Recent orders
Analysis of the book, A God Man is Hard to Find, by Flannery OConnor.
(Name)
(Instructors’ name)
(Course)
(Date)
Analysis of the book, A God Man is Hard to Find, by Flannery O’Connor.
Introduction
We live in a world that is characterized by good and evil, and as most individuals struggle with being good and performing good acts, others are comfortable exercising evil and performing bad acts. The idea of good and evil is depicted in most artistic pieces ranging from paintings, films, music, and literature. Interestingly, everyone has individual perceptions regarding good and evil, while some draw their ideas from philosophical thought, others base their ideas on religious teachings and practices. One such literary piece is the book, A Good Man is hard to Find, written by the famous American novelist Flannery O’Connor. Influenced by her religious background and her home region, the O’Connor narrates the story of a family who are murdered while taking a vacation trip.
O’Connor is well famed for her emphasis of grotesque stories and characterization, which is considered as being realist, as opposed to, idealist (Connie 74-78). Her literary works were, greatly, influenced by the South, and she uses this setting to bring out her ideas in every literary piece she produces. Accordingly, the author uses her religious background when judging moral and ethical behavior, and for that reason, her literary pieces of work have good versus evil as their central themes. Using morally flawed characters, as well as, presumably morally upright characters, the author presents intriguing stories that capture the interests of her audience at all times (Connie 74-78). More specifically, the novel, A Good Man is Hard to Find, the story is set in Georgia, with the year and time having no explicit definition or designation. The story takes place in two main places: the first place is Georgia, whereas the second setting is on a roadside, more specifically in a ditch. Using these two settings, the author tells the story of how a family was murdered during their trip for a vacation in Florida.
This paper presents a literary analysis of the book, A God Man is Hard to Find, by Flannery O’Connor. The paper provides an analysis of characterization, and point of views as brought out in the novel. The paper also examines how the author uses symbolism, irony, foreshadowing, and similes to elucidate and enhance the theme of good versus evil.
Characterization
In literature, the characters refer to the people in the text, whose story the author is keen on narrating to readers and audience. In view of that, characterization refers to the author’s development and presentation of characters in the novel (Peterson 1). Just like all other writers, O’Connor has employed two main methods of presenting her audience with her characters in the novel, A Good man is Hard to Find. These methods include direct characterization and indirect characterization. With direct characterization, the narrator directly informs readers about the characters in the novel (Peterson 1). This information can range from providing a description of the characters, as well as, the use of names and overt commentary. Direct characterization in the novel, A Good Man is hard to Find, is presented in two ways including an analysis of the characters by the author, as well as, naming. The author gives Misfit his name as an illustration of his personality and life experiences. Indirect characterization has also been utilized for the novel’s story development, and the author allows each of her characters to reveal themselves and their personalities as the story continues. O’Connor manages to bring this out through the provision of details such as, appearance, mannerisms, as well as, speech (Peterson 1). Evidently, two main characters are revealed in the novel including the grandmother and the misfit. Whereas the grandmother is brought out as the protagonist, the misfit is obviously the antagonist in the story. As a character, the grandmother is the focal point of the story, and she because she considers herself as morally upright, she constantly passes judgment to other characters and criticizes their activities. She does not judge her own ways, something that she later comes to regret immediately before her death. The misfit, on the other hand, is the character that seems to lack moral conscience and is constantly in conviction. Observably, the misfit is brought out as the strongest character in the book in relation to disposition, as he possesses characteristics that all other characters do not.
Point of View
The novel, A Good man is Hard to Find, is written from the third person or omniscient point of view. Accordingly, it is the grandmother’s thoughts and point of view that the readers have access to, thus revealing the use of the third person point of view in the novel. In the novel, O’Connor reports the grandmother’s thoughts, as well as, her actions and conversations thus introducing a new point of view namely, the limited omniscient point of view. An example of this is revealed where the author writes “she knew that Bailey would not be willing to lose anytime looking at an old house” (O’Connor 35). This statement reveals to the readers the grandmothers thoughts about her son Bailey. Misfit is the only other character whose actions, and thoughts that the readers are introduced to, thus building on the third person point of view. However, readers get to learn about Misfit’s ideas in the last part of the novel after he has murdered the family. In one of his thoughts regarding the grandmother, Misfit states, “She would have been a good woman,.. if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life” (O’Connor 89). This statement reveals Misfit’s thoughts about the grandmother, as well as, good versus evil.
Symbolism
Symbolism is one of the literary elements that O’Connor has employed in telling the story. In essence, symbolism refers to the process of giving a person, object. or event a meaning that is outside its literal meaning (Peterson 6). Put simply, it is a literary element, which involves the use of representation or imagery. A closer examination of the novel reveals the use of various symbols including grandmother’s hat, Misfit’s car, Toombsboro, the dark forest and the sunless cloudless sky. More specifically, Toombsboro, the town which grandmother and her family pass before their death is used symbolically in the novel. Ideally, Toombsboro is the old plantation where grandmother has memories about (O’Connor, 85). However, the name of the plantation, as well as, the events that take place immediately after passing the plantation reveal something deeper than an old plantation. The name of the plantation suggests doom and misfortune, thus the death of the grandmother and her family.
