Of mice and Men Analysis Essay Example for Free

Of mice and Men Analysis Essay In Of mice and Men several characters dream of a different and better life. Why is it not a surprise that the dreams never come true? Of Mice and Men is a novel written by john Steinbeck that features the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people living very simple lives. It features very strong characters each with their own dreams of a different and better life. But of course such dreams only remain dreams because they never do come true. The title of mice and men is taken from a poem by a famous Scottish poet Robert Burns that quotes. The beat laid schemes o mice and men Gang aft agley (often go wrong) And leave us nought but grief and pain For promised joy! This basically means that it doesnt matter how much you plan and dream, things very rarely go according to plan, which leaves us longing for promised dreams. John Steinbeck was born in Salinas, California in 1902. This may have been the reason he decided to set the novel Of mice and men in the Salinas valleys. It was hard to live in good conditions around the time the book was set (1930-1940) because of the Wall Street crash and the great Depression that followed. It was extremely hard to get a job and if you did get a job, it would be for minimal pay. During the 1930s there was very bad unemployment, which meant thousands of people never had a job in the USA, so agencies (like the one that Lennie and George got their work cards from, Murray and Readys) were set up to end farm workers to where they were needed. Despite these conditions many people believed in the American dream. The theory of the American dream was taken from the 17th centaury and basically mans that in America, it doesnt matter who you are or where you come from anybody can make it big and be satisfied with what they have achieved. A lot of characters in the novel also had dreams of making it big and owning something good that they have worked hard to accomplish. Lennie Small and George Milton are the main characters and they both had similar dreams although they were very different people in more ways then one. We first get a description of their dream in chapter 1 when George and Lennie were at their campsite about to eat their supper. The conversation about the dream started off when Lennie said to George tell me- like you done before about the rabbits. The dream was basically that they wanted their own land where nobody can boss them around and tell them what to do. They also wanted to raise animals such as pigs cows and chickens an live of the fatta da lan. From this dream the to characters Lennie and George both wanted different things. George wanted a place of his own and independence he also wanted security for Lennie but the main thing he wanted is a ranch like the one he lived on as a child. On the other hand the only thing Lennie wants from the dream is to tend the rabbits. At this point of the novel the dream that Lennie and George had was still just a fantasy not reality. This is because George and Lennie did not have much money, like many people who lived around the time of the great Depression. People found it hard to get jobs let alone make a lot of money and they had just run away from another ranch in Weed because of Lennies behaviour, so deep down George knew that it was virtually impossible for their dreams to become a reality, until Candy is an ageing, disabled ranch hand that has been on the ranch for a, long time and when he hears Lennie talking to George about the dream he realises that that was his golden ticket out of the ranch. Candy wants to leave the ranch because he feels that he has no future in the ranch he fears that he might be sacked in the near future because he cannot do his job as good as an able bodied person. Candy realises he has enough money to offer Lennie and George so he could be part of the dream, Lennie and George accepts Candys offer and then the dream becomes a reality because George knows a real place they could get. Crooks is a black ranch hand that is discriminated because of his colour. Crooks first gets to know about the dream when Lennie walks into his room, whilst looking for some companionship. When Lennie tells him the dream, at first he did not believe it and he thought it would never happen. But then candy walks into the room and confirms what Lennie was saying at this point candy starts to believe the ream and he offers to join them. Then Curleys wife walks in and has an argument with the three men and threatens crooks by saying se could heave him hung, it is after Curleys wife leaves the bunkhouse that crooks decides to withdraw his offer and end his dream. Curleys wife dream is different from all the other means dreams. When she was younger, a man said that he was a film producer and that when he went he would come back for her and she would be in the movie. She waited for long for the man to send for her but he never did, she thought it her mother hid the letters but I think the man was not a real director; he was just flirting with her. Curleys wife manages to end all of the dreams she firstly ends crooks dream by telling him that she could get him hung, then she ends everyone elses dream when she dies because Lennie killed her and George then knows their dreams are over and her dream is over because she dies.

