Romeo & Juliet essay-question 2

There are many ways in which "Romeo and Juliet" can be compared and contrasted with other idealistic love stories. In "Pride and Prejudice", by Jane Austen, the couple also faces pressures from society, and learns to overcome them throughout the novel. In both literary works there is an aspect of sacrifice, though I view them as being completely different; one is selfish and self-centered, the other altruistic and selfless.

In "Romeo and Juliet", the young couple's love was seen as forbidden, in that it was between two youth whose families were entangled in a feud lasting centuries. Society would not have expected a relationship to develop between the two. However, the lovers did not learn of each others identity until after they professed love at a party. Upon learning that a family conflict would come between them, they were apprehensive of pursuing the connection further. Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet decided to defy the social pressures from Verona and their families, ending their love in tragic death.

The relationship between Darcy and Lizzy is very similar to Romeo and Juliet's when the situation is taken into consideration. Though there was no feud between their families, Darcy's high social status placed him in an elite group, making it unheard of that someone of a lower-middle class would one day marry him, inheriting his vast fortune. Darcy and Lizzy's personalities are also taken into consideration. From the beginning of the novel there is only tension between the two, which makes the match seem unlikely not only to the characters in the novel (especially Lizzy), but to the reader, also. They also conquered society's reservations about their relationship, and lived to enjoy their marriage.

Romeo and Juliet's sacrifice of love and life, when choosing to die rather than live without the other was not intended to better the world around them, but was due to their desire for passionate love. When that need could not be fulfilled, their dependence on each other was made evident. It was only a selfish act in that their love for one another only existed til the point when the other could not reciprocate it. When Romeo believed Juliet to be dead he decided to end his own life, and when Juliet awoke to find her lover deceased she stabbed herself. This was only to end their own sorrow, not taking into consideration what the other would want or how the families would react to their deaths. It was only upon their deaths that the families were brought together and realized their foolish feud was the cause of the tragedy. The betterment of the world depended on their catastrophic end, as it was the initial "wake up call" the Capulets and Montagues needed. Their sacrifice brings peace to a feud that had plagued Verona for ages.

Darcy uses his love for Lizzy to better the world, though does it knowingfully, the results able to be seen throughout the novel. He mainly does this by helping the Bennet family. The vessel he uses to show his love is in the way he secures her family's financial situation. The first major conflict in the novel is that fact that the family's estate will only pass to a man after Mr. Bennet's death. This meant that, though they weren't destitute, Mrs. Bennet and the four daughters would have to depend on the financial status of the husbands they would marry in order to have a comfortable life. To prove his love for Lizzy, Darcy pays Wickham the full amount he demanded to marry Lydia after their elopement. This not only saves the Bennet family from social calamity, but secures Lydia in an agreeable financial situation. Darcy also brings together Jane and his friend Bingley, who has a handsome sum to his name. He grants the family security by mending Lydia and Wickham's relationship as well as securing Jane's marriage to Bingley. It was because of his love for Lizzy that he made an effort to protect her family, but it did not cost him his life or make him sacrifice his love for her. His act of love was done unselfishly, his sacrifice being made without boasting and without Lizzy knowing it was him. In fact, he didn't want Lizzy to know that he was behind the "good fortune" coming to her family. In this way the act of sacrifice is different in "Pride and Prejudice", and both Darcy and Lizzy lived to see the betterment of society due to his love and sacrifice.

Question 12 for Grapes of Wrath

The character of Ma Joad and Rose of Sharon are starkly opposite, as Ma plays a key role in sustaining the family and Rose of Sharon seems to be a burden on the family. Only at the end of the novel does Ma instill her motherly "others centered" characteristics in Rose of Sharon, maturing her in a way that she no longer seeks personal gain, but learns to give of herself for the benefit of others.

From the beginning chapters to the end of the novel, Steinbeck illustrates Ma as being a hard worker, depicting her as the "rock" or foundation of the family. Her character is strong, and by hiding her emotions, she sets the mood of the other members of the family and drives them to persevere throughout the journey to California. Her main role is to keep the family together no matter the cost (whether it be living off a little food or risking the safety of the family as a whole). Ma focuses her attention towards the needs of her family, not seeking her own comfort. She is the one who puts food on the table, and becomes the one, who even determines when the family will move to find new work and controls how the little money saved will be spent.

