English, analysis of Alice in Wonderland

The Confusion of Growing Up


             Growing up, a period of time between childhood and adulthood, is a difficult transition for everyone. Children struggle to find themselves and figure out who they are. In Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, motifs are used to show the reader how growing up is confusing and difficult for children, and sometimes makes them doubt who they are.

             Throughout the book, Alice constantly changes in size, growing and shrinking to extremes at random moments in time. She finds these changes traumatic because they leave her frustrated and confused. Alice is unable to accept the awkward changes and begins to question her own identity. She wonders aloud on page 9 and 10 if she is a different person today than she was yesterday:

“Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I
can remember feeling a little different. But if I’m not the same, the next
question is ‘Who in the world am I?’”... And she began thinking over all the
children she knew... to see if she could have been changed for any of them.

Alice doubts who she is so much that she starts to believe she has become totally different, not just in size, but in her entire being. She is so flustered by her changes she thinks that she is no longer Alice. The changes her body is going through confuse her into thinking that she has become one of her friends. Alice’s fluctuating height and size is a motif Carroll uses to help develop his theme, that growing up is difficult for children.

             In Chapter 5, Carroll’s uses the motif of changing size again, to establish his theme that children find growing up discomforting and frustrating, since they cannot understand everything their bodies are going through. Evidently Alice is suffering an identity crisis when the caterpillar asks her who she is. She has become so muddled by her growing and shrinking that she replies, “I—I hardly know, Sir... I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have changed several times since then” (pg 32). Alice cannot explain who she is in a world that is constantly altering her sense of self. She argues that since her body has gone through changes, she cannot be the same person she was before the changes occurred. When the caterpillar demands that she elaborate on her response, Alice says, “I can’t explain myself, I’m afraid... because I’m not myself, you see” (pg 32). Since she doesn’t understand the changes she is going through, she reasons that she cannot understand herself and thus, must not be who she normally is. Growing up has made Alice doubt that she knows herself.

             After her meeting with the Caterpillar, Alice bites a piece of a magical mushroom, which makes her grow extremely tall. Her sudden growth spurt has disturbed a pigeon, which screams that Alice is a serpent about to steal its eggs. The Pigeon’s accusation causes Alice to further doubt who she is. Already shaken from her belief that she is her normal self, Alice has trouble defending herself. She tries to deny the pigeon’s allegation, but falters when it asks her what she is; “‘I—I’m a little girl,’ said Alice, rather doubtfully, as she remembered the number of changes she had gone through that day” (pg 38). All the changes Alice is going through confuse her to the point where she not only doubts if she is Alice, but if she is human. Like before with the caterpillar, Alice cannot explain who she is. Growing up (literally) has made her think she isn’t herself. She struggles to gain a sense of identity while also maintaining a comfortable physical size.

             Lewis Carroll’s theme, that a child’s sense of identity is shaken by his or her experiences while growing up, is developed and enhanced by his usage of motifs. Rhetorical devices, such as imagery, symbolism, and motifs, can assist in the development of themes.

English, essay analysis

for Judy Syfers' “I Want a Wife”


             While simple things like grammar and structure can help distinguish a bad writer from a good writer, a strong style is what sets a great writer apart from a mediocre one. In her satirical essay “I Want a Wife,” Judy Syfers successfully captures the reader with her effective opening statement, and reinforces her ideas with her use of language in parallelism, descriptive details, and repetition.

             Perhaps the most interesting part of Syfers’ essay is that after the title, “I Want a Wife,” in her opening, she states, “I belong to that classification of people known as wives. I am A Wife.” Her choice of words and her straight forward statement rouse the reader’s curiosity, egging them to read on. The reader feels some confusion about why someone who is a wife would want one, and thus is pulled in by the eye-catching title and beginning.

             Then, Syfers’ essay is organized into a simple yet continuous list of wants, using rhetorical strategies. She centers her writing around her question “Why do I want a wife?” by constantly repeating and reusing the phrases “I want a wife” and “a wife who...” This repetition reinforces her idea that too much is demanded of wives and that husbands are often not realistic in their expectations of their partners. Syfers also uses parallelism as she lists what she desires of a wife, for example when she writes, “I want a wife who will keep my clothes clean, ironed, mended...” This structure keeps her essay organized so that her ideas flow.

