The book Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck Essay Example for Free

The book Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck Essay John Steinbeck wrote the book Of Mice and Men in 1936 after Wall Street crashed in 1929 and overnight the great depression set in, in America. Everyone lost all their money after investing in the stock market and no one had any money and jobs because company collapsed due to the knock on affect of the crash. As a result, people forgot about trying to settle down with a family and just thought about trying to stay alive. But still in the back of their minds the American Dream still lived on and at some point would all like to have their own plot of land living a carefree life. To stay alive though to do this they had to get any money they could. They travel around the country as migrant workers just looking after themselves going for any job that came up. They had to keep going, from job to job, people had no time to make friends. There were two special characters though, two men who traveled around together and were both very close friends. Although you could call them the odd-couple, due to the fact that they were both very different. But they looked and cared after each other, were together for a long time and learned they were so close they had to keep travelling together and try to go at it wit each other. These two guys didnt really have much before the Wall Street crash and didnt need to care about making it all back. The story is about two people who dont just care about themselves but want to look after each other. These two people were Lennie and George. In the book George says Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world, they got no family. They dont belong no placebut us! An why? Because I got you to look after me and you got me to look after you John Steinbecks style carries a lot of symbolism. Even the town Soledad where its set means loneliness. All this shows that the lifestyle after the Wall Street crash forced people to go at it alone and the American Dream was getting further and further away. Steinbeck wrote this book because he saw the USA as a lonely place at the time. Even though Lennie and George have each other and arent as lonely as everyone else, there are still times wee they are lonely. When Lennie was younger all he had was his Aunt Clara who was the only one who looked after him and then she died. Until George came to live all the time with Lennie, all he had was his soft mice that he liked to pet. He had nothing else and was very lonely. Then when George came Lennie must have seen him as a savior and would do anything for him and listens to everything he does. But because he is mentally challenged he cant sometimes go through with his promises. When saying all this, John Steinbeck is expressing that Lennie and George are no two ordinary migrant workers doing it alone moving from place to place. Lennie and George are different because they stay together. But when Lennie acts like he does, George gets very annoyed and says God a mighty, if I was alone I could live so easy. I could go get a job an work, an no trouble. No mess at all, and when the end of the month came, I could take my fifty bucks and go into town ant get whatever I want. This makes Lennie sad, but really George wouldnt do this because he cares too much about Lennie. Lennie gets upset when people talk about leaving as he has had a lot of that happen to him in his life, with not knowing his parents and his Aunt Clara dying he has become sensitive to that happening and apologizes for whatever has made George say this very quickly. In the Book Candy is another very lonely character he is also symbolized through his dog who just goes through life then he gets quite old without making much significance and just kill him or send him off without say when hes worthless and dont care about his feelings. He is extra worthless as he got his hand lopped off in one of the farm machines and makes him not as useful as he was. This will happen to Candy, hell get fired and he knows this because he starts to get left out of everything. He knows time is not on his side and hell get canned before too long. This is why when he hears George and Lennie have a plan to get a farm and he had money to make this plan happen for all of them, (from compensation when he got his hand chopped off) he wants to be in on it so he cant be fired and would just do the easy jobs. Then he could stay with shelter and not get chucked out to die. I also think that he wants something to show for his life and the farm would be something good as the money he has wouldnt be a good indication for a successful life as he has no one to pass it on to. I think Steinbeck has put Candy into the book so there was another extreme of loneliness. The character shows that in America in the 30s no one had any respect or sympathy for old folk and when they get too old they are just sent out for the vultures not caring about feelings. This shows in Candy and when they are speaking to the stable buck and he says Nobody listen to you, Candy then says No he agreed Knowbody listen to us. This shows that Candy knows whats going on and his time is approaching fast. Crooks is also another extreme of loneliness just because he is black. He isnt even allowed to sleep in the same bunkhouse. They say I stink, but I say they stink. He says this, not because they smell but because he thinks the way they treat him stinks. Even on special occasions, for fun they beat him up. They dont treat him like a fellow human at times and dont like speaking to him. He gets lonely because he doesnt get to talk to anyone all day. This shows the racism of the time and how in America they still had the ideals of the slave trades and the black were nailed to the bottom of the social pile. Then in the book he wants to join in with the ranch plan as he thinks its his way out of hatred and the stereotypes. But eventually he rejected the ranch because he knew that he was also useless because he had a crooked back and he would be not respected, and he told Lennie that because he was mentally retarded that George might leave him. He says this because he is thinking about the thoughts of the times, but doesnt know that George would never leave Lennie. Another