You are on page 1of 15

Many authors receive their inspiration for writing their literature from outside sources.

The idea for a story could come from family, personal experiences, history, or even their own creativity. For authors that choose to write a book based on historical events, the inspiration might come from their particular viewpoint on the event that they want to dramatize. George Orwell and Charles Dickens wrote Animal Farm and A Tale of Two Cities, respectively, to express their disillusionment with society and human nature. Animal Farm, written in 1944, is a book that tells the animal fable of a farm in which the farm animals revolt against their human masters. It is an example of social criticism in literature in which Orwell satirized the events in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. He anthropomorphises the animals, and alludes each one to a counterpart in Russian history. A Tale of Two Cities also typifies this kind of literature. Besides the central theme of love, is another prevalent theme, that of a revolution gone bad. He shows us that, unfortunately, human nature causes us to be vengeful and, for some of us, overly ambitious. Both these books are similar in that both describe how, even with the best of intentions, our ambitions get the best of us. Both authors also demonstrate that violence and the Machiavellian attitude of "the ends justifying the means" are deplorable. George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, ". . . to discredit the Soviet system by showing its inhumanity and its back-sliding from ideals [he] valued . . ."(Gardner, 106) Orwell noted that " there exists in England almost no literature of disillusionment with the Soviet Union.' Instead, that country is viewed either with ignorant disapproval' or with uncritical admiration.'"(Gardner, 96) The basic synopsis is this: Old Major, an old boar in Manor Farm, tells the other animals of his dream of "animalism": " . . . Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we would become rich and free.'" (Orwell, 10) The other animals take this utopian idea to heart, and one day actually do revolt and drive the humans out. Two pigs emerge as leaders: Napoleon and Snowball. They constantly argued, but one day, due to a difference over plans to build a windmill, Napoleon exiled Snowball. Almost immediately, Napoleon established a totalitarian government. Soon, the pigs began to get special favours, until finally, they were indistinguishable from humans to the other animals. Immediately the reader can begin to draw parallels between the book's characters and the government in 1917-44 Russia. For example, Old Major, who invented the idea of "animalism," is seen as representing Karl Marx, the creator of communism. Snowball represents Trotsky, a Russian leader after the revolution. He was driven out by Napoleon, who represents Stalin, the most powerful figure in the country. Napoleon then proceeded to remove the freedoms of the animals, and established a dictatorship, under the public veil of "animalism." Pigs represent the ruling class because of their stereotype: dirty animals with insatiable appetites. Boxer, the overworked, incredibly strong, dumb horse represents the common worker in Russia. The two surrounding farms represent two of the countries on the global stage with Russia at the time, Germany and England. Orwell begins his book by criticizing the capitalists and ruling elite, who are represented in Animal Farm by Mr. Jones, the farmer. He is shown as a negligent drunk, who constantly starved his animals. "His character is already established as self-indulgent and uncaring." (King, 8) Orwell shows us how, "if only animals became aware of their strength, we should have no power over them, and that men exploit

Social Criticism in Literature

animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat." (Gardner, 97) What was established in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution was not true communism ("animalism"), which Orwell approved of, where the people owned all the factories and land. Rather, "state communism" was established, where a central government owned them. Orwell thought that such a political system, "state communism," was open to exploitation by its leaders. Napoleon, after gaining complete control, did anything he wished - reserved the best for the pigs, and treated the animals cruelly. The animals could not do anything, unless they again realized their strength in numbers against their own kind. Unfortunately, they were too stupid to realize this and accepted the "status quo." It began when the milk and apples were appropriated to the pigs, and continued to when the pigs could drink and sleep on beds, until finally the pigs were the "human masters" to the rest of the animals. Orwell criticized Germany, representing it as Pinchfield Farm, which betrayed Animal Farm by paying for lumber with counterfeit money. In real life, this represents the Soviet-Germany non-aggression pact during World War II which Germany eventually broke. Eventually, towards the end of the story, the term, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," is proven, as the pigs, who retained all the privileges