The Dual Role of Gods in The Iliad Essay -- Iliad essays

The Dual Role of Gods in The Iliad      Ã‚   With even a cursory exposure to ancient Greek texts, it is obvious that the gods and goddesses are very important in traditional Greek culture. As literary figures in mythos and specific poetry and drama, the gods dabble in the life of man, predict his fate, and routinely thwart any attempt for him to entirely forge his own future. But for those of us who are not extensively schooled in antiquities, it is hard to pinpoint exactly what the gods are to the ancient Greeks, and what they are to us as readers of literature who live outside the culture. Were the gods accepted as parable figures, meant to instruct? Were they used to explain acts of nature? Do they now belong to anything outside the scope of literary history?    Rather than speculate about the role of gods in all of Greek culture, it is more manageable to look at one specific text and determine the role its gods play within its world. In The Iliad, the gods are an integral part of the poem. Their foibles and fickleness recall for the reader the humanness of the Greek gods, and spark a mental association of men to myths. This makes the long-dead warriors more real to anyone who reads the poem. But the gods of The Iliad also inculcate what could be nothing more than a dry account of a historical war that no one recorded while it was happening. This historical-cultural element, one that connects the events of that unwritten war to readers by pulling the past into the present, make the old archetypes oddly modern and applicable to the present day world and its men. One of the most interesting lines in The Iliad is when one Aias tells the other that he recognizes Poseidon, who has disguised himself as K... ...ormalized remembrance; the gods' inclusion make that remembrance bigger than any sterile account or battlefield casualty list could be. This expanded scope makes relevant the deaths of would-be anonymous warriors, makes tragedy out of widows and orphans, makes us think about the cycles of human aggression. The gods and their powerful presence is one element of this relevant piece of historic art.    Works Cited and Consulted Camps, W. A. An Introduction to Homer. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Homer. "The Iliad." Western Literature in a World Context: The Ancient World through the Renaissance. Ed. Paul Davis et al. vol 1. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. 25-156. Steiner, George, and Fagles, Robert, eds. Homer: A Collection of Critical Essays. Twentieth Century Views, ed. Maynard Mack. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1962.   

Grades do not Reflect Intelligence Essay

As young adults we have been tested many times over the years, whether it be by a parent, friend or life itself however, the most common of tests we receive are from school. Growing up we were taught to believe that A meant smart and F meant dumb. Time and time again this caused distress in students who were very smart but declared dumb by the education system. Contrary, students who were receiving higher marks are not necessarily the most intelligent. Eventually, people came to the realization that the marks received on tests in fact were not an accurate representation of ones intelligence but merely a showcase of their ability to memorize information. Firstly, the education system does not properly reflect ones intelligence due to common inflation of marks. Secondly, while we are all different, the education system provides us with the same learning and thirdly, grades are the result of effort not intelligence. As the years pass the entry level for most elite university programs rise and are currently well over 90 percent, as a high school student this can be very discouraging. Students are under an immense amount of pressure to do well and this rubs off on the teachers. More often then not teachers are faced with the pressure from students and parents asking or even demanding higher grades, many times they often ascribe any lack of high marks as the teachers fault. Coincidently, as of 2007 more than 60 percent of Ontario high school graduates had an A average, and 10 percent had an A+ average. According to Western University professor James Cà ´tà © that’s up from 40 percent in 1980. (Authority) In todays society many are obsessed with the best, resulting in many parents wanting to send their children to the best schools. This ultimately leads to schools feeling pressure to maintain their supreme standing. Many schools use the success of their past students to enhance their title. For both these reasons listed, inflation occurs. Schools and teachers are raising the marks of their students to their benefit. Of course they are just trying to help however, more often than not they are doing the complete opposite. According