How Austen creates her novel Pride and Prejudice Essay Example for Free

How Austen creates her novel Pride and Prejudice Essay Jane Austen was extremely modest about her genius, describing her work to her work to her nephew Edward as  That little but (two inches wide) of ivory in which I work with so fine a brush as produces little effect after much labour. Although the world of her novel Pride and Prejudice is confined to a small section of society comprising of country-gentry and lesser aristocracy of England in the opening of the 19th century, the novel itself shows page by page how interesting life could be, how fascinating lifes twists and turns are, how significant the trivialities are to those concerned. The range of Austens novel is limited by her own circumstances, her own sex, and her position in the society. But the little world she writes about, she knows inside out. She fills her little world so artfully that when we are in it we do not long for anything else and we feel its fullness as well. She practiced what she preached. There are four families in a country village is the very thing to work on. She sticks to what she knows and is refusing to include in her novel what does not properly belong to village life; she is an artist. Austen has an acute interest in personalities, her field is the human heart. Therefore, although she writes in the years of war between England and France while Napoleon was changing the map of Europe, in her novel we find not mention of Britain at war. In Pride and Prejudice soldiers like Wickham, come to Meryton to provide, in a sense, amusement for the girls. Austen thus does not impose anything harsh or unnecessary on her novel; this alludes to the artistic unity of her creation. She consciously limits herself and does not write anything beyond her experience. It may well be mentioned here that in A Room Ones Own Virginia Woolf pays a rich tribute to Austen by mentioning that novels like War and Peace could never be written by any female novelist, but certainly no Tolstoy could ever write the novels of Jane Austen. Austen deliberately and wisely limits herself to a few families and a limited number of characters in Pride and Prejudice. Her characters live in comfort in country houses; their lives consist of holding balls, attending parties, visiting each others house and thus amusing themselves. In that society even a small event is given a higher importance. Thereby a ball at the Bingleys or at the Lucases is eagerly anticipated and minutely analyzed. Austen chooses her characters from very ordinary life. Her characters range from the proud aristocrat Darcy to the dull-witted Mrs. Bennet, from the good-natured Jane to the hypocritical Miss Bingley. The men-folks in her novel do not in fact do nay work whereas the young girls are always in pursuit of good husbands. The girls have somehow managed to turn themselves into husband hunting butterflies. Distant Pembrly, Netherfield and Rosings are the upper limit, whereas Sir W Lucas and Lady Catherine Debourgh are highest in rank, the still higher estates and greater aristocracy are not mentioned in the novel, since they little effect Meryton and Derbyshire. The way Austen treats her characters is satiric. Her views of life are therefore always satiric; the passionate and tragic aspects of human life are somehow discarded. Only such characters are chosen that could be satirically treated. This satiric vision of life is a limitation on Austens part. Critics sometimes mention that Austen Banished nine-tenth of life, and gave us people who never work, or fight or die, or starve or go crazy. In the view of that above-mentioned statement we find that people in Pride and Prejudice engage themselves in doing nothing. Mr. Darcy apparently seems to have some work to do when he is at Pemberly, the work he does there is obviously connected with his estate. Mr. Gardiner revels in fishing only. Mr. Bennet, as we are told, takes one of his farms but only emerges from his library when he needs to settle some family affairs. Mr. Hursts motto of life is High living and little thinking. Reading has a place in family entertainment and since all the novels are heard at family gatherings, the writers take care to fill up pages fit for family consumption. In fact, Austens knowledge of mens ways limited, but she knew how to use  her limitation. In Pride and Prejudice men come and go, and sit and chat when in front of the ladies; Austen does not pursue them into their personal world. We may see Fitz William Darcy and Bingley set off in a carriage but what they discuss is never reported if no woman is present. Despite Austens failure to present the many facets of mens life, she is successful in providing an illuminating insight into some of the most significant characters like that of Darcy and Bingley. For instance, Darcys transmigration from a proud and snob person to a compassionate and reliable one is shown with perfect dexterity. In this novel Austen does want to compete with students of political economics, or social problems. The life and its complications that she depicts are just as what she experienced as a woman. Quite naturally her themes in this novel center the complex role of money and love in marriage. In doing so she even consciously avoids any discussion on philosophical or social issues. A simple plot concerning a few number of people is woven in this novel. That Austen has no wish to exceed the limitation of her own is quite evident when we find that urban life is excluded from the novel only because she had not much experience of it. It is mentioned casually during Janes visit to London. We have also observed that no black-hearted villain ever makes an appearance in Austens pages. The greatest villainy that ever occurs in Pride and Prejudice is the occasional elopement of Lydia with Wickham. Wickham indeed lacks all those negative traits of character which could have made him a person of shade like that of Alec in Hardys Tess of the Durbervilles. Therefore, Wickhams possibility to be the only villain in Pride and Prejudice ends there. Still it is no shallowness or lack of insight on Austens part, which leads her to restrict the exploration of human nature to the apparent social level. Austen gives us in her novel an artistic unity in which nothing is forced, nothing is excessive. A simple plot proceeds bit by bit to the only conclusion possible. Her characters act and speak in a very familiar way as we can imagine. The characters are so true to nature and so well-balanced against constructing types that as they talk along the story we begin to  think that it would not matter if there were no plot. The central figures whose union we desire grow upon us as their mistakes and recoveries reveal the fineness of their spirit. Therefore, in Austens world there is a welcome for the sensitive reader who will accept it as it is and will not cry out for, in the words of one critic The moon of passionate embraces or the lightning of sword.

