Analysis Of Katherine Mansfield s The Garden Party Essay

Kelsey Archuleta Ms. Sparks AP Lit p.6 8 December 2016 Title Katherine Mansfield was a modernist short story writer during the 1920’s. She wrote various short stories in the few years as an author, Mansfield s stories often commented on class, relationships, families, and sexuality, After reading a few of her most popular works the common theme of them though out was the central conclusion of them all is the protagonist coming of age by seeing the more realistic view on life. The common theme aids Mansfield’s in communicating to her readers the idea of one finally seeing the truths in his or hers personal lifestyles. Mansfield carries this central theme in all stories by using literary devices such as imagery and symbols. Mansfield’s stories contain her protagonist living in a situation where they are blinded by others or societies standards on how they should think or feel. For example Laura in The Garden Party , is confronted with the reality of death. Mansfield introduces the story by explaining t he extravagant garden party Laura’s mother is allowing her to plan. The details of Laura ordering around staff and the whole complexity of it all leads readers to believe that Laura and her family are of higher class. Because of this Laura has not been introduces to the realities of life such as Death. She has also been taught that because of her class other below her are â€Å"unacceptable† as her neighbors the Sheridans were unacceptable and â€Å"they were the greatest possibleShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of Katherine Mansfield s The Garden Party 2275 Words   |  10 PagesBoth L.P Hartley and Katherine Mansfield present the poor as suffering as a result of the happiness of the rich. Within both texts, ‘The Go-Between’ and ‘The Garden Party’, the poor are shown to suffer but they are presented in two different ways. L.P Hartley presents one of the main characters, who is a rich, middle class woman manipulating a poor boy who visits from boar ding school through making him a messenger between her and her working class lover. Whereas, Mansfield presents the rich to ignoreRead MoreTylistic Analysis of Katherine Mansfield’s Garden Party1002 Words   |  5 PagesStylistic Analysis of Katherine Mansfield’s Garden Party To better comprehend our course: Style in Fiction, I have selected a short story the Garden Party, so as to analyze in terms of styles. 1. About the writer and the story 1.1 About the writer Beforehand, I’d like to give a brief introduction of the short story’s writer Katherine Mansfield and the short story. Katherine was born in Wellington, New Zealand, into a middle-class colonial family in 1888. She studied at Queens CollegeRead MoreIn Vincent O’Sullivan’S Finding The Pattern, Solving The1578 Words   |  7 PagesIn Vincent O’Sullivan’s Finding the Pattern, Solving the Problem: Katherine Mansfield The New Zealand European, it is noted that Katherine Mansfield ‘was an enthusiast for the cinema’, that ‘she acted in several movies’ and that ‘her letters frequently took up such images as the months that â€Å"stream by like a movie picture†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢(18). Furthermore, her short story At the Bay begins with the line ‘Very early morning’(Mansfield 5), that when interpreted from a literary standpoint, is more suited to a screenplay

The Debate On Nuclear Warfare - 2049 Words

Nuclear Arms By: Debansh Sahoo In recent weeks/reports, North Koreas leader has threatened to wage war against the Americans. He made the statement â€Å"We will tear Americans to pieces, I don’t care what it takes even we will use nuclear weapon’s†. This brings alarm to the United States Nuclear policy and how they tolerate nuclear weapons from other countries. Should the United States tell all the countries who currently or are researching nuclear weapons dispose all their research. The debate continues as Prime Minister of Israel came in to talk to the congress about Obamas nuclear policy again. Should we keep our nuclear weapons or dispose all of them by making all the other countries who have these weapon’s to dispose theirs too. The†¦show more content†¦It is basically (nuclear weapon’s) that gave the United States the World Power that it is today. Many people still ask the question why do we still need these nukes or killers as they are often referred to as? They think that we (Americans) already have enough nuclear resources and what is the point of continuing to produce/develop them if there is no use to them and it practically wastes money for the countries that use/produce them. That money could be used to develop many other things in the country. But the American population is spilt minded, there is one side of the American people who think nuclear weapons are killers but then there is another side that who look at them as life saviors. I think everyone agrees that you could not put a value of human life. But nuclear weapons don’t value life. There has always been a purpose for nuclear resources, which is destruction. Everybody hears the statistics about the United States having enough nuclear weapons to blow the world up three times. This may be true, however as technology reaches new heights so do weapons and yo u can bet other countries are not settling for the weapons they already posses. They are always searching for more powerful weapons at any costs. If we were to stop the production of nuclear weapons we would be alone in that effort. When we have people like Kim Jong UN in the world, which we always will, we need the protection that only nuclear weapons can