to a 2010 report from Brock University, students who entered university with a 90 percent or higher average in high school experienced a dramatic drop of 11.9 percent. Whereas students with high school marks in the 60-79 percent range only dropped 4.4 percent. (Statistic) Grade  inflation does not truthfully assess students learning, resulting in greater problems for their future. With the common act of inflation it is hard to decipher the difference in learning abilities between students. As human beings we are all diverse, not one an identical copy, now if this is the case why does the education system treat us like we are? (Rhetorical question) The education system has made some improvements over the years by dividing students based on their learning but there is much more work to be done. In high school there is a lack of diversity in available courses. There are a multitude of academic courses and very little courses related to apprenticeships and trades. High schools push and push for students to take these academic courses and follow suite to university, when the reality is not everyone is meant to go to university, and that is not a bad thing. However, the truth of this is being concealed by all the grade inflations and false hope given to students. After high school many students will come to the unfortunate realization that just because they did well in high school does not mean they will do the same in university and the high school education system will be to blame for that. If high schools represented college in a more positive way, many students would feel more comfortable and confident in taking the appropriate courses to accommodate to their learning needs. In reality, many students aren’t even aware that they have so many more options outside of these academic courses because the high schools are not making them available. This results in students who learn differently to be put in the same classes and tested the same ways, resulting in one being smarter than the other, when this is in fact not true. Albert Einstein once said, â€Å"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.† (Authority) Therefore, high schools should not test all students equally, but take the time to adhere to their learning abilities and follow suite with appropriate courses and testing. In addition to every student being completely different, it doesn’t help that there are so many of us. There are 105 secondary schools in the Toronto District School Board alone, meaning there are approximately 87, 273 students, and 5, 800 teachers. (Statistic) Now in this whole system of people, one can’t help but wonder, is my A+ the same as you’re A+? (Rhetorical question) If Sally is an intelligent student who doesn’t try hard at all and is managing to pass with  B’s and Julie is at a lower intelligence level but working her butt off to turn her C’s into B’s does this mean t hese grades are equivalent? (Example) Do these grades communicate anything about Sally and Julie’s intelligence, or are they merely a showcase of their efforts? (Rhetorical question) Grades are important yes, but they cannot determine ones intelligence. Grades show teachers how well you are able to retain information; they are an example of who sat down, put the effort in and studied and who didn’t. Yes, it may be easier for an â€Å"intelligent† person to get good grades, but someone of mediocre intelligence can also get good grades with hard work. High schools make test marks out to be everything, when in reality, as stated before; they are not an accurate representation of ones intelligence. Just because John got perfect on a math test and Billy didn’t, does not mean John is smarter, it means they excel in different areas and should be treated accordingly. Time after time many students will find themselves discouraged by their low marks, but that does not have to be the case. With the right amount of effort, and the right guidance everyone has the opportunity to be a genius. It is now time for the education system to put their best foot forward and conjure the effort to make this happen. In conclusion, it is evident that high school grades are no longer an accurate representation of students’ intelligence. Grades are inflated, students who are at completely different ends of the spectrum are getting the same tests and effort now differentiates most students’ grades, how can one possibly believe that this system accurately demonstrates the knowledge of our youth? (Rhetorical question) High schools need to develop a system that can evenly show case everyone’s intelligence. Until that is done, high achieving students will keep being told their brilliant and low achieving students will keep being pushed from, grade to grade. Overall, the question still remains, if academics cannot determine our intellect, what is the true test of intelligence?