Gender Inequality and Sexual Assault: Why Both Sexes Are To Blame :: Womens Studies

Gender Inequality and Sexual Assault: Why Both Sexes Are To Blame In a recent sociology class, Sandra Bem was mentioned. Bem is a sociologist who focuses on gender. However, unlike most sociologists, Bem chooses not to focus on the differences between males and females, but rather on the similarities. She says that polarized gender socialization, the way that we assign masculine or feminine characteristics to things such as walking and talking to make males and females appear to be opposite, keeps us from realizing that the sexes are more alike than they are different. Men and women have the same needs for food, clothing, shelter, affection, belonging, and so forth. So, what are we doing when we divide human beings by gender and exaggerate differences through social constructs that are not even pertinent? We are creating excuses for the problems we have by blaming gender differences. By continuing to dwell on the social differences between men and women in present day American society, we are merely propelling the problem of gender inequality and g iving it a reason to remain, rather than eliminating it. Yet, in the 1990’s and continuing now in the twenty-first century, both the men and women of American society are impeding feminism because their shared responsibility is overlooked, especially in cases of rape and other sexual assaults. It is clear when we look at a topic like rape that both sexes can be at fault, not only for the action at hand, but for the deterioration of equality in gender issues caused by that action. It is a well-established fact that men do not rape for sex, but rather for power. Men already have power just because they are men living in a male dominated society. Why on earth would a member of this "dominant" group feel the need to physically take over another person’s body in order to feel powerful? Are American men so accustomed to having their way that they feel they can do as they wish constantly and without thinking about the consequences? Or, are men who rape merely retaliating as a means of retrieving the power they have been losing since day one of the women’s movement? I am not at all saying that because women want to be treated fairly in society that they are then putting themselves as a whole at risk from the attacks of jealous men. Afterall, one never hears about wom en raping men even though women are trying to increase their amount of power.