Irony
O’Connor also employs the use of Irony as a literary element in her novel, A Good man is hard to Find. In literature, irony occurs when one of the characters fails to perceive the obvious (Peterson 5). More specifically, the character fails to understand what the reader and the audience automatically understands when reading the novel. Irony in the novel is demonstrated in the way the grandmother considers herself as a proper and morally upright lady, something that the readers would not consider as true. To the readers, the grandmother actions and thoughts bring her out as a different person from who she think of herself. She is manipulative, she lies and has racist tendencies, and the character sees herself as the opposite of this. However, towards the end of the novel, the character soon realizes that she is not who she considers herself to be but she dies before she can make any changes.
Foreshadowing
In literary writing, foreshadowing is a literary technique where the author uses his characters to foretell the activities that are likely to occur in the novel. Evidently, foreshadowing is O’Connor’s main choice in relation to literary techniques and the author uses the character of the grandmother to foreshadow the tragic developments that occur later on in the novel. An example of the use of foreshadowing is illustrated when the grandmother wears her best clothes and hat for the trip with the excuse that something tragic might happen to the family during the trip. The grandmother states, “in case of an accident, anyone seeing her dead on the highway would know at once that I was a lady” (O’Connor 6). This statement foretells the death of the entire family in the hands of the Misfit, which occurs in the last section of the book.
Simile
In the novel, O’Connor also utilizes a number of literary devices to tell her story. Evidently, the author makes her words contribute to the effect of the story through the use of similes. The author’s use of similes in the novel both demonstrates her literary skills, as well as, the events taking place in the novel. An example of a simile used in the novel is in the description of the children’s mother. “She was a young woman in slacks, whose face was as broad and as innocent as a cabbage”(O’Connor 24). This simile, illustrate the gullibility and incompetence of the mother, which makes it easy for others to manipulate her.
Conclusion
In her novel, A Good Man is Hard to Find, Flannery O’Connor employs the use of various literary elements, techniques and devices to narrate her story. These literary elements and devices include irony, foreshadowing, symbolism, and similes among other things. Because the central theme of the novel is good versus evil, the author uses these literary elements, techniques, and devices to tell her story. Observably, the author effectively utilized these elements, techniques, and devices to communicate the theme of good versus evil in the story.
Work Cited
Connie, Ann Kork. Critical Companion to Flannery O’Connor. New York: Infobase Publishing,
2008. Print. pp. 74–78.
O’Connor, Flannery. A Good Man is Hard to Find. New York: Rutgers University Press, 1953.
Print.
Peterson, D. K. Literary Elements. 15 January 1999. Web. 13 November 2011. <<
http://www.smccd.net/accounts/erpelol/Courses/spring06/lit265aa/worksheets/literary_elements.pdf>>
Analysis of Michael Walzer’s opinions on the bombing of Horoshima by the United States of America in 1945
Name
Lecturer
Course
Date
Hiroshima Bombing
This paper gives a critical analysis of Michael Walzer’s opinions on the bombing of Horoshima by the United States of America in 1945. According to Walzer, this war was unjust. In fact, he argues that the attack did not meet the minimum requirements of the military morals. Unlike the Israel Six Day War, this was a punitive aggressive act exclusively meant to meet unjustified ends and cause agonies to the Japanese.
However, I would like to disagree with him by strongly suggesting that this action was justified. First, it would be the most appropriate way of forcing Japan to surrender without any delay. Otherwise, the fight would have continued for a very long time. This helped to save the lives of at least 200,000 Japanese and US soldiers who would have died in case the war continued.
In addition, it would help to counteract the already emerging tension in Europe under the umbrella of the United Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR). In order to convince Stalin to behave, it was necessary that such a force had to be used. This was a valid reason because it would pave the way for American dominance in this region. As we all understand, this was as important to the US government as saving the lives of its troops.
However, I also condemn this attack because it was not well intentioned, but only meant to bring Japan to its knees. Besides, we all know that the Americans are very aggressive. They always destroy the lives of innocent people in other nations to justify their own demands. This is one of those attacks. However, instead of acting so brutally, it would have teamed up with its allies to force Japan to surrender or sign a treaty. This would end the war without killing more people.