Right to Counsel

Right to Counsel CJA/364 October 9, 2011 Right to Counsel Every individual is afforded the right to counsel in criminal proceedings. It is the liability of the government to provide every defendant facing criminal charges with legal representation that also is considered sufficient (2011). The Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees every individual the right to a swift and public trial from an unbiased jury of his or her peers in the state or district in which the crime was committed in (1995-2011). The district should have been beforehand established by law, and to be educated of the nature and reason for the charge, the right to face the eyewitness in opposition of him or her, to have necessary process for gathering eyewitnesses in his or her support (1995-2011). Last, the Sixth Amendment affords and individual the right to have the aid of an attorney for his or her defense (1995-2011). The last statement of the Sixth Amendments establishes that every individual has a right to counsel from the very second he or she is placed in police confinement (2011). The judgments of the U. S. Supreme Court also indicates that the Right to Counsel be provided to any individual who is insolvent or penniless and that the individual is guaranteed the right to the attendance of a court-appointed counsel at a crucial point in the criminal trial (2011). The crucial points of these proceedings are composed of custodial questioning, pre-charge lineups, preliminary examinations, arraignment, trial, punishment, and the first appeal of guilty verdict (2011). The Right to Counsel was initiated as a response to the English custom of refusing the aid of counsel in severe criminal proceedings that forces individuals to be present in court and represent his or herself in his or her own words (2011). An example of the strictness of the practice to deny counsel is evident in the trial of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots in 1568 (2011). Queen Mary was indicted for treason for supposedly plotting to kill Queen Elizabeth I (2011). Queen Mary requested the aid of an attorney on the basis that the laws and statutes of England were unfamiliar to her, she was without an attorney and no one would stand up and speak for her (2011). Queen Mary was eventually found guilty of her crimes and sentenced to death by beheading (2011). The creators of the U. S. Constitution deemed the denial of an attorney revolting to the fundamental ideology of criminal justice (2011). The creators of the U. S. Constitution ascertained that the aid of an attorney was an important factor in sustaining an accusatorial method of justice (2011). The accusatorial method of justice leaves the problem on the state to determine the guiltiness of the defendant (2011). The accusatorial method is in disagreement with the inquisitorial method in which fault or blamelessness is established through questioning of the defendant (2011). The Supreme Court also has interpreted the Sixth Amendment to mean that a defendant is entitled to an attorney that the attorney must also be effective in representing the defendant (2011). The Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that the representation must be diligent and significant (2011). The Supreme Court established that if a defendant is not provided with effective counsel during court proceedings, the conviction could be overturned (2011). The Supreme Court has also established that although the Sixth Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have an attorney, whether the attorney is hired or delegated by the courts that an individual may also represent his or herself (2004-2011). Any individual has the right to represent his or herself in court but a judge may refuse the individual that right to be his or her own counsel if the judge deems the individual lacks the capability to exercise a knowing or competent dismissal of an attorney (2004-2011). The judge may also deny an individual the right to represent his or herself if the representation is in any way disorderly of normal court proceedings (2004-2001). The right for an individaul to represent his or herself is granted only at normal court proceedings and is not available when a case is before the courts on appeal (2004-2011). If a person is granted the right to represent his or herself in court, that individual cannot later state the quality of his or her defense deprived him or her of sufficient aid to an attorney (2004-2011). The crucial components of right to an attorney is highlighted in the case of McKaskle v. Wiggins that detailed the self-represented defendants rights vis-a-vis â€Å"standby counsel† delegated by the trial court (2004-2011). If the defendant is representing his or herself, he or she has the power of how information is presented to the jurors (2004-2011). Even if there is an attorney on standby, the attorney’s presence should in no way alter the jury’s assessment that the individual is representing his or herself (2004-2011). But involvement of a standby attorney in the company of the jury and despite the protest of the defendant does not infringe on the defendants constitutional rights afforded by the Sixth Amendment when the aid is in agreement with normal courtroom principles and practices that alleviates the trail judge of these responsibilites (2004-2011). Some defendants may think it is wise to represent his or herself but if the individual is not well versed in the law he or she could make major mistakes that may cause him or her to lose his or her freedom. It is said that a person who represents his or herself has a fool for a client. An attorney