for themselves, have evolved into a different caste from the other animals. Orwell's implication is that "real" communism cannot exist in the countries which claim to be communist. The ruling class politicians - own everything and ironically are therefore in total control. A Tale of Two Cities is a love story which chronicles the lives of Charles Darnay, a Frenchman who renounced his link with the aristocracy, and Sydney Carton, a wastrel who lived in England. Both these characters fall in love with Lucie Manette, the daughter of Dr. Alexandre Manette, unjustly imprisoned in France for 17 years. Though Lucie marries Darnay, Carton still loves her and in the end, gives his life to save Darnay for her. Dickens, who was fascinated with French history, especially the French Revolution, begins by criticizing the aristocrats' treatment of the poor people of France. In the seventh chapter of book two, the Monsieur the Marquis had accidentally driven his carriage over a young child, killing him. Instead of worrying about the child's welfare, the Monsieur's reaction was to worry about his horses: "One or the other of you is for ever in the way. How do I know what injury you have done to my horses."(Dickens, 111) He deemed their lives inferior and insignificant, as illustrated when he threw a gold coin to the child's devastated father as compensation. The Monsieur the Marquis revealed his true sentiments to his nephew: "Repression is the only lasting philosophy. . . fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip. . ."(Dickens, 123) Dickens makes it abundantly obvious that the aristocrats are to meet doom, with symbolic references to fate and death. For instance, as the Monsieur the Marquis rides through the country, a glowing red sunset appeared over him, signifying his bloody death. In the words of the author, ". . . the sun and the Marquis going down together. . ."(Dickens, 114) Madame Defarge's knitting is also a symbol of impending doom, as she records the names of all those who are to die when the revolution takes place. Dickens also expresses his disillusionment with some of the outcomes of the French Revolution. He believed that the people did not just liberate themselves, but also took vengeance towards the aristocracy. This is confirmed in the conversation between the revolutionaries: " Well, well, but one must stop somewhere. After all, the question is still where?' At extermination,' said madame."(Dickens, 341) Madame Defarge embodies this attitude, as she

wants to have Charles Darnay killed, not because he has done something wrong, but because he is related to the Evrmonde family, which killed her relative. Though "Dickens seems almost to regard violence as the one way to bring about social change,"(Lucas,288) he then began to denounce the actions taken by some of the revolutionaries. The citizens let their righteous cause turn into vengefulness. Even servants and maids to the aristocrats were beheaded, although they had not really done anything wrong. Animal Farm and A Tale of Two Cities were written to express their authors' disenchantment with the state of evolution of human nature. They seem to be saying, that even when we begin with honourable intentions, there will be some of us who will let their base instincts take control. Orwell, in Animal Farm portrays this nature by parodying events in real history. Given the right conditions, those events could happen anywhere - a leader becoming overly ambitious, to the point of harming his people for morepower. In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens examines the inner soul, and shares with us how people are driven to the valley of human emotions, where desperation and anger reign, and what could happen afterwards if we let these emotions build up inside. Every human being is capable of becoming a ruthless, opportunistic being like Napoleon or Madame Defarge, if placed in the right place, at the right time. -King, Martin. Students' Guide to Animal Farm. Scotland: Tynron Press, 1989. Lucas, John. The Melancholy Man: A Study of Dickens' Novels. London: N.P., N.D. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. London: Penguin Books, 1985. Shelden, Michael. Orwell: The Authorised Biography. London: Mandarin Paperbacks, 1992. Animal Farm As A Social Criticism Essay written by Jonny Vonn Writers often use social criticism in their books to show corruptness or weak points of a group in society. One way of doing this is allegory which is a story in which figures and actions are symbols of general truths. George Orwell is an example of an author who uses allegory to show a social criticism effectively. As in his novel Animal Farm, Orwell makes a parody of Soviet Communism as demonstrated by Animal Farm's brutal totalitarian rule, manipulated and exploited working class, and the pigs' evolution into the capitalists they initially opposed. Totalitarianism is a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of life. It was used by Stalin and the Bolsheviks in Russia during the 1920's and 30's and is parodied in Animal Farm by Napoleon, the "almighty" leader, and his fellow pigs and their ridiculous propaganda and rigorous rule. In the book, Napoleon is deified