character is Curleys wife. She is very lonely and seeks for attention. This is because she is a woman and they just think she is someone who is just there to cure Curleys needs. But also she is a person. She said, Im stuck in the house all day and no one to talk to. People see her as a Tart because she seeks attention and flirts with all the workers on the ranch behind Curleys back, but Curly knows it is going on and gets very jealous and protective. She says when she was younger she met a man who could have put her in the movies, but when he sent her a letter saying she was in, her mum hid the letters because she was too young to leave. But maybe she had thought up these ideas that the man was actually interested in putting her in the movies or just trying to chat her up and then Curleys wife when she didnt hear anything might have blamed it on her mum and wanted to believe she was good enough to be in the movies. Then she left home to try and make her dream come true but never really had a plan. Then she met Curly and thought maybe this was the key to getting to the top, but now she is stuck on the ranch. She knows she will never fulfill her dreams. Steinbeck always refers to her as Curleys Wife and she never has a name all through the book. This is because no one needs or thinks it is necessary to get to know her because she is a woman. This character shows hatred of women at this time and how they meant nothing. All of the Characters, Crooks, Lennie, Candy and Curlys wife, have personalities that are lonely and in America at this time these personalities were outcasts. In the book they were excluded from everything because they were different. I also see Carlson as someone who thinks as a community and not for peoples feelings. For example at the end of the book when George has killed Lennie, then Slim is comforting him, he says Now what ya suppose is eatin them two guys? Not considering that George has just killed his old best friend who has traveled with for a long time. He cant understand why they feel this way, as he thinks as the community thinks at the time in how everyone has to try to do it for themselves and you cant have friends in this time but Lennie and George did. In the Book Slim and George get to know each other a bit. George likes to get to people and he thinks everybody is stupid not making any friends and being cautious of Everyone: -Maybe everbody in the whole damn world is scared of each other? He thinks everyone thinks they cant get to know anyone but he doesnt see this in George. John Steinbeck wrote this book in the 1030s when all these prejudiced feelings to people who are different were going on. He recognized this, what people were doing and how they were making everyone else lonely, but at the same time making themselves lonely too. When he wrote this he had a different character for all different aspects of loneliness and prejudice he could see in America at the time. He described it through migrant workers due to how on the farms it was capitalist with the boss looking down on his workers and by doing this, also people wanted to be the boss and not have to look up to people. To do it, they couldnt really do it with everyone else because than he couldnt have anyone else to look down on, so they had to go alone. Owning a farm somewhere and being your own boss was back than the American Dream. But by going alone they would never have enough money, so as their dream fails, along with it, so does their spirit. These 3 points show hoe different aspects of life all culminated to kill their spirit and make them lonely. It all spirited from themselves.

Role of Nature in Mary Shelley’s Mathilda Essays -- Mathilda

Role of Nature in Mary Shelley’s Mathilda The naturalistic imagery that pervades Mary Shelley’s Mathilda acts as an underlying theme for the incestuous affair between Mathilda and her father and its unruly consequences. Their relationship is a crime against the laws of Nature and causes Mathilda to become ostracized from the very world that she loved as a child. Shelley’s implementation of naturalistic imagery accentuates the unlawful and subsequent ramifications of the relationship between Mathilda and her father and contrasts the ideals and boundaries of the natural and spiritual worlds. Naturalistic imagery encompasses Mathilda’s childhood as she is prompted to take solace in Nature due to the lack of affection she receives from her stern aunt, whom she describes as being a "plant beneath a thick covering of ice" (1343). Mathilda besets a dreary childhood lacking in affection and companionship by becoming lost in the dynamics of Nature: "I loved everything, even the inanimate objects that surrounded me. I believe that I bore an individual attachment to every tree in our park; every animal that inhabited it knew me and I loved them†¦But my pleasure arose from the contemplates of nature alone, I had no companion: my warm affections finding no return from any other human heart were forced to run waste on inanimate objects" (1343-44). The lack of human affection that she experiences incites her to long for the father that abandoned her as an infant. Mathilda likens herself to being a solitary being that "brought Rosalind and Miranda and the lady of Comus to life to be my companions, or on my isle acted over their parts imagining myself to be in their situations" (1344). The reference to Rosalind from Shakespeare’s As You Like ... ...I should raise my eyes fearlessly to meet his, which ever beamed with the soft lustre of innocent love" (1373). It is fitting that it is Nature that commences the end of Mathilda’s life. She grows mortally ill after becoming lost in the forest after Woodville leaves, and then during her last days, she chooses to die surrounded by Nature: "I caused myself to be led once more to behold the face of nature" (1376). Death represents rebirth to Mathilda, in which she can exist in a world that won’t judge her feelings as unfit. In her farewell to Woodville, Mathilda illustrates her feelings of alienation from the natural world and how death will allow for her to escape such feelings: "Farewell, Woodville, the turf will soon be green on my grave; and the violets will bloom on it. There is my hope and my expectation; your’s are in this world; may they be fulfilled" (1376).

