Essay on Impulsiveness in Romeo & Juliet

"Wisely and slow: they stumble that run fast"(Pg 91, Line 97) those words spoken by Friar Laurence. Words we must listen too. Impulsiveness leads to downfall, and therefore people must strike a balance between being impulsive, and being pragmatic. Time and time again Shakespeare showed us how impulsiveness leads to tragedy. First off, Capulet was a prudent, well-balanced person most of the time. When Paris told Capulet that he wanted to marry Juliet, Capulet said "Let two more summers wither in their pride/Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride"(Pg 27, Lines 10-11) because he wanted to look out for Juliet and wanted to make sure she was ready. Though he did tell him to "woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart;/My will to her consent is but a part" because he was still not passing up this opportunity for his daughter. Capulet was also practical when Tybalt spotted Romeo during the Capulet feast, Tybalt wanted to do the impulsive thing and kill Romeo, but Capulet thought for a second about the consequences. Tybalt said "I'll not endure him" and Capulet told him emphatically "he shall be endur'd"(pg. 57, Lines 77 & 78). In this scene Capulet prevented a huge Montegue and Capulet confrontation by thinking first and not doing the impulsive suggested by Tybalt. Through thinking these actions through, problems were prevented. However, Capulet was at times, a very rash person, and that lead to much of the misfortune in this play. Hours after Romeo killed Tybalt, Capulet acted on haste in Act III, Scene 4 and told Paris "I will make a desperate tender/Of my child's love: I think she will be rul'd/In all respects by me; nay more, I doubt it not....And bid her, mark you on me, on Wednesday next-" and then continued to sound delirious saying "Wednesday is too soon;/ O' Thursday let it be:...She shall be married to this noble earl" and at this point Capulet has become selfish and impulsive. His daughter does not love Paris, but Capulet is not thinking because Tybalt had just died. When Juliet refused to marry Paris, Capulet exploded, and didn't think at all by telling Juliet, "get thee to church' Thursday/ Or never after look me in the face:/Speak not, reply not, do not answer me;"(Pg 173, Lines 66 -68). He than went on to insult Juliet by saying "God had lent us but this only child;/ But now I see this one is one too much,"(Pg 175, Lines 170-71) and what was this over? It was because Tybalt died, and Capulet acted hastily. Unfortunately it eventually lead to the death of Juliet. And, only when Juliet died did Capulet finally do the reasonable thing when he apologized to Montegue and insisted that the feud end. Capulet's acts of impulsiveness, though rare, can easily be destructive. Another character who seemed to have balance in his life, was Friar Laurence. He preached to Romeo when Romeo wanted Friar to marry him and Juliet as soon as possible. He preached of warning to Romeo telling him that "Women may fall when there's no strength in men" and suggested that Romeo was just in a vulnerable spot and Juliet fell for him solely on that. He also asked Romeo "Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear,/So soon forsaken? Young men's love then lies/Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes." Again showing Romeo that this impulsiveness is wrong and he points it out well. Later inthe play, after Juliet is being forced to marry Paris, Juliet came to Paris and threatened suicide, Friar acted partly on impulse and partly on reasoning. He said "A thing like death to chide away this shame,/ That cop'st with death himself to 'scape from it;/ And, if thou dar'st, I'll give thee remedy."(Pg. 187, Lines 75-77). By striking this balance he prevented Juliet's immediate death. When Friar preached reasoning he gained the respect of the town, and when acted on wisdom he helped and aided others. Although Friar preached prudence, he rarely acted on it in this play. Though he told Romeo that rushing a marriage leads to problems, he decided to go along with the hasty marriage because on an impulse he felt that "this alliance may so happy prove,/ To turn your households' rancor to pure love". (Pg. 91. Lines 94-95) He never thought of the probable consequences and the secretive aspect of this marriage. He often contradicts his words and speaks of prudence. When Paris told him their marriage would be on Thursday, Friar said "On Thursday sir? The time is very short"(Pg. 181, Line 1) and this is after he married Romeo and Juliet on less than a day's notice. Furthermore, Friar made one tragic act of impulsiveness that lead to even more disastrous results. After Juliet awoke he told her"Thy husband in thy bosom there lies dead;/ And Paris too" explaining that Romeo and Paris had just died. And than tells this young girl, who is completley vulnerable, :Come, go, good Juliet; I dare no longer stay" and leaves without her. And now Juliet has no crutch to lean on so she kills herself. Now Paris, Romeo, and Juliet have died and Friar has to explain to everyone what happened. It is quite sad that these results occur from impulsiveness, even if it is meant with the best of intentions. Although impulsiveness can be meant with the best, or the worst ones, its results are usually severe and often tragic. Throughout the play of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare showed us how impulsiveness can lead to tragic results and even death and sometimes it is only when it comes to this point do people learn.