and made superior to all other animals on the farm, for example he is called emperor or leader while everyone else was referred to as a "comrade", and all the pigs were given higher authority then the rest of the animals. An inequality between the pigs and rest of the farm was that the pigs lived in the farm house while the other majority had to sleep in pastures. A certain pig Squealer who could "turn black into white" was in charge of propaganda, and he would often change the commandments of the farm so that they would fit the actions of Napoleon or the "upper class" of the farm which was supposedly classless. For example, at one time a commandment read "No animal shall drink alcohol"(P. 75), but soon after Napoleon drank an abundance and almost died the commandment was changed to "No animal shall drink to excess." which made it seem as though Napoleon was within the rules. Another instance where Napoleon showed severe rule was when everyone on the farm who had either pledged for or showed support at one time for Snowball, the exiled former leader, was executed on the spot. This act was a humorous resemblance of The Great Purge in Russia where all opposition was killed off. The governing system of the Animal Farm was truly corrupt, but it

did not stop with the propaganda and executions. At first on the Animal Farm, it was promised to the majority of the animals who were neither Napoleon or a pig, or the so-called "working class", that "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs", no more, no less. In other words, if all the animals worked to their capabilities they would get the work back in rations. This system worked for a while, but stopped when Napoleon and his Totalitarian government took over, and the system was manipulated. Napoleon and his fellow pigs gave the animals unfair hours of labor and unfair rations for their work which corrupted the system. Napoleon attempted to keep the animals intact by inspiring them with slogans, "Napoleon is always right." and "I will work harder."(P.40) This seemed to work because no animal would refuse to do their job because of the fear of their food supply being cut as a penalty. As an example, Napoleon announced that all animals would have to work voluntary Sunday afternoons, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his ration reduced by half(P. 42). Napoleon gave the animals long, many hour days so that the farm could move toward industrialization with the building of a windmill, much like The Five Year Plan of Russia. This act was made comical because much like in Russia the plan kept on failing, but the government proceeded in actions anyway. The so-called "working class" of the Animal Farm which at first had a bright future was turned into more of a "slave class". Animal Farm started with a dream, a dream of old Major's which was for the animals of England specifically the Manor Farm to rebel against the humans, take over the farm, and live at peace amongst themselves. This dream soon became a reality for the animals of the Manor Farm as they defeated their master, Mr. Jones, in the Battle of Cowshed with their battle cry "Four legs good, two legs bad", and took over the farm which they renamed Animal Farm. The first leader was Snowball who ruled along with his fellow pigs and kept Major's dream alive, only to be expelled from the farm soon after he took over. The next leader was Napoleon, who brought a whole new type of Totalitarianist government to the Animal Farm. The farm which was supposed to be equal and free of class had a distinct governing body or "upper class" with the pigs and a distinct "working class" or majority which was everyone, but the pigs. The "working class" was manipulated and old Major's dream was going away. Eventually, the seven commandments which were set forth at the beginning were changed in to one commandment that read "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Indeed, the pigs had become like their worst, most hated enemy, the human, and Major's dream and the hard work of the majority of the animals on the farm had been wiped away much like Lenin's dreams for Russia were. In fact, Animal Farm and the Russian Revolution were alike in many ways. Both started with bright ideas for a future and ended with a corrupt government taking over only to turn the colony into what it initially opposed. The setting of a farm with animals to represent revolutionary figures in an extreme country seems outrageous, but the idea can be perceived very well in this novel. Orwell combines some great humor into this symbolic story to give a bad effect on Russia in the time of its Revolution, making a mockery of Totalitarian rule, the "working class", and idealization for the future. IDENTITY STATEMENT Reference code(s): GB 0103 ORWELL (N) Held at: University College London Title: Orwell Papers: proofs Date(s): 1932-1953 Level of description: Sub-fonds of Orwell Papers Extent: 14 volumes Name of creator(s): Blair | Eric Arthur | 1903-1950 | novelist and journalist known as George Orwell CONTEXT Administrative/Biographical history: School teacher at the Hawthorns, Middlesex, 1932-1933; part-time assistant in a Hampstead bookshop, London, 1934-1935; wrote