is a delegate of citizens, an officer of the criminal justice system and the public that has an accountability to ensure justice is dispensed (1995-199). The role of an attorney has many facets; a consultant, promoter, delegate, mediator, and an assessor (1995-1999). As a consultant an attorney notifies his or her client with knowledge of his or her constitutional rights and responsibilites and clarifies his or her realistic suggestions (1995-1999). As a promoter an attorney feverously emphasizes the client’s point under the standards of the adversary method (1995-1999). As a delegate an attorney searches for an outcome beneficial to the client but uniform with the necessities of truthful dealings with others (1995-1999). As a mediator among clients an attorney searches to settle his or her conflicting interest (1995-1999). As an assessor an attorney researches his or her client’s legal dealings and informs the client or others of the legal dealings (1995-1999). In criminal court proceedings the prosecutor who works for the state, and the defense attorney who can also work for the state but is there to aid the defendant. The U. S. Supreme Court established in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright that the basic role of applies in a just criminal justice system (2011). The Justices collectively determined that the states possess a legal responsibility afforded within the Sixth and 14th Amendments to offer counsel to any individual who cannot afford one (2011). The judgment emphasized that a penniless individual in a criminal proceeding is guaranteed the aid of an attorney as a basic civil right necessary to ensure a just trial, a client’s trial and sentence deprived of an attorney is an infringement of the 14th Amendment (2011). The privilege to have an ttorney is the most basic bureaucratic safety measure to ensure a just trial in which the government and the defendant stand alike in the eyes of the law (2011). As stated earlier, the Supreme Court established that if a defendant is not provided with effective counsel during court proceedings, the conviction could be overturned (2011). References Right to Counsel 2011 http://legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/right+to+counsel Retrieved October 9, The Exclusionary Rule January 16, 1999 The United States Constitution 1995-2011 U. S. Constitution Online http://www. usconstitution. net/const. html#Am1 Retrieved October 9, 2011 Self Representation 2004-2011 http://supreme. justia. com/constitution/amendment-06/16-self-representation. html Retrieved October 9, 2011 Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilites 1995-1999 Touch N’ Go Systems http://touchngo. com/lglcntr/ctrules/profcon/profcon. htm Retrieved October 9, 2011 National Committee on the Right to Counsel 2011 National Legal Aid and Defender Associaton http://www. nlada. org/Defender/Defender_Kit/NCRC Retrieved October 9, 2011

William Faulkner #8211; Barn Burning

William Faulkner #8211; Barn Burning Barn Burning is a short story that was written by an American author- William Faulkner. Faulkner has brought out a mysterious characterization of Snopes.   It is a story that has ten year old Sarty Snopes as the main character who is faced by a conflict. Sarty’s father is a barn burner and he is divided as to whether he should let it to the judges that his father faces on two different occasions. In the first case, his father is taken to court and charged with burning Mr. Harrys barn. Even though he is guilty, he walks away scot free and the bad thing about it is that it is not the first and is not going to be the last barn he burns as we see in the story later. It is an injustice and he wishes that he could stop it, but on the other hand, he should protect the family name. this brings out the basis upon which the story rotates. The stors main theme is a conflict in which Sarty has to find which one among his family and his community he should identify with. Abner Snopes, Sartys father keeps on reminding him that family relations are very important and that he was getting to be a man. He got to learn to stick to his own blood or he wont have any blood to sticking to him (Main story: p 3) the major theme in the book is about finding ones identity, or choosing what to identify with. There is constant identity crisis. The book presents Sarty with two opposing choices. He can choose to side with his father because they are related by blood or choose to be loyal to the justice system in the community. Sarty knows very well that his father does burn barns and he does not advocate for his great injustice that the owners of the barns are subject to but his father keeps on drumming the fact that he has to take only the sides of his blood relatives. In his own opinion, we see that he argues that they are the ones who can side with you in all circumstances. In his statement earlier referred to, he adds that those people in the court were not going to side with him even if Sarty would have decided to testify against him. (Main story: p.3)   this idea of being loyal to the family members is evidently something that the boy must have been taught from a very early age because, even before the father reminds him that there was no need for him to go testifying in court against his father to bring about justic e, he had already set the court people as enemies in his mind, He fiercely aligns himself with a loyalty to blood as opposed to the justice of the court: †¦ our enemy/he thought in that despair; ourne/ mine and his both!