The Allegory in Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown Essay -- Young Goodman

The Allegory in â€Å"Young Goodman Brown†      Ã‚  Ã‚   It is the purpose of this essay to show that Nathaniel Hawthorne’s â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† is indeed an allegory. M. H. Abrams defines an allegory as a â€Å"narrative, whether in prose or verse, in which the agents and actions, and sometimes the setting as well, are contrived by the author to make coherent sense on the ‘literal,’ or primary, level of signification, and at the same time to signify a second, correlated order of signification† (5).    Yvor Winters in â€Å"Maule’s Curse, or Hawthorne and the Problem of Allegory† says that Hawthorne is essentially an allegorist (11). Stanley T. Williams in â€Å"Hawthorne’s Puritan Mind† states that the author was always â€Å"perfecting his delicate craft of the symbol, of allegory† (42). A. N. Kaul states : â€Å"In an effort to apprehend and adequately reflect the new complexity of man’s life, he [Hawthorne] molded the venerable – in his case directly inherited – allegorical method into the modern technique of symbolism† (3). It is quite obvious from the names of the characters in the short story that their names are contrived to give a secondary signification. Goodman is on the primary level a simple husband who is following his curiosity about evil; on the level of secondary signification he is Everyman or the new Adam: R. W. B. Lewis in â€Å"The Return into Rime: Hawthorne† states: Finally, it was Hawthorne who saw in American experience the re-creation of the story of Adam and who . . . exploited the active metaphor of the American as Adam – before and during and after the Fall† (72). Goodman responds in this way to the fellow-traveller when the latter implicates the governor in devilish deeds:    "Can this be so!" cried Goodman Brown, with... ...t/nh/nhhj1.html    Kaul, A.N. â€Å"Introduction.† In Hawthorne – A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.    Leavis, Q.D. â€Å"Hawthorne as Poet.† In Hawthorne – A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.    Lewis, R. W. B. â€Å"The Return into Time: Hawthorne.† In Hawthorne – A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.    Williams, Stanley T. â€Å"Hawthorne’s Puritan Mind.† In Readings on Nathaniel Hawthorne, edited by Clarice Swisher. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1996.    Winters, Yvor. â€Å"Maule’s Curse, or Hawthorne and the Problem of Allegory.† In Hawthorne – A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.   

Little Mermaid Comparisons

I've never realized that Disney's The Little Mermaid was not an original Disney character/story, though this shouldn't have been a surprise since Disney's princesses all come from stories developed by people outside of Disney. Like Disney they take someone's original story and add so much more to them to make them appropriate and more appealing to children of all ages. Andersen and Disney both share the similar story lines when it comes to the main idea of the story. In both The Little Mermaid stories, Ariel wanted to ultimately become human so that she could be with Eric. She also sided with Ursula in a deal that would give her legs in exchange for her voice; in Disney's version her voice was kept in a nautilus shell by Ursula, in Andersen's version she actually gave up her tongue. She wouldn't stay human forever if she didn't end up with Eric. The punishments were different in both stories if she didn't end up with Eric, and both punishments did happen in one way or another. Andersen's story says that if Ariel didn't marry her on the dawn of the next day after he marries another woman she will die brokenhearted and will disintegrate into sea foam; however in Disney's version Ariel will return to her regular foam but will belong to Ursula. Ariel gets her legs and is fine physically according to Disney, but in Andersen's story every time she moves it feels as if she is being stabbed in the legs and her feet bleed terribly. Eric also falls for her until Ursula deceives him by using Ariel's voice leading him to believe that she is the one that saved him, therefore he wants to marry her. It's a big commotion at the wedding and Ariel eventually gets her voice back and when Eric tries to kiss her to make the transition complete, the sun sets and Ariel is returned to mermaid form and kidnapped by Ursula. In the other story the prince thinks the woman he saw at the temple where he was put after being rescued was the one that saved him, so instead he marries her. Since the Prince marries the other girl instead, causing The Little Mermaid to brace herself for her awaiting death, her sisters try to save her by letting her know that they made a deal with the sea witch that if she kills the prince with the knife that they've got and let his blood drip on her feet she'll return to mermaid form and everything would be fine. She couldn't kill the prince and instead died and turned into sea form but she did get a eternal soul because she strove with all her heart to gain an eternal soul. Disney adds more things to the story that makes it even longer than the original and a sort of musical. They're version is also not as dark as the original, and Ariel does end up with Eric unlike Andersen's story where she dies anyway. Andersen's version shows no expression towards the idea of childhood, my opinion would be because of how dark the original story was, it doesn't even seem like it is for children. Disney's version is very expressive when showing ideas towards childhood, the story itself is very colorful and appealing to children with the fun characters and songs. The Disney version serves as an example of DeZengotita's â€Å"Me World† because Ariel is surrounded in her own world wondering about humans and they're way of life and ultimately wanting to become one herself. She represents herself in different ways whether it be by song, or by her actions.