books and novels, 1933-1949; married Eileen Maud O'Shaughnessy (died 1945), 1936; reviewer of novels for the New English Weekly, until 1940; visited areas of mass unemployment in Lancashire and Yorkshire, 1936; wounded in Spain fighting for the Republicans, 1937; member of the Home Guard during World War Two; worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation Eastern Service, 1940-1943; Literary Editor of Tribune, 1943-1945; war correspondent for the Observer, 1945; regular contributor to the Manchester Evening News, 1943-1946; suffered from tuberculosis, often in hospital, 1947-1950; married Sonia Mary Brownell, 1949; died, 21 January 1950. Publications: Down and out in Paris and London (Victor Gollancz, London, 1933); Burmese days (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1934); The road to Wigan pier (Victor Gollancz, London, 1937); Homage to Catalonia (Secker & Warburg, London, 1938); Coming up for air (Victor Gollancz, London, 1939); The lion and the unicorn (Secker & Warburg, London, 1941); Animal farm (Secker & Warburg, London, 1945); Critical essays (Secker & Warburg, London, 1946); The English people (Collins, London, 1947); Nineteen eighty-four (Secker & Warburg, London, 1949); Shooting an elephant, and other essays (Secker & Warburg, London, 1950).

CONTENT Scope and content/abstract: Proofs of George Orwell's work, 1932-1953, comprising Victor Gollancz Ltd uncorrected proof of Confessions of a down and out in London and Paris, 1932; Victor Gollancz Ltd uncorrected second proof of The road to Wigan pier, 1937; Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd corrected proofs of The lion and the unicorn, 1940, 1941; Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd corrected proofs of Critical essays, 1945; Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd corrected proof of Coming up for air, 1947; Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd uncorrected proof of Burmese days, 1948; Martin Secker and Warburg Ltd one uncorrected proof and two corrected proofs of Nineteen eighty-four, 1949; Harcourt Brace & Co, advance review copy of Nineteen eightyfour, 1949; Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd uncorrected proof of England your England, 1953; loose proofs of Animal farm, 1943-1944, Critical essays, 1945, Coming up for air, 1947, and introduction to The position of Peggy Harper by Leonard Merrick, 1948. Objectives/Outcomes Students will analyze satire Students will analyze characterization Students will define social criticism Students will analyze how social criticism is used in The Canterbury Tales Rationale/Michigan Content Standards ELA.V.HS.1 - Select, read, and listen to, view, andd respond thoughtfully to both classic and contemporary texts recognized for quality and literary merit. ELA.V.HS.2 - Describe and discuss the archetypal huuman experiences that appear in literature and other texts from around the world. Materials Needed Textbook Notebooks Social Criticism Graphic Organizer Pen or pencil Teacher Procedure/Development (I expect to spend three periods on this lesson) Day 1 Introductory Activity - Students will write a paragraph in which they describe a real or imaginary person with as much detail as possible. Class discussion of the challenges of describing another person in detail. Students will read the first part of the prologue describing the knight and the squire then compare their personal characterizations with those of Chaucer. Is Chaucer good at characterization? Does satire play a role in Chaucer's characterization? Students will read through line 421 of the prologue for homework and continue to pay attention to the satire and the characterization of the characters. They should also make three Response Journal Entries in which they can comment on something they don't understand, something they think is funny or something they think is unnecessary. They can address their comments to Chaucer or a character in the story. They might also make a prediction about what will happen next in the story. Additionally, students may comment on how something in the story relates to a modern day event or what the story made them think about. Day 2 ADMIT SLIPS. Admit slips are an anonymous way for students to ask questions about their reading assignment. They write their question on a 3 by 5 card, include the line number, omit their name and hand in the question. Then the class discusses each question. Students will work in groups of three to find three examples of satire in the prologue. Teacher will define social criticism in The Canterbury Tales as the way Chaucer views society Teacher will hand out the Social Criticism Graphic Organizers, give the directions and explain the examples. Students will be individually responsible for filling in the chart as they read the prologue. After they have finished reading the prologue, students will be expected to answer the question: What is the basis for Chaucer's social criticism? Students will finish reading the prologue. Day 3 ADMIT SLIPS Students will form groups of four and discuss the completed graphic organizers. Students must defend their choices to the group and convince the others that their selections are correct.

