In the short story “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the narrator’s identity is questioned. If the reader interprets the mention of Jane at the end of the story as self-reflective, a contrast between the Jane she refers to and the character who haunts the room becomes evident. This division within the main character can be best understood as follows: there are actually two women within this unnamed speaker, and as one’s actions diminish, the other becomes dominant. The reader can perceive two distinct identities within the narrator’s captive body: the proper-Jane persona, who is named and obedient as Dr. John’s wife, and the nameless, wild, and hysterical woman, who the storyteller sees lurking behind the wallpaper’s pattern. As proper-Jane’s characteristics fade away, those of her unsociable double seamlessly take their place in the speaker’s mind.
The main character in The Yellow Wallpaper is described as a woman with various roles in society – she is a mother, daughter, sister, cousin, sister-in-law, and physician’s wife. Despite her ordinary nature, she gradually sheds the qualities expected of a respectable woman in Victorian society. By the end of the story, this character, who could be referred to as Mrs. John, transforms into a primal and villainous figure who embodies everything deemed unacceptable in that era. She neglects her child, ignores her household responsibilities, grows increasingly paranoid, and exhibits arrogance in believing she understands her own medical condition better than her doctors do. Alongside her obsession with the yellow wallpaper, the protagonist starts staying awake at night and sleeping during the day. She occasionally sneaks around during daylight hours, acknowledging that such behavior is far from typical. Additionally, she develops a cynical and distrustful attitude toward John and her sister-in-law Jennie, stating that one should not trust people too much. This mindset is certainly not fitting for a naive and delicate woman of that time period. The character’s reputation and good name, which are crucial aspects of a gentlewoman’s identity, are the first casualties as she transitions into her transformed self.
The narrator’s 19th century patriarchal society caused her to lose her surname (which belonged to her father) upon marriage. While Mrs. John cherishes her last name as part of her proper-Jane identity, she had no say in replacing it with her husband’s name. This loss of legal identity may contribute to the narrator’s personal transformation, but it is not unique to this story’s protagonist. However, throughout the story, John also attempts to strip the narrator of her given name by using pet names like darling, little girl, and blessed little goose. By doing so, he perpetuates the separation between his wife’s sense of self and her name and identity. In society, proper names are given to humans, pets, and even inanimate objects like cars, boats, and estates. Taking away the protagonist’s name is a form of degradation, placing her below even a beloved dog. This violation may be a reason for the narrator’s secretive behavior, which not only resembles animalistic tendencies but also places her physical self on the same low level as her emotional self has been instructed to be.
John also goes as far as referring to the speaker in the third person (“Bless her little heart,” he said, giving her a big hug, “she shall be as sick as she pleases!”). This creates a division between his delicate and proper wife and the woman he is speaking to. The narrator later follows this example and says, “I’ve got out at last, in spite of you and Jane.” When her names are taken away from her, the main character is left without a clear description of her own identity. She tries to name her developing condition, her emerging self, but is interrupted by John. “I beg of you, for my sake and for our child’s sake, as well as your own, that you will never even consider that idea!” he protests. His reaction is not surprising in a society where the mentally ill are demonized and confined to crowded institutions.
Thus, Mrs. John is sentenced to a societal form of obscurity; she has lost her previous title and the person she is becoming is so different from her social class that it simply cannot be labeled. The main character’s tendency to sneak around during the day illustrates her crisis of identity, and it is not solely due to the inherently repulsive nature of her actions. The stealth implied by her creeping echoes the enigmatic nature of anonymity, and the fact that she performs these actions in plain view of the sun reflects her unchanging physical appearance. In essence, the paradox of trying to be secretive in broad daylight mirrors the process of transforming into a different individual while inhabiting the same body. The literal truth is evident in both cases: despite Mrs. John’s sneaky behavior, she is still visible; and despite her mental and emotional changes, she remains Mrs. John. However, the contradiction is also confirmed within the text – the protagonist locks the door to avoid being seen as she creeps, just as the reader is certain that the proper-Jane persona has been replaced by this nameless and hysterical spirit.
The protagonist in The Yellow Wallpaper suggests that her transformation is complete by questioning if others emerged from the wallpaper as she did. She also mentions the difficulty of returning behind the pattern at night. These thoughts clearly demonstrate a complete shift in her consciousness, as she moves away from her usual self and revels in her newfound freedom from the wallpaper pattern.
Therefore, the woman in The Yellow Wallpaper overcomes the challenge of her anonymity by transforming from a society woman without a recognized identity to a distorted version of a Victorian lady, one who is so extreme that she is not even acknowledged by her name. As a result of losing her name, abandoning her previous mannerisms, and embracing her unsophisticated but still human alter ego, Mrs. John becomes the anonymous victim of the unknown repercussions caused by an unidentified condition.
Frees: The Complex Issue Of Affirmative Acti
on affirmative argumentative persuasiveThe Complex Issue of Affirmative Action During fraternity rush in my first year of college, I visited several fraternities and was always given a short speech on what the fraternity was looking for and what they stood for. I no longer remember what each fraternity claimed to be about, but I do remember one word that stood out. It was uttered in every single presentation and in every conversation with fraternity leaders: diversity. Looking back on that time, it seems somewhat contradictory that a fraternity, which subjectively chooses its members, could truly covet diversity as much as the fraternities I rushed claimed. Since the civil rights movement of the 1960s the idea of diversity has become increasingly more desirable.
