then concludes his essay in Hollweg’s address to the Central Committee of the Reichstag at the beginning of October during the ever increasing debate on the unlimited submarine warfare. Fischer states that, “ … this outlines Germany’s real guilt, her constant over-estimation of her own powers, and her misjudgment of realities.”
Class politics are introduced to the story when the Phonies arrive in Stella Street. The Phonies are disliked as soon as they arrive in Stella Street because of the renovations they make on Old Aunt Lillie’s house and the children of Stella Street make fun of the fact that the Phonies refurnish the house (p.13). Henni encourages the reader to make fun of the high class Phonies about the way they speak, because the Phonies use words such as ‘dinnah’ and ‘daaaarling’ (p.18). This shows the Phonies in a negative way enticing the audience to take Henni’s side or a middle class approach to the story. When the Phonies send a note from their lawyer to Frank’s family for a proposal of a new fence (p.22) they are once again looked at poorly.
The points of view in “A&P” and “A Rose for Emily” show the fascination that people have with those in the upper class. Updike writes in the first person point of view. The narrator is Sammy, a cashier at the grocery store. Queenie, who walks around the A&P in only a bathing suit, fascinates him. Updike writes, “She had on a kind of dirty-pink… bathing suit with a little nubble all over it and, what got me, the straps were down.” (Updike, 2). He describes the girls in great detail throughout the story, obviously studying them. This first-person point of view shows the thoughts of Sammy, who is a member of the middle class. His fascination with Queenie is exemplary of the average person’s fascination with the rich. Sammy analyzes Queenie so much that he feels a particular connection to her, thinki...
I agree with Gladwell that hard work can lead to success. Too often we think success happens because someone has money or gets lucky. This is wrong. Success takes hard work, imagination, and motivation. “Success is not a random act. It arises out of a predictable and powerful set of circumstances and opportunities.” (Gladwell 52) If you assert yourself and use your mind and imagination, you can create those
...nces like to have a clear hero of their stories. The combination of the director’s artistic vision, cinematic choices, and Kline’s performance singles out Bottom as the main-character. The film’s time is not spent mostly on Bottom’s story; actually, the Athenian lovers take up the most actual screen time. Bottom represents the bridge between the real world of the merchants and lovers and the fantastical fairy kingdom. He comes from the lowest class of society and rises to be something the queen of the fairies loves and values. In a world in which no one breaks from the Chain of Being, Bottom is able to venture into a world grander than his own for a short time. When he returns, he holds the nobility he gained from his experience within, transcending all classes to become the perfect hero for our modern conception of the play, hilariously valiant and imperfect.
In Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Revelation,” the dynamic character of Mrs. Turpin serves as an ideal lens to examine humanity; the transformation from a woman of hypocrisy to a woman of grace is crucial to understanding the theme. Mrs. Turpin thinks very highly of herself, is satisfied with her place in the world and classifies all others into societal castes based on a comparison to herself; she proclaims herself to be most respectable type of person. As she intuitively targets others and categorizes people, class distinctions occupy her mind. The story opens with a waiting room scene where and O’...
Flannery O’Connor uses images of regality as represented by hats, colors, and ironic regal references in the short story “Everything That Rises Must Converge” to symbolize Julian’s mother, and her societal views. She, like the hat, is not as upper class as she would have herself or others believe. In addition, her racist beliefs are challenged when a black woman enters the bus with the very same hat, forcing her to realize that the regal attitude she holds will never be validated, and she will no longer be able to pretend that she is superior to anyone.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream, by William Shakespeare, is a classic play that has been retold in many ways. The most recent version of this romantic comedy was done by Michael Hoffman in 1999. This portrayal follows very closely to the original play. Very few lines are taken out, and the characters stay very true to the assumed original idea. The one main difference in the original play and this movie is the depiction of the character Nick Bottom the weaver. The original play shows Bottom as the “…overconfident weaver…hilariously overt…has extraordinary belief in his own ability…totally unaware of his ridiculousness…” (Sparknotes.com). These types of characteristics would normally make readers see Bottom as a cocky, egotistical, center of attention, “ass”. In the play, this is the case. However, in the 1999 movie version, with Kevin Kline as Bottom, the audience gets a different idea of Bottom without changing his basic character traits. Hoffman achieved changing the overall perception of the character of Bottom from to a “…warm fuzzy man, a dreamer for whom we can root”, and pathetic lover, while still keeping the “ass” quality, by only changing a few small, very subtle things (Jones, 127).