             Syfers also uses exaggeration and sarcasm in her writing. For example, in one part of her essay, she writes, “If, by chance, I find another person more suitable as a wife than the wife I already have, I want the liberty to replace my present wife with another one.” This would be a very extreme expectation of a wife. In fact, it makes a wife seem like a replacement item or toy, not a person. Later, Syfers writes ““I want a wife who will remain sexually faithful... And I want a wife who understands that my sexual needs may entail more than strict adherence to monogamy.” These desires are not only unfair to the wife, but also on the borderline of simply ridiculous. Syfers’ use of both exaggeration and sarcasm make her satire both amusing and effective for the reader.

             Syfers ends her essay with the rhetorical question, “My God, who wouldn't want a wife?” No only is it filled with sarcasm, which reinforces her ideas, but it also closes the essay. Her ending ties up all her thoughts simply while leaving the reader with some thoughts.

             Syfers’ essay is not only unique, but also captivating, in that it includes rhetorical strategies and techniques. She successfully presents her ideas and reinforces them throughout her writing.

AP Lang-Comp, Excerpt Journals

for I Know Why The Caged Bird Cries

*my English teacher kept this assignment because she said I did exactly what she wanted, so beware if you copy word for word, as she might be YOUR teacher!

Chapter 4
“...[Whites] were different, to be dreaded, and in that dread was included the hostility of the powerless against the powerful, the poor against the rich, the worker against the worked for and the ragged against the well dressed.” (20)

As a child living in the South, Maya Angelou describes her town’s segregation as being so complete that she often wondered if “whitefolks” actually existed, or if they were just characters in the stories told to children. She cannot imagine what the whites look like. She only knows that they are “different,” and very dangerous. Intuitively, she dreads them with a fear that is learned, if not taught. Though she may lack the ability to fully comprehend the racism, the unspoken pressures of society cause her to shrink away from the whites and approach them with apprehension. Angelou classifies the whites as wealthy, well-dressed bosses who reign over poor and ragged working blacks. Though the events in the chapter that triggered her to describe her dread—“and in that was included the hostility...”—occurred during her youth, the author uses her adult voice to describe the emotions the whites triggered inside her. This set up shows the lasting effects of the Southern segregation and racism on Angelou.

Chapter 18
“[The blacks] basked in the righteousness of the poor and the exclusiveness of the downtrodden. Let the whitefolks have their money and power and segregation and sarcasm and big houses and schools and lawns like carpets, and books, and mostly—mostly—let them have their whiteness.” (110)

The differences between blacks and whites in the South are a result of segregation, racism, and grievances piled upon grievances. Oppressed and powerless, the blacks work tirelessly to make ends meet. The whites, on the other hand, seem to have everything at their fingertips—“money and power... and big houses and schools.” The unfairness of the world torments the blacks. In their desperate search for something to give them hope and ease the pain of the injustices they suffer, the blacks find spirituality.
The church addresses the need of the blacks for something to believe in. The blacks reason that, because of the suffering they have endured, they must be loved by God. They will be saved by their “righteousness,” while justice is dealt to the whites. The wounds of the blacks are soothed by the idea that the whites will burn in hell for eternity. God will balance the scales.
Throughout the text though, each time the blacks try to find peace through their belief in the impending Judgment Day, they eventually return to reality to be weighed down by the injustice of their condition. Although the blacks attempt to preserve their dignity and pride in the face of racism, they are dispirited by the juxtaposition of all that is present in the white world and all that is lacking in the black.

AP Lang-Comp, Chapter Summaries

for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings


Chapter 4
The reader discovers Maya’s profound love for her brother Bailey through her adoring and worshiping tone. As she describes her childhood, Maya’s voice is young and naïve. Maya narrates her occasional trips with Bailey into the white part of town, which occurred whenever Momma felt it necessary for them to eat fresh protein. This trip, for her, always brought intense feeling of dread, as the “whitefolks” were considered dangerous and foreign creatures by the black children.

Chapter 9
At seven-years old, Maya finally meets her father when he unexpectedly visits Stamps. At first, his large stature, striking beauty, and flowing language fill Maya with pride, until she becomes afraid that people will compare her to him and come to the conclusion that she is not truly his daughter. Then, her father announces that he will be going back to California, and offers to take his children with him. While this move fills Maya with apprehension, her story becomes even more choked with fear when she discovers that she and Bailey are actually going to meet their “Mother Dear” in St. Louis.