A Doll's House: A Push to Freedom

Sometime after the publication of "A Doll's House", Henrik Ibsen spoke at a meeting of the Norwegian Association for Women's Rights. He explained to the group, "I must decline the honor of being said to have worked for the Women's Rights movement. I am not even very sure what Women's Rights are. To me it has been a question of human rights" ( ). "A Doll's House" is often interpreted by readers, teachers, and critics alike as an attack on chauvinistic behavior and a cry for the recognition of women's rights ( ). Instead its theme is identical to several of his plays written around the same time period: the characters willingly exist in a situation of untruth or inadequate truth which conceals conflict and contradiction ( ). In "A Doll's House", Nora's independent nature is in contradiction the tyrannical authority of Torvald. This conflict is concealed by the way they both hide their true selves from society, each other, and ultimately themselves. Just like Nora and Torvald, every character in this play is trapped in a situation of unturth. In "Ghosts", the play Ibsen wrote directly after "A Doll's House", the same conflict is the basis of the play. Because Mrs. Alving concedes to her minister's ethical bombardment about her responsibilities in marriage, she is forced to conceal the truth about her late husband's behavior ( ). Like "A Doll's House", "Ghosts" can be misinterpreted as simply an attack on the religious values of Ibsen's society. While this is certainly an important aspect of the play, it is not, however, Ibsen's main point. "A Doll's House" set a precedent for "Ghosts" and the plays Ibsen would write in following years. It established a method he would use to convey his views about individuality and the pursuit of social freedom. The characters of "A Doll's House" display Henrik Ibsen's belief that although people have a natural longing for freedom, they often do not act upon this desire until a person or event forces them to do so. Readers can be quick to point out that Nora's change was gradual and marked by several incidents. A more critical look reveals these gradual changes are actually not changes at all, but small revelations for the reader to see Nora's true independent nature. These incidents also allow the reader to see this nature has been tucked far under a facade of a happy and simple wife. In the first act, she admits to Christine that she will "dance and dress up and play the fool" to keep Torvald happy ( ). This was Ibsen's way of telling the reader Nora had a hidden personality that was more serious and controlling. He wants the reader to realize that Nora was not the fool she allows herself to be seen as. Later in the same act, she exclaims to Dr. Rank and Christine she has had "the most extraordinary longing to say: 'Bloody Hell!'" ( ). This longing is undoubtedly symbolic of her longing to be out of the control of Torvald and society. Despite her desire for freedom, Nora has, until the close of the story, accepted the comfort and ease, as well as the restrictions, of Torvald's home instead of facing the rigors that accompany independence. Ibsen wanted the reader to grasp one thing in the first act: Nora was willing to exchange her freedom for the easy life of the doll house. Ibsen shows that it takes a dramatic event to cause a person to reevaluate to what extent he can sacrifice his true human nature. For Nora, this event comes in the form of her realization that Torvald values his own social status above love ( ). It is important to understand Nora does not leave Torvald because of the condescending attitude he has towards her. That was, in her eyes, a small price to pay for the comfort and stability of his home. In Bernard Shaw's essay on "A Doll's