Platonic Love Essay

In the Symposium, which is normally dated at the beginning of the middle period, Plato introduces his theory of love. First thing to note is that in Plato’s theory, love is given and its existence is not questioned. The word love leaves the matter ambiguous as to whether we are discussing love in the normal, human, sense of the word, or if we are discussing desire in a much broader sense, but in this discussion we are only considering only love of type eros, love as a kind of desire that exists between two human beings. Symposium, is a dialogue by Plato, about a dinner party in honor of the tragedian Agathon, after they have finished eating Phaedrus suggests that each person in turn should make a speech about the praise of god of love. Symposium not only gives us theory of Forms in Diotima’s discussion of the Form of Beauty, but it also gives us a number of varying perspectives on love. One more important thing to consider is that Diotima is not known to be a historical figure, and the way in which she is introduced suggests that she is almost certainly just a literary device developed by Plato to express his own ideas. In this theory, we see Plato rejecting the romanticization of sexual love, valuing above all an asexual and all-consuming passion for wisdom and beauty. Plato clearly regards actual physical or sexual contact between lovers as degraded and wasteful forms of erotic expression. Because the true goal of eros is real beauty and real beauty is the Form of Beauty, what Plato calls Beauty Itself, eros finds its fulfillment only in Platonic philosophy. Unless it channels its power of love into â€Å"higher pursuits,† which culminate in the knowledge of the Form of Beauty, eros is doomed to frustration. For this reason, Plato thinks that most people sadly squander the real power of love by limiting themselves to the mere pleasures of physical beauty. For understanding of Plato’s description of love it is very important to firstly understand his notions, about structure of knowledge and his ideas on appearance and reality . Plato has given allegory of the cave and the line to explain the difference between reality and appearance, through which Plato means to depict four ways of thinking, and he has defined the structure of knowledge by giving specific order to these four ways and knowledge according to Plato is to rise along this structure. He puts images of the objects on the lowest level, above which he puts objects. Above the object is the concept of the object developed from the object, which lead to the highest and purest form of thinking, ‘pure concept’, concept which is independent of the object. Here the first two levels of knowledge differ significantly from the last two. Plato argues that one can only have opinions about the first two levels (objects and images), because there is no certainty about them. They exist in the reality, so they are subject to change, and this certainty is achieved in the later of the two levels. According to Plato from the pure concept we can derive the â€Å"form†, which gives us the essence. Here one more important thing to realize is that for Plato, we are born with knowledge, it is just that we have forgotten it, so going through this ladder to achieve the form is merely a way of recollection. Love is one of the form of desire, where desire implies the lack of something. Love as a word can be used in two ways noun or verb, thus it can mean objects of love or acts of love, and while formulating a theory of love it is very important to know which one precedes the other. In Plato’s theory of love, it is very evident that for Plato love is an object and the acts of the love are derived from the objects of love. These acts should be directed towards achieving of objects of love. After having an idea about the structure of knowledge for Plato, it is easier to understand the methods he adopts to derive the parameters for objects of love and how to achieve the form of love. In Symposium, Socrates is just restating the account of love given to him by a woman named Diotima. In this dialogue Socrates derives various parameters of love through a series of questions, which he asks to Agathon. As mentioned earlier, love is a form of desire one of the parameter of objects of love is that it should be desirable. Also from the arguments between Agthon and Socrates, one can deduce that being beautiful is also one of the parameter to become an object of love. Here one important thing to note is that whether something is beautiful or not is objective not subjective. Further by the example of wealth, health and strength, Socrates argues that not only desiring the object once, but also the continuance of the desirability, is a parameter for the object of love. After which Socrates asks Agathon whether good is beautiful or not, to which Agathon replies that he can not refute Socrates, But Socrates replies by arguing that Agathon can not refute the truth that is why he can not refute him. Thus we can derive that for Socrates , being good is also one of the parameter for becoming the object of love. After discussing the nature of the objects of love and also the structure of knowledge, it is easier to understand how to achieve the form of love. To achieve the true love, first step is to love worldly images and objects, from which one can derive the concept of good beauty through the encounters with beautiful particulars. From the concept of beauty one can derive the form of beauty or the eternal beauty, according to Plato true and pure love is nothing but the form of beauty. According to him, the person who has achieved the form of beauty will suddenly perceive a nature of wondrous beauty. Thus for Plato love is ascending from the particulars to form of beauty, which indicates that Plato believes that love for objects of love can not be true love, they are just means to achieve the form of beauty. One can also deduce from here, that Platonic love operates through a standard. Thus the true order of going is to begin from the beauties of the worldly images or objects and mount upwards for the sake of other beauties, using these as steps only to go to all fair forms and from fair forms to fair practices and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notion we arrive at the concept of the absolute beauty and at last know what is the essence of beauty.