Many factors of causation lead up to the explosion of World War One. These causations are both preconditions and precipitants. The preconditions are factors that had built up over a long term; whereas the precipitants are catalysts or short term factors. The preconditions are as pointed toward war as the arms race and the treaties, such as the Entente Cordial and the Triple Alliance; or less war intentional such as Nationalism and Imperialism. The precipitants are events that include the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand.
The character of Bottom in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is frequently foolish, but he is not a fool. His exuberance and energy are allied to practicality and resourcefulness, with an alarming lack of self-consciousness. He, at any rate, is not at all tongue-tied before the duke, as Theseus has known others to be. We do laugh at Bottom in many situations, but should note that these are situations in which any man might seem ridiculous: amateur theatricals are almost a byword for unintended comedy, whether in planning (1.2) rehearsal (3.1) or performance (5.1); any artisan afflicted with an ass's head and appetites, and beloved of the fairy queen would have difficulty retaining his dignity.
...age. Instead of laughing at Bottom, the film generates a feeling of sorrow for his character. When the wine is poured on him when the craftsmen first meet, Bottom takes an obvious emotional blow, so one can see how he would artificially inflate himself with the false perception of being a wonderful actor. When chosen to perform for Thesseus’s wedding, the players are very nervous and turn to Bottom for comfort. They look up to and respect Bottom for his confidence and acting ability, but Bottom later makes a fool of himself in the play by over dramatizing the part of Pyramus, especially when he performs the death of Pyramus. Michael Hoffman’s adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream brings a classical play to a modern audience and makes it an exciting and humorous experience. This is accomplished most notably with the direction he gives to the two characters discussed. The animated humor of Bottom and the slightly more subtle badgering of other characters brought forth by Puck creates a certain amount of attachment to the movie by the viewer. The cinematic version of Shakespeare’s play is well adapted to a modern audience, especially through the characters of Puck and Nick Bottom.
In the book, Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier, there exist a big emphasis on social class and position during the time of this story. When we are introduced to the main character of the story, the narrator, we are right away exposed to a society in which different privileges are bestowed upon various groups. Social place, along with the ever present factor of power and money are evident throughout the story to show how lower to middle class groups were treated and mislead by people on a higher level in society. When we are introduced to the narrator, we are told that she is traveling with an old American woman; vulgar, gossipy, and wealthy, Mrs. Van Hopper travels across Europe, but her travels are lonely and require an employee that gives her warm company. This simple companion (the narrator) is shy and self-conscious, and comes from a lower-middle class background which sets up perfect for a rich man to sweep her off her feet. The narrator faced difficulties adapting to first, the Monte Carlo aristocratic environment, and second, to her new found position as Mrs. De Winter, the new found mistress of Manderley.
One of the of the most influential characters that we see in William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night Dream is that of Nick Bottom, a weaver who provides comic relief. We first meet Bottom when he is referred to as one of “The Mechanicals” and that he is putting on the play Pyramus and Thisbe for the entertainment at Theseus’s wedding. While the group is rehearsing for their play, King Oberon, to get back at his wife, has his assistant Puck transform Bottom’s head into that of an ass. And of course he makes sure that his wife Titania falls in love with Bottom. During this short period of love between the two characters, we see how Titania adores bottom and does numerous things for him, like let
Although Bottom is foolish, vain, and arrogant, his character also portrays a man who is lovable and gentle. The comedy therein lies amongst the differences and circumstances between his personality and his experiences. The importance of Bottom throughout A Midsummer Night’s Dream is for comic relief, as he is naïve, dumb, and at times ridiculous.
...y a set of expectations and values that are established on mannerisms and conduct challenged by Elizabeth. From this novel, it is evident that the author wrote it with awareness of the class issues that affect different societies. Her annotations on the fixed social structure are important in giving a solution to the current social issues; that even the class distinctions and restrictions can be negotiated when an individual turns down bogus first impression s.
...t Fielding tends to mock the upper class more and it can be argued they are the ones with worse characteristics however he also ridicules lower class characters such as Mrs. Slipslop, the middle aged plump lady's maid who is also a bully ; Peter Pounce, the swindling skinflint, Mrs. Tow-wouse, the scolding innkeepers wife and Pamela's hypocrisy in the sense she once saw Fanny as her equal but now deems herself to be superior. In conclusion we see that Fielding does not so much then make a distinction between class, but shows us that hypocrisy, vanity, unkindness and cruelty are vices that belong to all members of society and it is only those who see the goodness in humanity and who treat all others with kindness and respect regardless of class that are superior individuals.