House", he expresses that the climax of the play occurs when "the woman's eyes are opened; and instantly her doll's dress is thrown off and her husband is left staring at her"( ). To the reader "it is clear that Helmer is brought to his senses" when his household begins to fall apart ( ). It is important that Shaw's grammar is not overlooked. The statements "the woman's eyes are opened..." and "Helmer is brought..." both indicate that the subject of the statement is not responsible for the action. Rather, some other force pushes them both into their new realization. Shaw's clever analysis directly adheres to Ibsen's view of a person's reluctant approach to freedom. Although Nora is the central character of the play, she is not the only person to cross the turbulent thresh hold of freedom and bondage. Christine Linde leaves the symbolic harshness of winter and enters the warmth of Nora's place of captivity early in the first act ( ). Christine gives the reader an initial impression of Nora's opposite. She is a pale, worn woman who is completely independent. Her conversation with Nora reveals that Christine was left poor and alone after her husband, for whom she did not care, passed away. Christine had accepted marriage with her husband because she reasoned her present situation left her no other option. She felt she had to take care of her two brothers and bedridden mother. If she had not married this wealthy man, she would have had her freedom, but it would have been a difficult struggle. Instead, she surrendered her freedom for an easier life. Eight years later, the death of her husband gave her enough of a jolt to set her back in control of her own life. Torvald is certainly not the hero of "A Doll's House", but he is not the villain either ( ). He is just as trapped in the same facade of a happy house as Nora. He feigns security and unrelenting support for his wife, but this mask is quickly dropped when he finds himself in danger. The discovery of Krogsdad's letter leads Torvald to believe his life and social position are on the brink of destruction. Torvald spouts out ridiculous and stupid remarks as Nora's face draws tighter and colder with each statement. Nora is freed. When Torvald finishes babbling apologies and forgiveness after the second letter from Krogdad arrives, Nora takes control of the conversation and control of her life. Moments before Nora slams the door on her former life, Torvald's eyes are opened ( ). He pleads with Nora, "I have the strength to change", but it is already too late ( ). It takes the departure of his wife before Torvald can awaken to his shallow existence. The shake-up in Torvald's life ushers him across the discordant threshold of freedom and bondage. "A Doll's House" is the most socially influential of Ibsen's plays ( ). It shocked the public into taking a much more serious look into Women's Rights. "Ghosts" and "An Enemy of the People" caused equally large shock waves but repercussions were not nearly as phenomenal. The three of these plays, regardless of the extent their social impact, have each earned the title of Classic. Each play is the result of the one written before it. In a letter to Sophie Aldersparre, Ibsen explained, "After Nora Mrs. Alving had to come" ( ). The same idea two years letter spawned "An Enemy of the People". The three plays share the common idea of characters existing in situations of falsehood until something causes them to reevaluate their existence. Instead of exploring their personal freedom every moment of their lives, Ibsen's characters had their eyes cast down on the path of least resistance. This is simply a more strict version of Ibsen's primary theme in all his works: the importance of the individual and the search for self-realization.