Rose of Sharon, on the other hand, has a shallow character and is easily swayed by her emotions. Though this may result from her pregnancy, she does not attempt to control her feelings, wearing them on her sleeve throughout the journey. Her needs may seem to be greater than the others' due to the sensitivity of her situation, but she is shockingly selfish, putting herself before others. When Winfield is seriously ill and needs milk to give him strength, Rose of Sharon pouts and complains that she is the one who should be given milk. Though she is gullible in some aspects, believing what the devout woman of the camp tells her about sins that could cause her to lose the baby, Rose of Sharon does not show wisdom or understanding. When Connie leaves her, she could almost be seen as a detriment to the family. She doesn't do anything to help, but rather is a drain on the budget as she needs extra milk to survive as well.

In most of the novel, Rose of Sharon seems to be immature, and obstinate in taking Ma's advice and guidance; finally in the last chapter of the novel she takes on Ma's characteristics. The turning point in her character is when she miscarriages the baby-resulting in her growth and maturity. This causes her to not be ashamed of exposing herself while sustaining a man's life by giving up her breast-milk. This is when she switches from being self-centered to being sensitive to others' needs. She inherits Ma's character of the nurturer or "Earth Mother," saving lives, which was Ma's role in the family for the entire trip to California.

Who's guilty?

I think the brawl and killings were Mercutio's fault, and possibly Romeo's fault for speeding up the process.
When Tybalt asks "What wouldst thou have with me?", Mercutio explicitly answers that he wants to kill Tybalt to end the feud between them, taking one of his nine lives and perhaps more. Mercutio is also the one who first threatens Tybalt, saying something similar to "give me your best shot". In this way he not only provoked Tybalt, but pretty much was asking for his own death. Obviously he was too confident in his own capabilities.
Romeo deserves some of the blame; as he tried to make peace he distracted Mercutio, and enabled Tybalt to slip his knife under Romeo's arm, catching Mercutio off guard. If Romeo had let the affray play out, and not trusted Tybalt to give up fight, either neither would have died due to the appearance of the Prince, or a wound would have been delayed as both would have been brawling at their best.

Tybalt, loyal Capulet, slain in affray

Tybalt Capulet was killed in a brawl on Monday afternoon. Family and friends are welcome to the funeral service which will be held in the Lord Capulet's courtyard Tuesday evening.

Tybalt's death, a backlash from the killing of Mercutio (a Montague) minutes earlier, was a shock to loved ones as he was not the type to pick fights. He was renown for his protective nature of the Capulet family name, and spent most of his life defending their honor. It was evident that throughout his life he was very close to his cousin, Juliet Capulet, and it is supposed that the battle was some-what connected to her. Tybalt has no known immediate family, and is only survived by his cousin's family, Lord and Lady Capulet. The memory of his unexpected death will not be suppressed; it is questionless that the loss to the Capulet family is great.

California Handbill.

NEEDED:

•5000 people for 200 job spots!
•FREE living space provided in open ditches and fields
•Wages: no more than $20 per day with the occasional gift of food OR a nightly portion of one cup of flour and a spoonful of lard!
•After work for us for a month there is no need to worry about your tentfull of children!
•Accommodation includes a tightly knit community
•You will never be caught in a drought again! (we have more water than you could ever want!)




Stefan Vosloo, Rachel Lentz, and Ross Watters

What's wrong with democracy?

The world would be better off with no democracy. No need for citizens to play a role in government. What reason do they have for wanting to have a voice in the way they should be governed?
In a democracy, government is limited by the consent of the people. Resulting in a weak government. If the government were weak, what would get done? With citizens sharing, exchanging ideas, and enriching creativity, what would be achieved? Not everyone can be satisfied, and with everyone holding to slightly different views, better for no one to get their way than an isolated few. A strong hand is what is needed, one to make the citizens confident—sure that their government is in control. Government officials hold their position of power because they are trusted to be a better authority than ordinary citizens. After all, doesn’t government know best?
And voting for officials? All over the world people risk their lives for this choosing of government. Why threaten citizens’ right to live, when it would be easier for the most capable to claim his right?