Chapter 19
Men, women, children, and babies all are crammed into the Store, trying to listen to the radio. An intense boxing match is being broadcasted. The match, however, has a higher meaning: it is a fight between a white man and a black man for the World Championship. The tensions in the scene can be felt, as Maya incorporates suspense and drama into her writing. At last, the victory—proof that there is justice in the world—goes to Joe Louis, the “Brown Bomber,” the black boy, and the new Champion of the World.

Chapter 24
Childish overstatements, including the belief that she will die from pain, are interspersed within Maya’s writing as she narrates getting two cavities. Momma takes her to the white dentist in town, believing that he will do the job because he owes her a favor, but the dentist refuses to help, and spits out a cruel racist comment before rudely walking away. Momma collects herself, tells Maya to stay outside, and then enters the office. Once Momma comes out, she takes Maya to a black dentist in Texarkana, who quickly takes care of the rotten teeth. That night, back in Stamps, Momma tells Uncle Willie what happened inside the office, and Maya, who had made up her own creative version, is much disappointed.

AP Lit-Comp Hamlet Essay

The Role of Ethics, Morals, and Reason in Hamlet’s Inaction

*warning! I got a B on this paper, not an A

Widely recognized as a play about revenge, Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet tells the story of a prince whose father is murdered. Ambiguity exists in the plotline, however, as Prince Hamlet, the protagonist for whom the play is named, delays in avenging his father’s death for four acts. This delay is central to the play because complexity exists in Hamlet’s inaction.
On the surface, the reason for the prince’s hesitation in seeking justice for his father’s death appears unclear, but deeper analysis of the play reveals that Hamlet’s rationality and morality are responsible for his delay in killing the man whom he believes is responsible for his father’s death. The prince’s uncertainty and inaction also accentuate his mental turmoil and add to the play’s appeal as a tragedy.
When the ghost, which takes the form of King Hamlet, first appears to Hamlet in Act I of the play and tells him that his father was murdered, Hamlet demands to know who committed the crime so that he “may sweep to my revenge” (1.5.37). He swears that he will avenge his father’s death by killing the murderer, Claudius, who is not only Hamlet’s uncle but also the new king of Denmark. Hamlet’s heartfelt declaration that he “was born to set [things] right” (1.5.211) however, does not drive him to kill Claudius until Act V. Despite his own admission that he has “the motive and the cue for passion” (2.2.588), Hamlet’s determined attitude does not manifest itself in his actions.
Hamlet, as an intelligent and logical person, wants to confirm Claudius’s guilt before committing the grievous crime of murder. For that reason, the prince delays in killing Claudius, because neither he nor the audience is certain of Claudius’s guilt until Act III. By waiting until he is sure of Claudius’s guilt, Hamlet displays his rationality, even in moments of passion.
Hamlet’s inaction also adds poignancy to the play. While he wants to carry out his promise to his father’s spirit and avenge the former king’s “foul and most unnatural murder” (I.v.31), Hamlet does not know if he should trust the ghost. Hamlet also acknowledges the fact that:

...The spirit that I have seen
May be a devil, and the devil hath
power
T’assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps...
Abuses me to damn me.
(2.2.627-632)

Realizing that his grief over his father’s death has drained him and made him more susceptible to weakness and evil, Hamlet is suspicious of the ghost, which he fears may be a servant of Satan, conspiring to trick him into committing a horrendous crime.
This uncertainty over the trustworthiness of the ghost also feeds Hamlet’s conscience, which demands that he know for certain Claudius’s role in King Hamlet’s death before acting. Hamlet fears that his “imaginations are as foul / As Vulcan’s stithy” (3.2.88-89) and that he may be targeting Claudius only “out of [his] weakness and [his] melancholy” (2.2.630) and his need for a scapegoat, upon whom he can blame his father’s death. By having Hamlet constantly question his own motives and morals, Shakespeare dramatizes Hamlet’s doubt and his troubled state of mind.
Hamlet demonstrates his ability to reason—even in moments when violence seems an easy answer—in Act II, when he concocts a plan to “catch the conscience of the King” (2.2.634). While Hamlet wants to avenge his father’s murder, he first wants to determine the truth in the spirit’s statement. Seeing that Claudius’s role in the late king’s death is unclear, Hamlet plans to “play something like the murder of my father / Before mine uncle” in order to determine Claudius’s guilt (2.2.624-625). The prince’s desire to confirm the fact that Claudius killed his father rather than simply believe the ghost proves that he is a fair and level-minded prince. Despite his heartache, Hamlet is able to reason; killing an innocent man would not only be immoral, but would also make him no better than his father’s murderer.
At the same time, however, as a passionate man and a devoted son, each moment that he delays in avenging his father’s death, Hamlet feels that he is less of a man. He questions his lack of character in a soliloquy:

A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak
Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my
cause,
And can say nothing—no, not for a king
Upon whose property and most
dear life
A damned defeat was made. Am I a coward?
(2.2.584-598).