A Clockwork Orange

In A Clockwork Orange, Alex, the narrator and the main character, tells the story of his teenage years, starting at fifteen. He begins his tale as the leader of a small gang that spends its evenings pillaging and wreaking havoc on the town until the gang mutinies and "Your Humble Narrator," as Alex refers to himself, is caught by the police. From there, Alex travels to State Jail 84F to serve 14 years, but receives an offer from "the Government" which entails undergoing experimental treatment in return for early release. He seizes what seems to him an opportunity, but is horrified by the "cure" he endures. The new "good" Alex that is released unto the world is depressed, frustrated, and lonely, although no longer violent. A radical political group then exploits him as an example of the cruelty of "the Government." This faction tries to force Alex to suicide in order to gain a martyr, but Alex's attempt fails and he is nursed back to health and his natural mental state by the Government, who in the end comes out on top. Alex, whose last name is not mentioned in the book, is a violent, aggressive teenager of fifteen, who is the leader of a four-person gang. He truly enjoys violence, reveling in the sight of blood or weapons. Alex's love of hate is not simply a rebellious emotion, but as he explains, it is his very nature, and he could not change it if he wanted to. Despite his passion for what most see as ugly and disgusting, Alex does have a great appreciation for classical music, especially Beethoven. Alex's main conflicts are both external and internal. His external conflicts are between him and the members of his gang. Dim and Georgie, two of the members of Alex's gang, are unwilling to accept Alex's leadership. They challenge his authority, and Alex reacts rashly by trying to re- establish his dominance through defeating both of his aggressors in fighting. This confrontation only raises tensions within the gang, and leads to a betrayal which results in Alex's capture on the charge of murder. Alex's main internal conflict is a physiological one. The Government's experimental treatment which Alex undergoes involves conditioning to produce a feeling of nausea and overbearing fear when violent tendencies are encountered. Since Alex's nature is to respond to situations violently, he is ruined by the conflict between his physical and emotional feelings. The climax of the book occurs at the end of Alex's conditioning, when he is made to feel sick by his own true emotions, and he realizes fully that he must change his entire way of life. The major difference between the film and the book versions of A Clockwork Orange was the lack of theme or meaning in the film. The film easily conveyed all aspects of the story's plot and dialogue, but was quite lacking in the conveyance of the thoughts within Alex. It seemed that without this key part of the book, the film was completely devoid of any merit whatsoever. Between the film and book versions of A Clockwork Orange, I prefer the book infinitesimally. The whole reason Anthony Burgess wrote the book in the first place was to convey a question of morality: is it justifiable to corrupt the pure nature of a person for the benefit of the greater society? His epochal query was clearly communicated within the book, but Stanley Kubrick did not even begin to deal with this moral issue in his movie which I perceive as a shallow and strange film which I could not enjoy, knowing that the message behind Burgess' story was not the advocation of blatant violence, as portrayed in the film. The climactic scene in the book occurs when Alex has finished his conditioning, and he is displayed as an example of the new technique in criminal reform. Alex is put on stage in front of government dignitaries, where he proves that he is incapable of committing an act of violence. In the book, Alex is thrust on stage, where he tries to defend himself against an attacker, but is choked back by the acute nausea he experiences with violence. With Alex narrating, the reader experiences the main character's thoughts and feelings as his physical body strangles his true emotions and prevents him from acting on them. The movie shows the same scene, but without examining any of the psychological aspects of it. All the viewer sees is Alex being bullied by another man, and unable to fight back, crippled by some unknown internal monster. I did not like the film's version of this scene because it did not clearly show what was transpiring within the characters. The theme of the book deals with a person's most basic right to be himself. Burgess questions whether it is right to destroy an individual's self in the interest of society. He also questions the morality of the government judging what is right or wrong for everyone. While these themes were evident throughout the book, they were only once mentioned in the film, by a minor character who appears only once. I think the film does not deal with theme because it is difficult to impart the thoughts of the main character without changing the plot of the film, which would lead it astray from that of the book. The most obvious and powerful symbol in the book was the slang language used by the teens, called "nadsat." Nadsat has chiefly Russian origins. Many of the words were chosen because of their forceful sound, as a symbol of the attitude of the nadsats, or teens. For example, "grahzny bratchny" sounds much more harsh than "dirty bastard," although one is a literal translation of the other. This is similar to Gene Roddenberry's creation of the Klingon language, which sounds very much like Russian, in his series "Star Trek," although this may have been due to a cold war stereotype. This symbol, although it was attempted in the film, did not work well. It seemed that dropping words like "droog, tolchock," and "zooby" in the middle of a sentence of otherwise perfect English only confused the viewer, especially without any reference to the nadsat language. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess, presents an issue that should be discussed in schools, although the book may be too potent for some. The film, however, is definitely too focused on plot and the portrayal of destruction and violence, without enough of a focus on theme. I would recommend reading the book; its social commentary is much more relevant now than when it was written in the sixties.