Diversity in an organization is no longer just praised; it is required. Even organizations that are created for a specific group must open themselves to diversity. The arena of High school sports is a particularly controversial area in its occasional exclusion of girls. One of the most widely debated lawsuits of the year 2000 was over the rights of homosexuals to participate in boy scouting. The desire for diversity is strongest in the job market, where managers are given financial incentives from their bosses for hiring minority employees because a diverse staff is good for public relations, and hence will draw in more business.
Little if any governmental intervention is needed anymore to ensure minorities can get jobs. There is still the problem of minorities not being promoted, but affirmative action has not yet been able to fix the problem and there is no reason to believe that it will in the future. What affirmative action does promote, however, is fear of competition with other races, most of whom are anti-affirmative action. In a survey taken at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, some students believed that “being Caucasian probably had a negative impact on their overall graduate school admissions chances.” When the University of California dropped its affirmative action policy in 1997 minority admissions declined, but within three years minority admissions had risen back to the levels observed when affirmative action policies were still being implemented. This rise is largely due to aggressive minority recruitment programs, but the university is free to admit the best students that apply.
Applicants to the University of California, unlike the students polled at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, have no fear that their membership in a certain race could hurt their admissions chances. If affirmative action was discontinued, there would most likely be a short time during which minority hiring rates would drop, but the compensation for discontinuing affirmative action would be that each and every worker will know that he or she earned their job. Pride is very motivational: if somebody knows they are employed because of their merits, they will have a strong reason to work hard. Conversely, if somebody knows they were hired because of their race, they have very little reason to try to do a good job. In this way affirmative action perpetuates its own stereotype that workers aren’t hired for merit. Workers that are indeed hired because of their race have little motivation to disprove the stereotype by working hard and proving their merit.
Pride is necessary for the success of both the employee and the employer, but affirmative action eliminates the pride normally associated with holding a job. In fact, only half of African-Americans polled by the Washington Post “say blacks and other minorities should receive preference in college admissions to overcome past inequalities.” As stated by Harvey Mansfield in his speech Political Correctness and the Suicide of the Intellect, “affirmative action is the only government program that’s ashamed of itself and that cannot identify its beneficiaries.” Being associated with affirmative action efforts is insulting. Affirmative action is an issue that needs to be seriously considered. Racial discrimination still exists in the workplace, but affirmative action has not been able to fix that problem. Merely getting a job, however, is no problem to minorities anymore.
The concept of diversity has become so admired that affirmative action is unnecessary. At the same time affirmative action creates tension between the races and therefore promotes inequality and racism. Affirmative action is actually by definition racist. It gives preference to one race over another. The motivation to work hard is lost with affirmative action since there is little reason to work hard when an employee’s job is given to him because of his race.
Affirmative action is a complex issue and it has the ability to affect the lives of every single American.
Book Report Of “Doctor Dolittle” By Hugh Lofting
My book report is on Doctor Dolittle. The author of thisbook is Hugh Lofting. Doctor Dolittle talks to the animalsand is also kind of like a veterinarian. He knows most of theanimal languages. He really calls himself a naturalist whichstudies plants and animals. He lives in Puddleby, England.
He has an assistant named Stubbins. Doctor Dolittle wantsto learn the language of the shellfish because they are one ofthe oldest animals on earth. He thinks that they can tell himsecrets of the past. Doctor Dolittle decided to give up on theshellfish language for a while. Stubbins and the Doctor play agame that you close your eyes and flip the pages of an atlasand put a pencil down on the page. The place that he pickedwas Spidermonkey Island. The purple bird of paradise tellshim that the greatest naturalist is Long Arrow and that helives at Spidermonkey Island. Doctor Dolittle goes on avoyage to Spidermonkey Island. The Doctor goes and hesaves Long Arrow and 9 other Indians from a cave that arock had covered the entrance. Doctor Dolittle found a wayto dig under the rock and make it fall. Another tribe on theother side of the island wanted to go to war with thepeaceful indians. They were going to fight because they wereto lazy to do work because the island was floating South andgetting cold. The Doctor, Long Arrow, and another manbasically won the war for the tribe. They swung clubs andknocked everyone out of the way. Then Polynesia(a talkingparrot) brought millions of black parrots from SouthAmerica. Most of the other tribe got their ears bit off.
Doctor Dolittle was made king of the tribe. They changedhis name to Jong Thinkalot because they didnt think Dolittlefit him. Doctor wanted to go but he had to stay and teachthe tribe to do things more modern. When he was crowneda rock fell into a dead volcano and it made the island sink.
The Doctor decided to leave Spidermonkey Island and goback to Puddleby. They rode back in a giant snail with aglass shell. He taught Doctor Dolittle the shellfish language.
This was a good and interesting book. I wish that it neverwould have ended. I recommend this book to everyone wholikes reading about people talking to animals and longbooks.
Category: Book Reports