Despite Hamlet’s feeling of guilt because of his delay in action, his reason and logic overpower his passion. Were Hamlet simply to be avoiding the act out of cowardice, the play would lose much of its emotional complexity and appeal. Shakespeare does not have Hamlet kill Claudius for four acts because the resulting storyline is much more stirring. Hamlet’s period of inaction gives him time to play out his emotions. The internal turmoil that Hamlet struggles with moves the audience more than a quick murder would.
Furthermore, Hamlet’s reasoning and delay in committing murder highlight the differences between him and his foil, Laertes. Laertes finds himself in the same position as Hamlet when his father Polonius is murdered, but reacts in a manner almost completely opposite of the prince. Rather than stop to consider the event, Laertes simply acts. He immediately returns home from France, ready to kill Claudius, as he assumes that Polonius’ death is the fault of the “vile king” (4.5.26-28). Shakespeare presents this brash and radical behavior negatively when he has Laertes blasphemously say:

To hell, allegiance! Vows, to the blackest devil!
Conscience and grace,
to the profoundest pit!
I dare damnation. To this point I
stand,
That both the worlds I give to negligence,
Let come what comes,
only I’ll be revenged
Most throughly for my father. (4.5.149-154)

In a time when faith was a significant part of everyday life and religious doctrines strongly influenced society, Laertes’ words are shockingly extreme. Without knowing the circumstances of his father’s death, Laertes raves that he is willing to do anything, so long as he avenges Polonius’ murder. His words contain unrestrained wrath, and his actions that follow negate any nobility of heart that he displays with his willingness to completely devote himself to punishing his father’s murderer. Laertes stands as an example of the pitfalls of acting brashly. When Laertes turns a duel meant to be a simple contest of skills in a scheme to kill Hamlet with a sharpened and poisoned sword, Laertes becomes a man with no honor. Deception taints his desire to seek justice for his father’s death and makes the act no longer admirable.
In comparison, because Hamlet does not kill Claudius through ploys or trickery, the audience can view him as an honorable character. When Hamlet stops himself from killing Claudius in Act III, when the king is attempting to pray, Hamlet demonstrates the fairness of his heart and the strength of his morals. It would not have been honorable or right to attack a defenseless man during a moment of prayer, just as it is not acceptable to attack an individual in a church. Regardless of the declared reason for waiting to kill Claudius—Hamlet pronounces that he wants to ensure that Claudius’s soul will go to Hell, and not Heaven—the fact that Hamlet does not attack the man in his most vulnerable moment demonstrates to the audience that the prince is a moral character.
Most importantly, however, Hamlet’s delay in revenge strongly contrasts him to Claudius. In King Claudius, Shakespeare creates a “[r]emorseless...villain” who reveals his own treachery in Act 3 when he confesses his cold-blooded murder of his brother (2.2.609). Claudius’s lack of morals is further demonstrated when he secretly attempts to have Hamlet killed in England. When this plan fails, Claudius conspires to use Laertes as a tool to kill Hamlet. His clandestine “exploit[s]” and attempts to attack Hamlet when the prince is vulnerable and least suspecting demonstrate Claudius’s immoral nature (4.7.72). In comparison to Prince Hamlet, Claudius not only lacks honor, but also morality.
Hamlet, on the other hand, is a respectable character because he does not plan Claudius’s death furtively, nor try to hide the fact that he is suspicious of his uncle. When he finally avenges his father’s murder and kills Claudius, he does so in the open where witnesses abound, and is able to do so because he knows his act is justified. Hamlet, having taken his time to morally rationalize his decision, can accept the consequences of his actions.
The importance of Hamlet’s delay in avenging his father’s death is multifaceted. Shakespeare does not use the delay as a plot device to increase the length of the play, but as a plot device to drive the story and its emotional appeal to audiences. Hamlet’s hesitation to act involves the classic battle of mind versus heart. On one side are his rationality and morality, and on the other are his emotions—grief over losing his father and rage in knowing his uncle committed the crime. The internal conflict that Hamlet faces moves the audience and makes the ultimate loss of the protagonist a great tragedy.