Fiction and Monkey House free essay sample

The Irony of the Kurt Vonnegut’s Works that Can be Seen in the Welcome in the Monkey House and Who I am this Time. Kurt Vonnegut is one the best writers in the world. He is one of the post modernism’s writers. He is best known as the author of Slaughter-Five. Kurt Vonnegut wrote of satirical novels whose central theme is life’s cosmic joke on humanity. Vonnegut also a science fiction author and he is known as a dystopian writer’s. Some of his famous works is the collection of ‘Welcome to the Monkey House’ and ‘Who am I this Time’. Both of the stories tell about life’s cosmic joke on humanity. Now, I will describe about the irony of the Kurt Vonnegut’s works that can be seen in the Welcome in the Monkey House and Who I am this Time. Welcome to the monkey house is the collection of the short works by Kurt Vonnegut. We will write a custom essay sample on Fiction and Monkey House or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page And Who am I this Time is one of the collections among the short story in the welcome of the monkey house. Who am I this time is told about some one who can play many characters in the drama. The narrator is good actor; and he is a director too he can play many characters that expected to him and he is a director too, and Harry Nash is the biggest actor that the club has. Firstly, he got a character as a salesman of storm windows and doors, and he said that the highest rank that he ever held on stage was either butler or policeman. After that, the narrator meets with a pretty girl that is Helene Shaw and asks her to play the Stella’s character. Harry Nash is good actor too, even somebody said that harry ought to go a psychiatrist so he could be some thing important and colorful in real life. He like lost anything, and one time he said that â€Å"who am I this time? †. When the play of this story, Helena Shaw cannot plays Stella’s the character as well as expected to her. And the director searched a new one to play Stella’s character. But in the end, she can find the character and can play it well. The narrator said that â€Å"the part of Stella is yours†. And Harry and Helena play the character together. Finally, they married and said one thing to the narrator â€Å"Who are we this time? †. In the Who am I this time, the author made us think to differentiate the real life and the acting. The author can separate the two worlds but it is like allied. It is the irony that, the character of this story, that is Harry Nash and Helena Shaw can play the character in the play, but they can play their character in the real life. It can be seen when Harry Nash plays the character of Abraham Lincoln, he can make his spouse fall in love with him, as a Harry Nash and as Abraham Lincoln. And in the end of the story, there is another irony that is when Harry Nash and Helena Shaw get married. They said that â€Å"who are we this time†, it means that they will play many character in their life until they die. There is another story of Kurt Vonnegut that contain of Irony element in the work that is Welcome to the monkey House. Welcome to the monkey house is containing of irony element too. In this story, sex which is the natural behavior of human is forbidden by the government. Welcome to the monkey house told about the condition in the future which is the world has over population. This is the time when the population of the earth is 17 billion human beings. That is too many mammals that big for a planet that small. The people were virtually packed together like drupelets . And Billy the Poet who is a person who refused the ethical birth-control pill, so, he will got the penalty for that that is $10. 000 and ten years in jail. The world government makes a two-pronged to attack on overpopulation. One pronging is the encouragement of ethical suicide, which consist of going to the nearest suicide parlor and asking a hostess to kill us painlessly while we lay on Barcalounger. The other pronging was compulsory ethical birth control. Billy the Poet does not like to do it, because he think that, sex is the natural desire of human, and it cannot forbidden by government. One day Pete Crocker, the sheriff of Barnstable County, comes to the Ethical Suicide Parlor in Hyannis and announces to the two hostesses working there that Billy the Poet, a nothing head, was about to come to Cape Cod. Billy the Poet is known to be eager to deflowering hostesses, who are all virgins, and to send them smutty poems before he violates them, and one of the hostesses is Nancy McLuhan who is works in Barcalounger. After that, Billy the Port comes to Nancy to do a dirty thing. Nancy is repulsed by the whole action and insults Billy the poet. In the end, Billy the poet leaves her alone handing her a bottle of ancient birth control pills which prevent pregnancy but allow sexual intercourse. The label on the bottle says: Welcome to the Monkey House. So, the irony in this story is when government forbids their people to having sex, and gives them pills that made them like dying. Whereas, sex is the natural desire of human that cannot forbids by the government. It is according with Billy the Port statement to Nancy McLuhan that is one day he will make her understand that sexuality is a part of human nature and must not be suppressed by the Government. In the conclusion, I see that Kurt Vonnegut is the postmodernist writers that give the irony in his works that can be seen in the both of this story.