The Existence of God

The Existence of God Kimberly Mongold PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Instructor Kenneth Mentor April 07, 2013 ? Since the beginning of time people have often questioned the meaning of life, how the universe was created and the purpose for the wildlife and creatures that roam the earth. These things often lead us to question the existence of God. In order to even begin to answer these complex questions we must uncover the source of all of these occurrences. In this paper I will discuss the issue of Gods’ existence; present one basic dispute and clarify the arguments on multiple sides of this issue.I will structure an argument that supports the side of the issue I find to be better defended while explaining why I find my side of this debate stronger. In conclusion, I will state my own view and defend it with an argument. Does God exist or did the â€Å"Big Bang theory† or other natural theories play a role? Even though it is absolutely impossible to prove Gods’ existence, I personally believe that the presence of God is so evident that we do not need solid proof to verify that he is our creator. When it comes to the issue of Gods’ existence, everyone has his or her own view of whom or what â€Å"God† really is.Some people believe that there is one God while other believe in multiple Gods or even Goddesses. Most believers do not feel that is necessary to prove that God exists however, there are others that believe that it is essential to provide proof since there is no scientific evidence of his existence. People are often skeptical when it comes to this issue since God cannot be seen. This dispute often raises a very puzzling question. Should people be expected to provide proof of Gods’ existence or should we just accept that he exists based on faith alone?Skeptics believe that simple having faith that something is true without actually seeing it with their own eyes is meaningless. Most skeptical people center their b elief system on evidence presented in order to better judge certain claims. According to Queensborough Community College (n. d. ), â€Å"Physical or phenomenal evidence to validate religious beliefs is impossible to produce because religious experiences usually occur privately and are subjective, making it impossible to be justified and scrutinized rationally and honestly†.Since skeptics have not seen any type of proof about Gods’ presence, they will continue to disbelieve claims of his existence. Most people that question Gods’ existence often lean more toward science because they believe that evolution and other scientific theories make more sense. In this day and age scientific developments are increasing at a rapid pace, which often creates arguments against the notion that God is our creator. Many skeptics believe that natural causes contributed to our existence such as the â€Å"Big Bang Theory†. The big bang theory states that at some time in the d istant past there was nothing until a process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity and from that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our universe was born† (Shestople, P. 1997). Skeptics are more accepting of natural theories because they seem to produce more accepting results than supernatural ones. If faith is centered on reasoning, analysis and proof, then it is very unlikely that skeptics will accept the assumption that there is a supernatural existence of any kind.Also there is so much evil present in the world, which can often cause a skeptic to form opinions against Gods’ existence. Occurrences that cause despair happen every day, which can make one question the reasons behind them. â€Å" In addition to the kinds of events that are caused by human beings, there are other events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, fires, and other natural disasters that have taken the lives of millions † (Mosser, K. 2010). Skeptics often wonder why these type of things occur if there is a God.If God is so powerful why would he allow these horrific things to happen which cause people to suffer? They believe that if an almighty and perfect God existed, he would prevent evil as well as natural disasters that often cause pain, suffering, and even death. Most skeptics believe that proving Gods’ existence is vital in order to find the answers that they are looking for. Faith in something that is invisible will never be enough to sway a skeptic. True believers in God do not feel that it is necessary to prove Gods’ existence because they have faith in his presence. God is hidden only to our body and our soul, but God is not hidden to our spirit, we must look for him† (Harvard Computer Society, n. d. ). Supporters believe that we must seek God with our spirit in order to contact him since we are unable to see, hear, or touch him. â€Å"When people believe in Chri st they receive his life into them† (Harvard Computer Society, n. d. ). Believers do not rely on science or any other proof of Gods’ existence because they do not need physical evidence to distinguish His existence.Believers do not think that we appeared here on earth from natural causes or from the â€Å"Big Bang† theory. A supporter of God believes that God is the creator of the universe as well as every living being. People that have trust in Gods’ existence believe that there are many examples that can demonstrate that we did not just appear here naturally. For example, the universe is designed so perfectly that there is no way that this happened by chance. The universe and the life forms in it all depend on each other for the existence.One example of this is the ecosystem; plants breathe in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen, while animals breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide; plants feed animals while decomposed animals feed plants; this is the cy cle of life. â€Å" Consider how complex a single organism is†¦Each organ and tissue has purpose, all of which shows signs of an intelligent creator, there is no other possible explanation for it† (University of Houston, n. d. ). Believers in God have faith that God is our maker and that we are not here by chance. When it comes to evil things that often occur, believers in God do not think that God is responsible.God gave us the freedom to make choices and we choose to do the things that we do. â€Å"God has given us the ability to choose good and evil, and when we choose evil he allows us, and those around us to suffer the consequences of evil† (Eby,D. n. d. ). We have the ability to choose whether to commit good deeds or evil ones. â€Å"The evil that does exist is that caused by human being who possess freedom† (Mosser, K. 2010). Supporters believe that God does have the power to overcome evil as well as natural disasters, but he may not have the desire to do so for his own reasons that many of us do not understand.The argument that I find better defends the existence of God is that we do not need proof of Gods’ existence, our faith alone is good enough. Just because we cannot see him does not mean he does not exist. â€Å"His presence is no longer in his earthly body; it is rather in his spirit abiding our hearts† (Loyola University, n. d. ). I believe that the people that doubt Gods’ existence do so because they are unable to see the beauty and wonder of the world around us.When it comes to the evil in the world, I believe that God has given us the freedom to make choices and to learn from our mistakes while also dealing with the consequences. If we do not experience the aftermath of our bad choices we will not learn from our mistakes. â€Å"God cannot overrule every evil choice of man and every evil consequence there from without contradicting his own purposes in creating being with free will† (Mattis on, M. M. , n. d. ). This is part of the price we pay for freedom, and which God himself pays for creating us. God did not create evil, therefore, he should not be held responsible for it.In conclusion, although several people have attempted to dispute the existence of God with the advances of science and technology, there is still an excessive need to prove Gods’ existence. Since we cannot see him it is difficult for many people to believe he exists. Believers is God do not require any type of proof because they have faith of his presence. Gazing at the stars, observing the beauty of nature, believe that the laws of the universe seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will form and life can emerge.Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Understanding the complexity of the universe points to an intelligent designer, which is God. We do not need to see God with our e yes or even touch him in order to know that he exists. It is through our faith in him that we know he is real. I believe that God has surrounded us with so much evidence that he exists, but we must seek him in order to feel his presence. References Eby, D. (n. d. ). â€Å"Why Does God Allow Evil? † Retrieved from http://my,unbc. du/discussions/2026 Holy Spirit (n. d. ) Loyola University of Chicago. Retrieved from: http://www. luc. edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/Holyspirit. html Mattison, M. M. (n. d. ). â€Å"Don’t Doubt God† Auburn University. Retrieved from: http://www. auburn. edu/allenkc/openhse/theodicy. html#Power Mosser, K. (2010). â€Å"Philosophy: A Concise Introduction†. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. San Diego, CA Retrieved from: https://content. ashford. edu/books Proof of God (n. d. ) LeTourneau University Retrieved from: http://www. letu. edu/_Academics/Arts-Science/chem-phys/documents/ProofofGod. html