What Does It Mean to Be Partisan

If youre a  partisan, it means you  adhere firmly to a political party, faction, idea or cause. You  likely live in a bright red or dark blue district or state. You  exhibit blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance and never speak ill of another member of your tribe, according to the standard Merriam-Webster definition. Being a partisan is  the opposite of being a swing voter or independent in politics. To put it bluntly, being a partisan isnt a good thing. How can you tell if youre a partisan? Here are five traits. 1. You Cant Talk Politics Without Getting Angry If you cant talk politics with people and still stay friends, youre a partisan. If you cant talk politics without the conversation ending in bruised egos and hurt feelings, youre a partisan. If you cant see the other side of an issue and storm off abruptly from the dinner table, youre a partisan. Seek your inner peace. And understand this: Youre not right about everything. No one is. A synonym of partisan is ideologue. If youre an ideologue, it means youre an adherent to a rigid ideology. You dont like compromise.  And youre probably difficult to talk to.   2. You Vote the Straight-Party Line If you show up to the voting booth without doing your homework and pull the lever for the straight-party ticket every time, youre a partisan. In fact, you match the definition of a partisan to the T: someone who exhibits blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance to a political party. If you dont want to be a partisan, heres a handy guide to everything you need to know to prepare for Election Day. Hint: Vote for the best candidate, not the party. 3. You Watch MSNBC or Fox News Theres nothing wrong with watching MSNBC or Fox News. But lets call it what it is: Youre choosing a source of news and information that supports your worldview. If you lean left, youre probably watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. And only MSNBC. If you tilt to the right, youre tuning in to Sean Hannity and Fox, and tuned out the rest. And, yes, if you do this youre a partisan. 4. You Chair a Political Party OK. To be fair, it is some peoples job to be partisan. And those people happen to be working in the political arena—that is, the parties themselves. If youre the chair of the Republican National Committee or the GOP organization in your hometown, it is your function to be a partisan. Thats why you have the job: to support your partys candidates and get them elected. Stated President Harry Truman: There was never a non-partisan in politics. A man cannot be a non-partisan and be effective in a political party. When hes in any party hes partisan. Hes got to be.   5. You Violate the Hatch Act Lets hope things dont get this bad. But if youre a government employee and youre found to have violated the federal Hatch Act, youre behaving as a partisan would behave. The Hatch Act of 1939  placed limits on the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government, and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. The law is intended to prohibit taxpayer-supported resources from being used in partisan campaigns; it is also intended to protect civil service employees from partisan pressures from political appointee managers. Lets say you work for an agency that is funded at least in part by the federal government. Under the Hatch Act, you cant campaign for office or engage in any similar political behavior. Youve got to quit your job first. The federal government doesnt like allocating taxpayer money to agencies whose workers are behaving as partisans. In Defense of Parties and Partisanship Partisanship is the fundamental behavior that allows the two-party system to remain in place in the United States. And the existence of parties, according to some astute political philosophers, is vital.   The philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill, writing in On Liberty,  defended partisanship: A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.† The economist Graham Wallas also described parties favorably: Something is required simpler and more permanent, something which can be loved and trusted, and which can be recognized at successive elections as being the same thing that was loved and trusted before; and a party is such a thing. And  Moisà ©s Naà ­m, a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has written about the need for permanent organizations that earn political power and govern, that are forced to articulate disparate interests and viewpoints, that can recruit and develop future government leaders and that monitor those already in power. Nonpartisan, Bi-Partisan, Post-Partisan There are a couple of antonyms to the word partisan, and a relatively new term, post-partisan. Nonpartisan: This  term describes the behavior of political figures who may belong to disparate factions and parties when they work together on nonpolitical issues, such as raising money for charity or helping with some civic issue in their home state. Bipartisan: This term describes the behavior of elected officials or citizens who otherwise disagree on policy issues and belong to disparate factions or parties when they work together toward a common political goal. Bipartisanship is rare on major issues in modern American politics.  Ã‚   Post-partisan: This term, which has come into wide use since President Barack Obamas election in 2008, describes the work of Republicans and Democrats to reach compromise on policy issues without abandoning ties to party or principals. Post-partisanship has its roots in President Thomas Jeffersons inaugural speech: Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. Obama, a Democrat running for president in 2008, promised to deliver such a post-partisan presidency by embracing Republicans and independents. His remarks resonated among the electorate. Obama said: I think that there are a whole host of Republicans, and certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who dont believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, dont believe what politicians say. And we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change. [Edited by Tom Murse]