Is the Merchant of Venice anti-Christian or anti-Semitic Essays

Is the Merchant of Venice anti-Christian or anti-Semitic Essays Is the Merchant of Venice anti-Christian or anti-Semitic Paper Is the Merchant of Venice anti-Christian or anti-Semitic Paper Essay Topic: Merchant Of Venice Play The Merchant of Venice written by Shakespeare is a powerfully expressed play of love and hate, loyalty and prejudice, justice and mercy interwoven intricately, but delicately, while reflecting the most complex human beings and their affairs surrounding them. However, before consulting the play, we should consider the time and background in which it was written and performed, for the viewpoints of the characters in The Merchant of Venice are highly influenced by the aspect of the time it had been written, the Elizabethan era. After the Diaspora (the dispersion of the Jews), the Jews in foreign lands resolutely kept up their customs and religion. They formed right-knit communities and became known for their intelligence, hard work and capability for business. Unfortunately, these gifted qualities sometimes led to their being mistrusted and resented. This was especially the case in Christian countries, where anti-Semitism feeling was very strong. During the Elizabethan era, for instance, condemning the Jews without any justifiable reason was acceptable and no questions were asked against that fact. The only reason for the mere action of cruelty was that the Jews were not Christians. However, what right did the Christians have in reproaching the Jews? Were the Jews as bad and damned as the Christians thought them to be? As a matter of course, some of the Jews were at least in some aspects. Shylock, the most important of the three Jews in The Merchant of Venice, definitely has some villainous nature in him even though his character seems rather ambiguous. First of all, Shylock is a mean miser who knows nothing but money. In fact, Shylock seems to care more for his money than for his runaway daughter, I would my daughter were dead at my foot, and the jewels in her ear: would she were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin. The way Shylock makes his precious money is by lending money to people by taking the interest, or well won thrift as he calls it. This might mean nothing to us nowadays, but for the gentlemen in Venice it was somewhat an insult, for taking interest meant that Shylock did not trust the word of a gentleman and therefore their integrity and honour. However, Shylocks obsession towards his money and profit is nevertheless understandable. Shylock is a foreigner in his own city. He may have lived all his life in Venice, yet he is treated as an alien just because he has different religious beliefs. Like his fellow Jews, therefore, he tries to rise above such prejudice and seeks security and success in money-lending business. Consequently, money means more than anything does to Shylock, it means his social statues and life for him. All Shylock wants is to be equal, and to be understood as an equal human being. I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affection, passions? Fed with the same food, huirt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? In addition, Shylock is not entirely apathetic in the matter of love. When his friend Tubal informs him with the news of his lost ring he cries, Thou torturest me, Tubal: it was my turquoise, I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. This shows that Shylock at least loved him wife, if nobody else. Antonio and the Christians will not allow themselves to lend money for profit, but to support their extravagant lifestyle they still need money loan from the Jews they persecute. Shylock has been waiting to strike back at Antonio, one of Venices principal anti-Semites, and sees his chance when the merchant is compelled to come to him for credit. Shylock fools Antonio into making a contract with a terrifying forfeiture, a pound of mans flesh, taken from a man. It becomes clear from the beginning what Shylocks intention is when he says, Ill plague him, Ill torture him. I am glad of it. When Antonio fails to pay the bond, Shylock refers obsessively and repeatedly to his bond and demands a pound of Antonios flesh, taken from the closest place to his heart. Ill have my bond; I will not hear thee speak; Ill have my bond, and therefore speak no more. Shylock is a fiend armed with scales and knife and his bloodthirsty campaign against Antonio is morally indefensible. Then again, we should also consider the situation Shylock is living in. He is not treated fairly and equally as a person but a dog, You have rated me about my monies and my usances you call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, and spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, and all for use of that which is mine own. Throughout the whole play, Shylock suffers constant verbal abuse such as evil soul, devil, dog Jew, inhuman wretch, damned, inexecrable dog etc. When seen from another perspective, Shylock can be viewed as a godly, clean-living family man who merely wished to do his business unimpeded. He is only a man driven into revenge by mindless, unreasonable persecution and theft of his only child. He is a misguided soul who tried to get even within the law of those who hate him, only to be cruelly tricked a humiliated yet again. Jessica, Shylocks daughter is another main Jew in The Merchant of Venice. She is not a filial daughter, for she elopes with a Christian, Lorenzo, betraying her father, his faith and his religion. To make the matter