Sigmund Freud s Theory Of Psychology - 1101 Words

In the textbook it describes how Freud believed your conscious thoughts were only the tip of the iceberg when studying the brain. Freud believed there were three levels of awareness. The first level is, conscious level these are thoughts we are aware of in the moment (Cervone Pervin, 2013). The second level is the preconscious level, which are contents we could easily become aware of (Cervone Pervin, 2013). The third level is the unconscious level. This level is mental contents of the mind that we are unaware and cannot become aware of. These thoughts can only be accessed under special circumstances (Cervone Pervin, 2013). According to Freud, the reason we were not able to access unconscious thoughts is because they are anxiety†¦show more content†¦This led Freud to write The Interpretation of Dreams. When studying dreams, Freud found that dreams are very strange. I have found this also in my lifetime. I have always been fascinated by dreams. As a kid I would wake up wanting to replay my dream on a display screen. In the mornings, I would be so excited to explain what happened in my dreams the night before to my family members. I wanted so badly for them to understand how crazy they were, but most of the time they were too bizarre for them to understand so they gave up listening. Unlike most of my friends and family my dreams were so vivid that I could almost always remember them. In high school, I began to think that because my dreams were so vivid, they had to mean something. I began trying to interpret my dreams. If there were a symbol that stuck out in my dream all night, like a snake, I would try to look up the meaning. Or if there were a certain act I was performing in my dream, like swimming in the ocean, I would look it up. At first, I was looking up the meanings on dream interpretation websites. Then, I ended up getting a book. Now I know that thanks to Freud, I am able to interpret my own dreams. I remember specifically, my senior year of high school after my mom passed away, she would be in my dreams. They were vivid memories of her and I, the dreams always felt so real. In the beginning after her passing, I would have dreams consecutively with her in it. As months passed