The group will complete a final graphic organizer based on the unanimous decisions. Each group will choose five characters and post their final decisions on the On-line Discussion page Close Activity - Each group will discuss their decisions with the class. Adaptations Students may come back after school to listen to The Canterbury Tales on CD. Evaluation of Students Students will receive 15 points for completing the Social Criticism Graphic Organizer. The Objectives and Outcomes for this lesson were taken from: England in Literature Teacher's Edition. Ed. Helen McDonnell, John Pfordesher, and Gladys B. Veidermanis. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1987. PRIVATE Advertisement


/misc/bl_whm_about.htmFlappers in the Roaring Twenties Part 1: The Younger Generation and the Beginning of Flapperdom In the 1920s, a new woman was born. She smoked, drank, danced, and voted. She cut her hair, wore make-up, and went to petting parties. She was giddy and took risks. She was a flapper. The "Younger Generation" Before the start of World War I, the Gibson Girl was the rage. Inspired by Charles Dana Gibson's drawings, the Gibson Girl wore her long hair loosely on top of her head and wore a long straight skirt and a shirt with a high collar. She was feminine but also broke through several gender barriers for her attire allowed her to participate in sports, including golf, roller skating, and bicycling. Then World War I started. The young men of the world were being used as cannon fodder for an older generation's ideals and mistakes. The attrition rate in the trenches left few with the hope that they would survive long enough to return home. They found themselves inflicted with an "eat-drink-and-be-merry-for-tomorrowwe-die spirit."1 Far away from the society that raised them and faced with the reality of death, many searched (and found) extreme life experiences before they entered the battlefield. When the war was over, the survivors went home and the world tried to return to normalcy. Unfortunately, settling down in peacetime proved more difficult than expected. During the war, the boys had fought against both the enemy and death in far away lands; the girls had bought into the patriotic fervor and aggressively entered the workforce. During the war, both the boys and the girls of this generation had broken out of society's structure; they found it very difficult to return. They found themselves expected to settle down into the humdrum routine of American life as if nothing had happened, to accept the moral dicta of elders who seemed to them still to be living in a Pollyanna land of rosy ideals which the war had killed for them. They couldn't do it, and they very disrespectfully said so.2 Women were just as anxious as the men to avoid returning to society's rules and roles after the war. In the age of the Gibson Girl, young women did not date, they waited until a proper young man formally paid her interest with suitable intentions (i.e. marriage). However, nearly a whole generation of young men had died in the war, leaving nearly a whole generation of young women without possible suitors. Young women decided that they were not willing to waste away their young lives waiting idly for spinsterhood; they were going to enjoy life. The "Younger Generation" was breaking away from the old set of values. The "Flapper" The term "flapper" first appeared in Great Britain after World War I. It was there used to describe young girls, still somewhat awkward in movement who had not yet entered womanhood. In the June 1922 edition of the Atlantic Monthly, G. Stanley Hall described looking in a dictionary to discover what the evasive term "flapper" meant: [T]he dictionary set me right by defining the word as a fledgling, yet in the nest, and vainly attempting to fly while its wings have only pinfeathers; and I recognized that the genius of 'slanguage' had made the squab the symbol of budding girlhood.3