Ways Social Media Is Changing the World Free Essays

Social media has had the ability to advance the world. In short amount of time, we have revolutionized so much such as receiving the news and communication. Due to social media, the way that we learn about and respond to anything affecting our world has changed. We will write a custom essay sample on Ways Social Media Is Changing the World or any similar topic only for you Order Now We have the ability to do so much like learn about new diseases in a few clicks. Social media is not just a place to observer a friend’s profile and see what they are up to. It is also a large source where people can come together. Huffington Post mentions that, â€Å"Interestingly, social media as a medium for connecting, organizing and communicating is powering and spreading democracy far better than billions of dollars of aid or war in corners of world very resistant to such change.† Social media creates a large platform where a community can quickly, make an impact on the world and for a cause. Technology is constantly advancing every day. In this time of social media, we have both social media activism (or digital activism) and hashtag activism. It is much easier today than it was to before to spread awareness on an important social issue. Using both hashtags and social media helps to easily spread and raise awareness. Another post from Huffington Post states that, â€Å"Hashtags have the power to bring attention to and mobilize a large population. Petitions, protests, letters to politicians and those in power are disseminated through social media.† InMyArea has mentioned a few of the many hashtags that have brought awareness over the course of a few years. â€Å"Social media’s role in activism can be credited to areas like these Abilene-Sweetwater, TX – #OccupyWallStreet Los Angeles, CA – #OscarsSoWhite Boston, MA – #ALSIceBucketChallenge Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN – #BlackLivesMatter #Charlottesville, VA† Social media activism includes raising awareness by using a variety of websites such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. By doing this, the world gets the opportunity to learn more about causes and movement as well as their needs. Most social media platforms have certain algorithms that will promote the most popular hashtags, doing this helps to bring critical social matters to the spotlight. Phycology Today mentions that there are, â€Å"four important ways that social media is redefining activism and advocacy.† First is that social media can change public awareness. Second, is that â€Å"social media distribution means we are getting information from someone in our network.† Third being that social media networks cross different platforms and creates a quick impact that gives it urgency. Lastly, social media development has changed the impression of communicating by modifying our expectations about participation. Social media has the amazing ability to provide the platform to anyone with access to the digital world and gives them the opportunity to call for change. The platforms that social media provide give people and communities the opportunity to create events to anybody almost anyone. The internet has always been a platform that has given anyone to form new communities and share resources. There are an increased number of groups who are now turning to practical tools, which allow them to create unified platforms to increase social change. There are several different tools used by online activists being online petitions, social networks, blogs, micro-blogging, cell phones and proxy servers. One of the other major characteristics of social activism is that it is almost always a non-violent form of protest. American Press Institute showed that 69% of millennials get their daily news while 85% say that â€Å"keeping up with the news is at least somewhat important to them.† It is true that this generation access their news differently, they do access their news regularly to keep up with any new information and things that are changing around them. Referring back to the study, a large portion of millennials did post recently about a topic they cared about on social media. Although it can be hard to keep up with at times, it is crucial to be aware of everything that is going on in the world. With social media frequently being updated every second of every day, people are easily able to obtain constant knowledge. Social media platforms have become more than just a way to share how you are feeling. Due to social media, people are no longer limited to just receiving their important news from one only one source. Social media has been able to advance the spread of awareness as well as the pace at which we can help as a community. Social media is a powerful enough tool for raising awareness. It gives everyone voice while it can also connect us all to a large variety of backgrounds, and cultures. How to cite Ways Social Media Is Changing the World, Papers

The main differences betwen the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences free essay sample