George Rogers Clark in the American Revolution

A notable officer during the American Revolution (1775-1783), Brigadier General George Rogers Clark earned fame for his exploits against the British and Native Americans in the Old Northwest. Born in Virginia, he trained as a surveyor before becoming involved with the militia during Lord Dunmores War in 1774. As the war with the British commenced and attacks on American settlers along the frontier intensified, Clark obtained permission to lead a force west into present-day Indiana and Illinois to eliminate British bases in the region.   Moving out in 1778, Clarks men conducted a daring campaign that saw them take control of key posts at Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes. The last was captured following the Battle of Vincennes which saw the Clark use trickery to aid in compelling the British to surrender. Dubbed the Conqueror of the Old Northwest, his successes significantly weakened British influence in the area.   Early Life George Rogers Clark was born November 19, 1752, at Charlottesville, VA. The son of John and Ann Clark, he was the second of ten children. His youngest brother, William, would later gain fame as the co-leader of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Around 1756, with the intensification of the French Indian War, the family left the frontier for Caroline County, VA. Though largely educated at home, Clark did briefly attend Donald Robertsons school along with James Madison. Trained as a surveyor by his grandfather, he first traveled into western Virginia in 1771. A year later, Clark pressed further west and made his first trip to Kentucky. Surveyor Arriving via the Ohio River, he spent the next two years surveying the area around Kanawha River and educating himself on the regions Native American population and its customs. During his time in Kentucky, Clark saw the area changing as the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix had opened it to settlement. This influx of settlers led to increasing tensions with the Native Americans as many tribes from north of the Ohio River used Kentucky as a hunting ground. Made a captain in the Virginia militia in 1774, Clark was preparing for an expedition to Kentucky when fighting erupted between the Shawnee and settlers on the Kanawha. These hostilities ultimately evolved into Lord Dunmores War. Taking part, Clark was present at the Battle of Point Pleasant on October 10, 1774, which ended the conflict in the colonists favor. With the end of the fighting, Clark resumed his surveying activities. Becoming a Leader As the American Revolution began in the east, Kentucky faced a crisis of its own. In 1775, land speculator Richard Henderson concluded the illegal Treaty of Watauga by which he purchased much of western Kentucky from the Native Americans. In doing so, he hoped to form a separate colony known as Transylvania. This was opposed by many of the settlers in the area and in June 1776, Clark and John G. Jones were dispatched to Williamsburg, VA to seek aid from the Virginia legislature. The two men hoped to convince Virginia to formally extend its boundaries west to include the settlements in Kentucky. Meeting with Governor Patrick Henry, they convinced him to create Kentucky County, VA and received military supplies to defend the settlements. Before departing, Clark was appointed a major in the Virginia militia. The American Revolution Moves West Returning home, Clark saw fighting intensify between the settlers and Native Americans. The latter were encouraged in their efforts by the Lieutenant Governor of Canada, Henry Hamilton, who provided arms and supplies. As the Continental Army lacked the resources to protect the region or mount an invasion of the Northwest, defense of Kentucky was left to the settlers. Believing that the only way to halt Native American raids into Kentucky was to attack British forts north of the Ohio River, specifically Kaskaskia, Vincennes, and Cahokia,   Clark requested permission from Henry to lead an expedition against enemy posts in the Illinois Country. This was granted and Clark was promoted to lieutenant colonel and directed to raise troops for the mission. Authorized to recruit a force of 350 men, Clark and his officers sought to pull men from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. These efforts provided difficult due to competing manpower needs and a larger debate regarding whether Kentucky should be defended or evacuated. Kaskaskia Gathering men at Redstone Old Fort on the Monongahela River, Clark ultimately embarked with 175 men in mid-1778. Moving down the Ohio River, they captured Fort Massac at the mouth of the Tennessee River before moving overland to Kaskaskia (Illinois). Taking the residents by surprise, Kaskaskia fell without a shot fired on July 4. Cahokia was captured five days later by a detachment led by Captain Joseph Bowman as Clark moved back east and a force was sent ahead to occupy Vincennes on the Wabash River. Concerned by Clarks progress, Hamilton departed Fort Detroit with 500 men to defeat the