/†¦ (Main story: p.1) Another instance where he shows his allegiance to the loyalty of the family is when he fights with other two boys because they ridicule him and heir father, they call him a barn burner. Although it might be clear that he lived in terror and fear of his father, he cannot just stand the soiling of both his father’s and his own name. (Main story: p.2). in the process of fighting, he is hurt, this shows the sacrifice he would make to ensure that he protects his family name, irregardless of whether they are on the wrong. This presents a great contrast to the fact that had the judge not dismissed him, he would have testified against his father.   When confronted by the father, Sarty does not hide the fact that he had been planning to tell the truth, and his father slaps him. At this point, we might be driven to think that his loyalty is imposed on him by his father. He admits to us that when his father told him that they just wanted to get him because he had beat them, had he answ ered that what they wanted was simply justice and the truth, he would have hit him again. So he preferred to keep quiet. After this incident, the judge is forced to find Snopes innocent despite the fact that he has been responsible for burning more than one barn. We see that in the area where the people do farming, so much importance is attached to barns which are the store houses in the area. He does not burn farm houses. However, he is issued with an order to leave the country for a neighboring country immediately. Young Sarty is faced with such a difficult choice. He can either choose to side with his father pledging his allegiance to blood ties, or choose to be just and reject his father’s evil deeds. In their new home, their landlord is a certain Major de Spain.   We see the way Snopes starts manipulating the situation to make Sarty aware that he is watching him this time. The statement †¦the man that aims to begin to-morrow owning my body and soul for the next eight months†¦ might just be an indication of the sorry life that he lives, such that he feels obligated to teach his son, Sarty to always side with him in his endeavors. It could just be a way of saying that other people will always make him be under their control and either he plans to control his son in turn to be his slave as he finds strength in having at least someone who is obedient to him. When Snopes takes Sarty along for a walk, we see clearly what the wish of young Sarty is. The wish that his father changes is seen by the way he figures the fact that his father will be able to change now that he has come to these rich mens mansion. Major de Spains house, according to Sarty is comparable to a place of law: Hit’s as big as a court house. (Main story: p.4) this emphasizes the theme of justice. He thinks that the splendor that the mansion displays will change his father. . (Commentary: p. 2). This was reason enough for Sarty to experience some peace, as highlighted in the second page of the commentary. This demonstrates the hopes that the boy has, he believes that his father will change so that at least he would not have to side with injustices. Unfortunately, it seems to be disillusionment, something that you dream about but never really happens. The father’s stiff black back represents rigidity that Sarty cannot fathom. He is not just about to abandon his illegal activity of barn burning. He derives some pleasure in it and cannot just quit.   The many stiff attribute of this man show a lot of rigidity. The radiance of the mansion is something very inconsequential to his bad habits. The rigidity that Sarty finally realizes that the father possesses motivates him to pursue a different line of identity. He figures out that the father has potential to change but he is stringent in avoiding it. The horse droppings incidence tells it all. He deliberately steps on it so he can dirty Major de Spains rug. He is always seeking trouble as his poor boy wishes that he changes his behavior. It was beyond his belief that his father would be unjust so deliberately. He is an evil character. His being wounded in the Civil War, has made him a bitter man, so he throws it about to other people blindly especially those who oppose him, or pose threats to him. How he knew those who do that to him is not clear. For instance, in Mr. Harris case, he had made an effort to help him when he thought that was what was needed- a roll of barbed wire, but the reaction was the same and by any chance, he was humiliated.   Maybe, Snopes must have been a very disturbed man. His name itself begun w ith a sn sound, an unpleasant sound. A silent and sullen man, walked with a limp. This is very handy when we come to learn that he had received the wound while stealing horses while he was still young.(Commentary: p. 2) After the house incidence that would have been a booster to the change of Sarty, we see him once more in the payment of some money to de Spain for having destroyed his carpet. Father and son team up and decide to ensure that they will not pay, due to the snobbish tone that Major de Spain tells his father that he cannot afford a hundred dollars. Ha asks for twenty bushels, that they both agree, with Sarty insisting that it was unfair and that they wont pay. However, Sarty does that in what is supposedly a mission to ensure that the father does is prevented from burning de Spains barn.   