A Book Report on the Lord of the Flies

The novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, an adventure and suspense story, is written in 1857. The story sets on an deserted Pacific coral island. A group of school boys are marooned on this island after a plane crash on a trip to Australia. The story begins with a large number of school boys on an uninhabited tropical island and two of the elder boys who have leadership qualities compete to achieve a semblance of order so as to survive. Ralph, who has found a conch and blows it to summon all the boys to a meeting, is concerned about the well being of everyone, while Jack is more concerned with making rules and punishing offenders. However, only one firm rule is established by Ralph and that is only the person holding the conch will be permitted to speak at meetings. The two leaders soon discover that they do not like each other because of their difference priorities and the conflict begins between them. It causes the group to split into two, with Jack=s followers being in the majority. Ralph is concerned with building shelters, arranging work and on being rescued but Jack only wants to roam the jungle and hunt. The failure to establish rules soon creates confusion and inappropriate behavior encouraged by Jack. Ralph=s only supporter is Piggy, a fat asthmatic boys who nobody likes because he is always lecturing and criticizing everyone=s behavior. Jack bullies him constantly and the other boys make fun of him. Jack and his followers spend most of their time hunting for wild pigs so Ralph=s efforts to organize the group fail. By now, most of the older boys are beginning to act like savages, hunting wild pigs, going into a frenzy when they succeed and celebrate their kill with wild dancing around a fire. One night during an air-battle, a body of a parachutist lands on the island and has become tangled on some rocks on the mountain. A rumor of a Abeast@ on their island discovers that the beast the parachutist but unfortunately never has the opportunity to tell the others. He is mistaken for the beast and is accidentally killed during a wild celebration feast that takes place after a successful hunt by Jack and his followers. Later on, Ralph=s last follower is also killed but not by accident. Ralph has lost all his followers and is pursued by the others who want to kill him. Will he survive? And who is the Lord of the Flies? The story, full of suspense and horror, captures my imagination and my interest throughout. The author=s message of what mankind must guard against if the human race is to survive is depicted through the boys= rapid transformation from school boys to savages. In the novel, Ralph represents democratic societies while he tries to hold a civil society together where every man is allowed personal freedom of thought and actions and Jack represents dictators in the world who seek to establish a society wherein a person is told that only if he contributes to making his country the most powerful on Earth may be important as an individual. Lord of the Flies is a novel exploring the disintegration of a society.

A Black Cloud

The heart is an organ of fire, filled with intense love and intense hatred. Yet it is the hatred which entwines the lives of people causing them to display acts of violence and cruelty. Hatred is displayed through forms which include: prejudices towards large groups of people, crimes of hatred being committed, and indirect hatred which involves hurting others as an act of rebellion against someone or something. Throughout history, the world has been afflicted by the prejudices of powerful leaders who in turn took their animosity out on large masses of people. Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germany during World War II, is a prime example of this. He took his hatred out on the Jews, forcing them into concentration camps. Another group that is a target of hatred are the blacks. The Ku Klux Klan, otherwise known as the KKK, possess intense hatred for the black race. Their hatred is demonstrated by marching in white cloaks in protest and also by burning the churches and neighborhoods of blacks. Just as Hitler and the KKK express hatred, the Skinheads are yet another group which have strong prejudices. These so called Skinheads abominate most races other than their own. White hooded silhouettes, German Soldiers echoing "Hail Hitler!", and the infamous Skinheads are harsh reminders of hatred which exists throughout the world. In the same way that prejudices of large groups of people are expressed, hate crimes are committed to demonstrate acts of hatred. Most recent are the burning of black churches across the South. A crime of this sort shows hatred against the black race. Sometimes leading to manslaughter, racial tensions are abundant. Furthermore, the burning of crosses or flags are offensive crimes that are committed to show a person's hatred for religion or the government. Spousal abuse, child abuse, homicide, and wars between races can only be acts of one thing: hatred. Newspapers are filled with page after page of stories revealing the immense amount of hatred that our society possesses. Although crimes are committed to show hatred directly, there are other crimes which can also show hatred but in ways that are indirect. Think back to the Oklahoma City Bombing; it is a perfect example of indirect hatred. This is true because the motive of the bombers was to attempt to take revenge on the government, but instead the bombers took the lives of innocent people who were in the building. Moreover, the Empire State Building gunman's plan was to take revenge on his "bitter enemies", who he blamed for making Palestinians "homeless", according to a handwritten note he carried. Instead, one tourist was killed and five others were hospitalized in this attempt. Innocent bystanders, who are at the wrong place at the wrong time, are the ones who suffer most from acts of indirect hatred. A black cloud stifles society, suffocating the lives of people, causing pain and suffering. The eyes of mankind are blinded: unable to see passed prejudices. Generations carry the preconceptions of the ones before. Society needs to see the light and learn to accept.