Authors such F. Scott Fitzgerald and artists such as John Held Jr. used the term to the U.S., half reflecting and half creating the image and style of the flapper. Fitzgerald described the ideal flapper as "lovely, expensive, and about nineteen."4 Held accentuated the flapper image by drawing young girls wearing unbuckled galoshes that would make a "flapping" noise when walking.5 Many have tried to define flappers. In William and Mary Morris' Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, they state, "In America, a flapper has always been a giddy, attractive and slightly unconventional young thing who, in [H. L.] Mencken's words, 'was a somewhat foolish girl, full of wild surmises and inclined to revolt against the precepts and admonitions of her elders.'"6 Flappers had both an image and an attitude. "THE BEST OR NONE!" SPINSTERHOOD IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY NEW ENGLAND. Journal of Social History, Summer, 2000, by Zsuzsa Berend Reflecting on her single life, Catharine Sedgwick wrote in her diary: "I certainly think a happy marriage the happiest condition of human life ... [I]t is the high opinion of its capabilities which has perhaps kept me from adventuring in it." [1] This entry epitomizes the seemingly paradoxical connection, in practice, between the nineteenth-century idealization of marriage and the reluctance of many women to marry. Although Nancy Cott has made passing references to this connection, it has been largely overlooked by the literature on women and the family. [2] Spinsterhood has usually been viewed either as individual misfortune or as a manifestation of protofeminist assertion of autonomy. To be sure, the latter view has been more conducive to the exploration of spinsterhood, given the tendency in women's studies to search the past for the roots of the present. [3] Since they could be construed as pursuing autonomy and rejecting wifely dependence, spinsters are readily seen as "foremothers" by contemporary femin ists. Because a number of the women who were active in reform movements or distinguished themselves as writers or professionals were single, this interpretation has seemingly even more credence. In her monograph on nineteenth-century spinsters Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller, for example, defines elective spinsterhood as a "dramatic new form of female independence," rooted in the "individualistic ethic of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution" and emerging in the early nineteenth century. Women's rejection of marriage was the outcome of a "rigorous assessment of the marital institution that found it wanting and in conflict with female autonomy, self-development, and achievement." [4] Carl Degler, in a chapter of At Odds on nineteenth-century women's "challenge [to] the family," attributes the increasing incidence of elective spinsterhood to a "feeling that married women lacked sufficient autonomy." Owing to women's challenge to the family, Degler claims, female autonomy had increased during the ninetee nth century. Some women "spurned marriage and family altogether"; others "abandoned marriage when it did not provide autonomy or satisfaction. " [5] However, this reading of the "progressive" character of nineteenth-century spinsterhood distorts its cultural context, its meaning and significance in its own terms. In this article I will focus on the cultural milieu within which young middle-class women pondered questions of love, marriage and vocation. I will argue that middleclass spinsters, as well as their married peers, took ideals of love and marriage very seriously, and that spinsterhood was indeed often a consequence of their adherence to those ideals. Today, ideals are understood as "existing as mere mental image[s], existing in fancy or imagination alone," but in the nineteenth century an ideal meant a "patterning idea, the archetypical idea," [6] the ultimate measure of existing things. Ideals, in this sense, were central to nineteenth-century moral experience. As their diaries and letters show, nineteenth-century women took ideals to be an ultimate, unchanging, Godordained reality, while the existing reality was seen as imperfect and transitory. This view was in keeping with the highly voluntaristic and perfectionist outlook of the time. I will also argue that middle-class women's insistence on self-development was not antagonistic to marriage but, in their view, a necessary preparation for it within the larger context of a Christian life. The ideals of self-development and self-relience had a strong affinity with Evangelical Protestantism and were disseminated in the Christian culture of the 19th century, rather than having their roots in the Enlightenment. As I will argue in more detail later, the nineteenth century saw the elevation and spiritualization of love and marriage. The new understanding powerfully linked love with marriage, and linked both with the larger social and moral universe. Marriage's importance transcended the temporal happiness of the couple; yet marriage was also conceived of as an ultimately private arrangement. Thus, by the nineteenth