It looks like a derailment tactic. He feels bad that the father had been defeated but this is ironical since he is supporting an injustice because he imagines it is mild, in his opinion, as he argues that the de Spain is so unfair. He is irritated that Mr. de Spain dismisses his father that he cannot get a hundred dollars. Unluckily, even this does not seem to set his fathers mind from planning to bu rn the barn. This is the time when they clash so badly and the father is so visibly angry at all of them, for trying to stop him from burning de Spain’s barn. Sparty explanation for his fathers mystery of burning burns and yet he builds very little fires at the camp, see the provision of a very questionable explanation. Fire is his weapon of maintaining integrity as well as hitting back at his enemies. The use of fire is his one and only source of power to be used selectively and effectively should anyone cross his path thus anger him. (Commentary: p.3). It is however mysterious that he builds very small fires at the camp and yet he strikes his enemies with fire. His having been in the army at a certain time might have been the reason why he uses small fires for cover up. When Mr. de Spain tells his father to pay the twenty bushels, Sarty knows for a fact that if he is made to pay de Spain, he will surely burn his barn again. He goes to court and almost reveals the secret in an attempt to defend his father. He thinks that they are accusing him of something, not knowing that he was the plaintiff. Sarty is caught off guard this time by his fathers intension to burn Mr. de Spains barn. He even tries to delay his plan by suggesting the sending of someone to warn Mr. de Spin that his barn will be burned but his father already knows what he stands for and won’t let his plan fail. Despite the mothers effort to restrain him from going, he struggles with her and ensures that he defeats her. His aunt supports his course and even threatens to go if his mother does not let him go. Even his mother sides with him, that making the three of them against one. His problem is not abnormal after all. He frees himself and takes off towards Mr. de Spains house. He does the only sensible thing that crosses his mind, he reports to Mr. Spain who runs to the farm and shoots towards that direction. As the story ends, we do not know whether Sarty’s father is alive, but seemingly, it is too late. This time, the community justice overtook the loyalty to the family. As he sits in the crest o f the hill and thinks about exactly what happened, Sarty is just sad, maybe because he has lost his family and will have to start a new life on his own. He will no longer be bound to the family ties that he was so much bound to that all his decisions depended on it. It’s a whole new beginning for him. He is presented with a world where he does not know anything and will have to learn all things, but there is hope. Nothing binds him to support injustices. He has all the justice within reach, he can keep his dignity. A new world is set for him. Even Snopes himself suffers the identity crisis problem. Only that could explain the reason why he was always trying to hurt other people or trying to make so many enemies. Even in the war, we are told that he did not fight along any side. Even though he makes his sons life so difficult so that the son lives in constant fear and despair, he suffers more than Sarty does. He has not done anything to make people appreciate him, but is always trying to identify his enemies and destroy them. In his own opinion, he might not even be having friends, to identify with. In another light however, we find that the theme that the narrator tries to bring out is self eliminatory, if one of either sides is achieved, the other is eliminated. The author must have been aiming to eliminate the traditional views of Snopes that saw him making his son a slave to family support. If Sarty had chosen to be loyal to his father, he would never have tried to save the situation. Probably he would have ended up like his father since he would be an accomplice to the evil things that he did. On the other hand, we see Snopes having been made to be something we cannot quite conceive. It is quite difficult to imagine a man would be bad enough to force his son live in captivity of having to side with his illegal deeds. We also do not expect him to be the one suing Mr. de Spain. He had wronged him by marring his rug, and the best he would do was wait for him to be the one taking him to court. In short, the author tried to manipulate the characters in an extra ordinary way to c ome up this theme. It’s also interesting how the racial issues have been brought out. As much as Snopes sees himself as a person looked down upon, he knows that he has one up above the niggers. Thats the reason why he dismisses the butler when he tries to stop him at the door to get into the de Spain’s mansion. Though slightly brought out, the racial discrimination brought about sends us back to history. Its a historical representation. At least, apart from the fact that there were such issues (racial) one would think that that was all that there was in this land. It shows that even the whites had their own troubles to deal with. In conclusion, we see that the author went a long way to bring out the theme of identity crisis. Creation of stereotypes was the tactic he found most appropriate to do so. He bundles one person with all the negative characters so that he could be a barrier for the main character to have a crisis. In addition, we see that the story is mostly told from Sartys point of view so that we are being led to feel sorry for him. Though the author deviates to get into historical events that might have occurred in the main characters absence, the rest of the story revolves around him such that he does not use any other characters perspective that would bring different light to the whole story. This might have been done to speed up the development of the theme. Otherwise the theme has been clearly outlined.