The Allies: Britain, the US and Russia, otherwise not on the most friendly of terms, were united only in their quest against Germany and the Nazis, as well as securing victory in the war. In 1945, two conferences were held with the top political leaders of Russia, the united States, and Britain. The Big Three, as they were known, met in February 1945 at Yalta, Crimea, USSR, and then again in July at Potsdam, Germany.These conferences, the Yalta Conference and the Potsdam conference respectively, were meant to decide the true of the world after the wardecisions made by the three most powerful men In the world at the time, from the three most powerful nations. While both conferences were meant to attempt a smooth transition into post-war life, the two summits still differed greatly, even though they were intended to accomplish the same things.The main differences between the Yalta Conference and the Potsdam conference were the changes In the Big Three between the conferences, alteratio ns In the aims of the leaders, and a general heightening of tensions between the three nations. We will write a custom essay sample on The main differences betwen the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The difference in the leaders involved in the two conferences was a major factor In the differentiation between Yalta and Potsdam. At Yalta, the Big Three was composed of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U. S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin.At Potsdam, Attlee replaced Churchill after his defeat in the British elections, and Truman took Roosevelt position. The only constant figure In the conferences was Stalin, the leader of one of the most controversial nations in the world. As previously mentioned, the only issue the three entries truly saw eye-to-eye on was eradicating the Nazi presence from the world. Two capitalist nations allied with a vehemently communist one already poses some problems with communications, and the change from Roosevelt to Truman between the conferences only added to the discrepancies between Yalta and Potsdam.Truman stated of his ally Stalin that he was tired of babying the Soviets. Roosevelt, a much more diplomatic figure, was one of the key factors in the disparity between Yalta and Potsdam. While he also had doubts about Russia, Roosevelt kept hose feelings between himself and Churchill, without truly laying them out in the open. Truman openly stated that he was going to get tough with the Russians, and so contributed to the difference in policies that the US had regarding the Russians at Potsdam.The change In the Big Three at Yalta and Potsdam was a large part In the disparities In the two conferences. Other contributing issues in the difference between Yalta and Potsdam concerned the objectives of the Big Three at Yalta and the disagreements over them at Potsdam. At Yalta, Germany and Japan were both undefeated at the time, yet plans were being made as to Germanys division after its predicted loss. The Big Three intended to divide up Germany into French, British, Russian, and American sections.Russia also I OFF the war, totaling at about 20 million deaths and the destruction of over 1000 towns. Stalin wanted harsh payment from the Germans, involving the confiscation of about 80% of its industry, allied control of the economy, and annual reparations payments made to the allies. These numbers are vital to later understanding the mentality of he Russians by the time of the so-called Long Telegram. To look into the matter, a reparations commission was set up.Furthermore, in exchange for Soviet control of Poland (reorganizing the government to be made democratic), the Russians agreed to facilitate the formation of democratic states in Eastern Europe that would be freed from German control. Lastly, it was agreed upon that once Germany was defeated, Russia would formally enter the war against Japan to aid in its defeat. At Potsdam, however, these aims and objectives were forced into close scrutiny by the Big Three, ND major disagreements between the three leaders occurred.By this time, Germany had been defeated, although the US was still at war with Japan. Regarding Germany, which was agreed upon at Yalta to be split into four zones, the Big Three faced open contention over the boundaries of the four sections. Germany was also forced to pay reparations to Russia, and was forced to give up 10% of its industry. However, Britain and the US felt that it was too much and that milking Germany of all its assets would leave its people poor and starving. Other disagreements that arose involved theEastern European democratic states that were supposed to be established by Russia; Britain and the US claimed that communism was manifesting itself in those states with the aid of the S oviets, rather than the intended democracies. Lastly, Truman and Attlee had doubts in the Soviet control of Poland, after Stalin arrested all non- communists in the Polish state. Stalin wanted Attlee and Truman to recognize his authority over these puppet states, which they refused to do. The main difference between Yalta and Potsdam was the level of consensus reached in each of the inferences.The objectives were mapped out at Yalta, and then disputed over at Potsdam. Although they apparently remained the same on paper, there was much disagreement over the application of the aims, which then translated into the major difference between the two conferences. Another main difference between the Yalta Conference and the Potsdam Conference was the level of tensions between the Big Three. At Yalta, while there were still tensions present, most of it was hidden behind the scenes; at Potsdam, open disagreement was the case. When Churchill was part of the Big Three, he wrote to Roosevelt during Yalta The Soviet Union has become a danger to the free world. However, at Potsdam, there were open accusations regarding Russians approach to communism and their attempt at transforming the rest of Europe into a communist society. The changes in their objectives also inflamed tensions, with the disagreements over Germanys new borders, Soviet entitlement to reparations, and Russian power over Eastern Europe heightening the power struggles between the Big Three.Truman was also obviously angered by Stalins move to arrest all of Pollards non-communist leaders. Additionally, at Yalta, Russia had agreed to aid the US in their war against Japan; however, by Potsdam, Truman had had news of the atomic bomb testing and avoided notifying Stalin. Stalin was furious when he discovered Stalin in the dark. Tensions also increased when the US and Britain demanded free elections be held in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, whereas S talin insisted that they would remain under his control. In general, one of the main differences between theYalta Conference and Potsdam was the increase in strained relations between the Big Three. Yalta and Potsdam were the two major peace conferences in World War II. They were both intended to achieve a state of post-war peace, and yet somehow metamorphosed into the arising of further global discord. Even though issues at both conferences were the same, the conferences were not. The major differences between Yalta and Potsdam were the changes in the leaders involved, a shift in the objectives and aims of the conferences, and a great heightening of tensions between he Big Three.These two conferences were what set the standards for life after World War II, and were the preludes to the events of the Cold War.