worse for Shylock, Jessica also takes a considerable amount of his dear fortune and jewels. In any historical and moral case, a daughter betraying her father is unacceptable. However, was the elopement entirely Jessicas fault? It is true that Jessica took some part in the elopement and stealing her fathers money. However, she was persuaded by Lorenzo and his love for her. In a way, Jessica is a victim of Lorenzos deception. It could be seen that Lorenzo eloped with Jessica, knowing well that she would bring considerable sum of her fathers money. Not very surprisingly, when the money is used up, Lorenzos love for Jessica seems to be drying up at the same time. Yet, Lorenzos behaviour towards Jessica changes once more when he hears the news of Shylock agreeing give his money to daughter. How do the Christians differ from the Jews they persecute? Are they so much superior that they have the right to condemn another human being? The fact that the Christians think they differ greatly from the Jews is evident from the phrase, thou shalt see the difference of your spirit. Externally, Christians are gentle, amiable and honourable people who know the difference between right and wrong. They value each others honour immensely that they can even afford to lend money without any interest. They believe in nothing but rightful justice, all the while being merciful at the same time. However, could it be true that the gentlemen exterior is just a mask with its title of honour? It is definitely possible; at least in the way Shakespeare saw it. Bassanio, a Christian, uses his close friend, Antonio, for money. What is worse, Bassanio takes advantage of Antonios love, which is evident from his words, And if it stand as you yourself still do within the eye of honour, be assured my purse, my person, my extremest means lie all unlocked to your occasions, and does not pay the money back after squandering more and more of it. Ultimately, Bassanio gets Antonio into trouble with his enemy Shylock, yet again because of the money. Another good thing about Christians are that they are lovers when the Jews are said to be as unfeeling as stones. However, instead of marrying for their love, the Christian men seem to be marrying for the money and the position. For instance, when Bassanio describes Portia to Antonio the first thing he says about her is the amount of her money, in Belmont is a lady richly left, and she is fair This simple order of sentence implies that the prior reason Bassanio is going to marry Portia is not love, but her money and that the first thing he sees in love is also money. In fact, he commoditised her as a thing rather than a person by saying, and many Jasons come in quest of her. By modern social context, marrying someone for his or her money is not only deceiving, but unacceptable. On top of all deceiving, the Christians are deceitful and hypocritical. Portia, who is supposed to be fair and perfect, is about the most deceitful and hypocritical person throughout the whole play. She shows her true personality when she talks with Nerissa, it is a good divine that follows his own instructions; I can easier teach twenty what were good to be done, than be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching. Her hypocrisy is shown once again in the court when she repeatedly gives Shylock so many chances to back down, so adding to the humiliation she clearly wishes to inflict on him in her hour of victory, The quality of mercy is not strained it blesseth him that gives, and him that takes it is an attribute to God himself, and earthly power doth then show likes Gods when mercy seasons justice. However, when Shylock is defeated, he is shown little of the mercy, which before was so earnestly recommended to him by Portia. Half his wealth is confiscated and -far worse- he must lose his faith and convert to Christianity. In any case, the most appalling and nasty aspect of the Christians is that they are extremely prejudiced. They have such high opinion of themselves and such low opinion of Jews that they think they are the only chosen ones for heaven after death, the sins of the father are to be laid upon the children therefore be ogood cheer, for truly I think you are damned. They condemn the Jews for what they are and no matter what the Jews do, nothing will change the Christians perceptions. Jessica, who is married to Lorenzo, and therefore a Christian is still referred to as yond stranger and infidel. The Merchant of Venice seems to contain both good and bad aspects of both the Christians and the Jews. Whether it is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, one cannot decide, but it is true that Shakespeare had a deep understanding about the suffering and the behaviours, which resulted from racial prejudice. Shakespeare tried to write the story of mere human beings of different races, showing their lives and the way they dealt with them. He may have also wanted to say, What is real justice? How can you draw a line between the justice and injustice and classify them? How can you even divide people into being justifiable or not? He may have also wanted to tell people that appearance is not what you can be dependant on. That it may be something that you did not even dream of and maybe that it may have so much more to it than what you judged it to contain. Just like the Jews who were obsessed with money externally, but who started collecting money because they wanted to be accepted. Just like the Christians who looked like gentlemen externally, but who were nothing better than another race they despised.