1. Show how the climaxes in two works of literature that you have studied are related to the central action and give meaning to the whole work.
2.We can, at times, forgive the damage caused by the weak and the stupid; but when the damage is caused by the strong and intelligent, the action producing the damage shocks us. Develop this idea by discussing the damage produced by characters in two of the works you have studied.
3.”It is not true that suffering ennobles the character; happiness does that sometimes, but suffering, for the most part, makes men petty and vindictive.” Do you agree with these words by W. Somerset Maugham? Discuss, using two works of literature you have read.
2. I think that the second comment is most interesting. I would speak of Nathan and Troy, two men who are both strong and intelligent. What makes this topic interesting to me is the fact that it is this same strength and wit that can, in excess, turn these characters into fools. I would also explore the fact that sometimes it isn't shocking that these type of people are the ones who do damage, and the worst damage.
ReplyDeleteWould I be able to use an example from other years for people who are "stupid" and "weak" (I was thinking of Lennie from of Mice and Men who is physically strong but weak because he is so dependent on George and ruins everything) to underline, for example, the fact that maybe it isn't stupidity or intelligence but a person's nature itself that is the cause of the damage (I would branch out of Frankenstein)
I think you're on to something good here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there's the idea that the strong are expected to behave in ways that are different from the weak. That means that it isn't shocking when a character such as Lennie creates damage (you can cite and use, very briefly, to set up your conversation). When the strong do these things, they defy our expectations. One might even consider them as tragic? (let's remember what purpose an author may have had for incorporating such figures in his work).
Finally, it could be interesting to branch out and explore the ways in which this is not so much shocking as an unfortunate trait in human nature. Perhaps this is what shocks us, at first, even worries us? Be careful that, in branching out, you aren't actually beginning a new conversation. Only two books. you could, actually, in that case, use one example that's shocking and one that's not...if so, adjust your thesis. Notice that it's the damage that's shocking, by the way.