Analysis of Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism according to Ruth Benedict and Christina Sommers
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Analysis of Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism according to Ruth Benedict and Christina Sommers
Morality is often described as making sure that one always conforms to the rules that exist concerning conduct. However, a question that is often raised concerning morality is that, which person has the right to make rules. For example, a person who is religious will tend to claim God makes rules since he is the utmost authority regarding good conduct. However, it should be known that almost all absolute ethical theories, which philosophers developed, have no religious presuppositions. Even Aristotle claimed that the rights things are those, which are good for people as well as their states or countries. A person who is an absolutist claims that there will always be indisputable answers with regards to any moral questions that might arise. On the other hand, a person who is relativist believes that what a person thinks is right may not be the same for someone else. In this case, what is accepted in one culture may not be accepted in another culture and this philosophy is quite open. This paper seeks to give a critical analysis of why moral relativism is a philosophy that should be adapted as being universal as opposed to moral absolutism.
Ruth Benedict argues that people from various groups have their own unique views concerning morality. This depends on their environments and history, as well their different cultures. She believes that moral relativism is the proper way to view and focus on society’s morality. Benedict has been able to provide evidence in many instances as to why society will never have moral progress. For example, with regards to homosexuality, different cultures have their own stance concerning this issue. The cultural attitudes that people have concerning homosexuality has for a long time not been analyzed based on ethics. This is because homosexuality varies depending on the culture of an individual. Furthermore, different cultures have their own sets of customs and morals. An example is the Kwakiutl tribe who avenge the death of one of their people by killing other people. They rather choose to kill other people as opposed to mourning the dead person (Benedict 206). On the contrary, Americans would view this behavior of going to kill other human beings as being extreme and abnormal. The people from the Kwakiutl tribe would view their own behavior as being ‘normal’ and thus be honored because of their crude actions. It is evident from Benedict’s argument that there is no behavior, which is accepted universally. In addition, many people will be willing to take in anything that is presented to them. This explains the reason as to why moral relativism is far more powerful than moral progress according to Benedict.
Christina Hoff Sommers believes that the ozone has a moral hole and mostly, the United States has been affected because it has suffered from a cultural shift. Furthermore, with regards to absolutism, people need to always start with a foundational belief that a difference between wrong and right exists. America should be willing to believe in the values of absolutism, as even Thomas Jefferson made such claims. He believed that no human being can survive without the desire to gain the right to liberty and life as well the right to pursue happiness. He stated what he knew as opposed to giving his opinion regarding the issue; in this case, he declared a truth that was objective. According to Sommers, individuals need to be educated on the importance of moral education in order to efficiently embrace absolutism. It is no wonder she advocated for her belief on “moral education must have as its explicit aim the moral betterment of the student” (Sommers 390). Furthermore, young children should be instilled with moral education when they are quite young. Therefore, when they grow up, they will know how to differentiate between what is wrong and what is right.
The United States as well as the whole world is suffering from moral decay, as people are not aware of the value of absolutism. According to this philosophy, any innocent life that is taken by an individual is regarded as being morally wrong. People who go by this philosophy acknowledge the fact that it is wrong to abuse children, to steal or even lie, and these values are accepted all over the world. It is recommended that an absolutist needs to be mature in order to effectively understand that despite the fact that they do not have answers to everything, the answers still exist. They have to ensure that they learn about what is good and people will always disagree at one point. In this case, it is evident that absolutism and relativism will never accept each other’s philosophies (Irvine 42).
In my opinion, I concur with the argument provided by Benedict concerning moral relativism as opposed to the issue on moral progress. Every society has its unique ethics and morals that are accepted among its people. The society accepted marijuana even before it was legalized, but after it was criminalized, people viewed it in a negative light. Those people who use marijuana were thus viewed as being deviants of society. In this modern era, America is still deciding on whether it wants marijuana to be legalized and this often leads to the question of morality. If it were to be legalized, would it mean that steps were being made towards moral relativism or moral progress? This means that people have not made progress, but they are accepting things that are happening at the time. Moral neutrality has to exist so that people do not impose their personal views or their judgments. People should always have a neutral stand even when they are busy convicting others. If this takes place, cultures will be able to tolerate each other and thus not judge each other harshly.
In conclusion, attitudes are changing quite fast and it was the norm for an absolutist to see the wrong and right of any moral issue. Currently, people who claim to be secular are the ones who are non-judgmental and willing to tolerate behavior that is repugnant. This norm is at the moment under attack because society is now accepting deviant behavior that was earlier on not considered as being normal. People need to ensure that they make moral decisions and speak the truth as well as acknowledge the fact that others can sometimes make wrong decisions. Relativists should also reflect on their philosophy and ensure that people know the right things, thus, the world will be better than it is today. Indeed, moral relativism as portrayed by Ruth Benedict is more appealing as opposed to moral absolutism by Christina Sommers.
Works Cited
Benedict, R. A Defense of Moral Relativism. The Journal of General Psychology , 10 (1934): 204-213.
Irvine, W. Confronting Relativism. Academic Questions, 14, 1 (2001): 42.
Sommers, C. Are we living in a moral stone age? New York: Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, 2008.Print.