Research Paper Summary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Research Paper Summary - Essay Example Similarly, new strategies can be integrated slowly with traditional methods that worked in order to arrive at the right product. This strategy is important to business organizations in the sense that it is responsive to the changes in the competitive, challenging modern environment of business. Secondly, the process of making strategy, according to Mintzberg, must be well choreographed and intended to herald action. Nevertheless, he suggests strategies can yield effective outcomes in their original status or when reformed. Thirdly, Mintzberg’s (1987) argument that strategists do not have to be senior members of the management is in line with the course readings. The sourcing of strategists from within an organization is particularly important because such individuals are well conversant with the inner-workings of the organization; they have the capacity to achieve the needed goals within the prevailing organizational culture. The course readings about strategy management are in line with Mintzberg’s analogy of a potter and how they are connected with their work in that, in both cases, the strategists must be individuals who have passion in pursuing the best for the company. Lastly, unfavorable conditions may prevent the ideal potter from creating a piece of art, despite having a mound of ready clay, but as a strategist, he or she may use the lump to make an equally important item that is different from the one planned before. In the same way potters do their job strategies do arise from time to time and anywhere (Mintzberg, 1987). As such, strategists must be prepared to postpone plans, create new products and have the capacity to turn errors into opportunity. By seeking the input of craftsmen and women who are devoted, passionate and intimately mesmerized by the materials they use to create an end product, the process

Equity and trusts Master Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Equity and trusts Master - Case Study Example However it is important the trust instrument must allow the property to be identified clearly. (The K-Zone - Certainty of Subject Matter) The transfer of five thousand shares in Echo Ltd to be held in Trust will be considered as valid trust property as has been decided in the case of Re Rose (1952)4. The fact that the transfer of the shares was not registered does not affect the creation of the trust covering the shares, as the legal presumption is that even when the settler has not done enough to effect a legal transfer the act of creating a trust including the shares as the trust property will constitute a trust. The transfer of some prime agricultural land from the farm which Andy will inherit under his father's will does not constitute a trust. This is due to the fact that the title to the property in the passes to Andy only on the death of his father when the will takes effect. As the subject matter of the trust is not certain there is no creation of any trust in respect of the agricultural land. This is the case of a 'future property' that the settler expects to obtain. Any attempt to create a trust of a future property will be considered as void as the setter does not have the right to transfer the title to the trustee (The K-Zone - Future Property) This issue is well settled in Re Ellenborough 19035. 3. Transfer of house property to Pat - On her marriage to Jonathan In this case when Andy creates a trust of the house property in favour of Pat on the condition that she marries Jonathan it gives rise to a case that a court of equity would compel Andy to constitute the Trust if he reneges on his commitment (The K-Zone - Marriage Consideration). However there are no specific case laws to prove that marriage consideration would still constitute a valid purpose for the creation of a trust for a modern court. But the existence of marriage consideration is attracted by the basic implication of 'unregistered conveyancing' which may require the transfer of title to Pat. 4. Transfer to Richard one of the house properties In Milroy v Lord 18626 there are three processes that must be carried out to recognize the transfer of any property as a valid gift. They are: An outright transfer of legal title to the beneficiary An outright transfer to trustees to hold on trust for the beneficiary or a self declaration trust The principle to be considered here is that the above three circumstances are mutually exclusive and the courts will not consider an imperfect gift as a trust or vice versa. The principle established in the case of Re Rose 1952 though has been made specifically applicable to transfer of shares can equally be