Americans. Moving down the Wabash, he easily retook Vincennes which was renamed Fort Sackville. Back to Vincennes With winter approaching, Hamilton released many of his men and settled in with a garrison of 90. Learning that Vincennes had fallen from Francis Vigo, an Italian fur trader, Clark decided that urgent action was required lest the British be in a position to reclaim the Illinois Country in the spring. Clark embarked on a daring winter campaign to retake the outpost. Marching with around 170 men, they endured severe rains and flooding during the 180-mile march. As an added precaution, Clark also dispatched a force of 40 men in a row galley to prevent a British escape down the Wabash River. Victory at Fort Sackville Arriving at Fort Sackville on February 23, 1780, Clark divided his force in two giving command of the other column to Bowman. Using terrain and maneuver to trick the British into believing their force numbered around 1,000 men, the two Americans secured the town and built an entrenchment in front of the forts gates. Opening fire on the fort, they compelled Hamilton to surrender the next day. Clarks victory was celebrated throughout the colonies and he was hailed as the conqueror of the Northwest. Capitalizing on Clarks success, Virginia immediately laid claim to the entire region dubbing it Illinois County, VA. Continued Fighting Understanding that the threat to Kentucky could only be eliminated by the capture of Fort Detroit, Clark lobbied for an attack on the post. His efforts failed when he was unable to raise enough men for the mission. Seeking to regain the ground lost to Clark, a mixed British-Native American force led by Captain Henry Bird raided south in June 1780. This was followed in August by a retaliatory raid north by Clark which struck Shawnee villages in Ohio. Promoted to brigadier general in 1781, Clark again attempted to mount an attack on Detroit, but reinforcements sent to him for the mission were defeated en route. Later Service In one of the final actions of the war, Kentucky militia was badly beaten at the Battle of Blue Licks in August 1782. As the senior military officer in the region, Clark was criticized for the defeat despite the fact he had not been present at the battle. Again retaliating, Clark attacked the Shawnee along the Great Miami River and won the Battle of Piqua. With the end of the war, Clark was appointed superintendent-surveyor and charged with surveying land grants given to Virginian veterans. He also worked to help negotiate the Treaties of Fort McIntosh (1785) and Finney (1786) with the tribes north of the Ohio River. Despite these diplomatic efforts, tensions between the settlers and Native Americans in the region continued to escalate leading to the Northwest Indian War. Tasked with leading an force of 1,200 men against the Native Americans in 1786, Clark had to abandon the effort due to a shortage of supplies and the mutiny of 300 men. In the wake of this failed effort, rumors circulated that Clark had been drinking heavily during the campaign. Incensed, he demanded that an official inquiry be made to repudiate these rumors. This request was declined by the Virginia government and he was instead rebuked for his actions. Final Years Departing Kentucky, Clark settled in Indiana near present-day Clarksville. Following his move, he was plagued by financial difficulties as he had financed many of his military campaigns with loans. Though he sought reimbursement from Virginia and the federal government, his claims were declined because insufficient records existed to substantiate his claims. For his wartime services Clark had been awarded large land grants, many of which he was ultimately forced to transfer to family and friends to prevent seizure by his creditors. With few remaining options, Clark offered his services to Edmond-Charles Genà ªt, the ambassador of revolutionary France, in February 1793. Appointed a major general by Genà ªt, he was ordered to form an expedition for drive the Spanish from the Mississippi Valley. After personally financing the expeditions supplies, Clark was forced to abandon the effort in 1794 when President George Washington forbade American citizens from violating the nations neutrality. Aware of Clarks plans, he threatened to dispatch US troops under Major General Anthony Wayne to block it. With little choice but to abandon the mission, Clark returned to Indiana where his creditors deprived him of all but a small plot of land. For remainder of his life, Clark spent much of his time operating a gristmill. Suffering a severe stroke in 1809, he fell into a fire and badly burned his leg necessitating its amputation. Unable to care for himself, he moved in with his brother-in-law, Major William Croghan, who was a planter near Louisville, KY. In 1812, Virginia finally recognized Clarks services during the war and granted him a pension and ceremonial sword. On February 13, 1818, Clark suffered another stroke and died. Initially buried at Locus Grove Cemetery, Clarks body and those of his family were moved to Cave Hill Cemetery in Louisville in 1869.