century the ideal of marriage based on love--mysterious and unintentional love--had gained wide acceptance. At the same time a religiously grounded morality informed the ideal of character, in the sense not simply of a "complex of mental and ethical traits" but also of "moral excellence." [7] High ideals of love and marriage came together with high standards of character, and it became socially and personally acceptable not to marry if marriage involved compromizing one's moral standards. During this time there emerged a new, morally charged conceptualization of women's love and its mission which allowed f or a broader understanding of women's usefulness. As a consequence of the above developments we see a strikingly novel portrayal of spinsters and spinsterhood: the image of the spinster as a highly moral and fully womanly creature. This implied a change in the conception of the purported reasons for remaining single--that spinsters could have married if they had chosen to compromise their moral principles for the sake of matrimony. They remained unmarried not because of individual shortcomings but because they

didn't find the one "who could be all things to the heart." Spinsterhood was increasingly viewed as an outcome of intricate choices and spinsters as champions of uncompromising morality. This study is based on the written documents--letters and diaries--of about forty Northeastern, white, Protestant, middle-class spinsters. Most of them were born in the first three decades of the nineteenth century. [8] These women remained single in spite of opportunities to marry. [9] Yet their choice was not between marrying or not marrying but whether to marry a particular man. The documents they left behind suggest a common mentality and morality characteristic of their social generation. [10] They shared a concept of self and society, and also an ethos, an underlying attitude towards their world. Their behavior makes sense in the context of the overwhelmingly Protestant culture of the nineteenth-century American Northeast in which "the ideas, the convictions, the customs, the institutions of society were so shot through with Christian presuppositions." [11] To appreciate the novelty of the cultural context within which nineteenth-century women contemplated marriage, we need first to consider the older ideas of love and marriage. Seventeenth-century Puritans affirmed the importance of affection in marriage: to love one's spouse was a duty. However, the Puritans were distrustful of marriages founded solely on mutual affection. Young people were to choose someone they could learn to love. Yet being in love was not necessary; friendship and esteem were the solid foundations of a lasting union. Love, according to Benjamin Franklin, was merely a passion and as such, "changeable, transient, and accidental. But Friendship and Esteem are derived from Principles of Reason and Thought, and ... are lasting Securities of an Attachment." [12] However, by the first decades of the nineteenth century, mutual esteem was no longer regarded as a sufficient foundation of marriage. Love, based on a strong and mystical personal attraction, came to be viewed as the only legitimate rea son for marriage. [13] Rather than marry someone they could learn to love, young people expected to marry someone they did love. [14] The notion that marriage was to be based on romantic rather than rational love indicates a transvaluation of human sentiments. Catharine Sedgwick's reasons for breaking her engagement illustrate the changing understanding of love and marriage. She explained to her brother Robert that her fianc[acute{e}] "has been so generous as to relinquish the promise I then gave him and all is now ended forever ... He is very unhappy ... I am degraded in my own opinion but I cannot help it. It is strange but it is impossible for me to create a sentiment of tenderness by any process of reasoning, or any effort of gratitude." [15] Sedgwick refers to the earlier understanding of love as friendship, i.e. love as a result of esteem and gratitude, a rational sentiment. But she already believes in the new ideal, the ideal of involuntary love. A later journal entry brings this new understanding even more into focus. Sedgwick was reminiscing about her feelings toward a former suitor: "I liked him, and not knowing quite as much of the heart (or of my heart) as I do I fancied that liking might ripen into something warmer." [16] Knowing the human heart better--and the ideals that influence its emotions, I should add--Sedgwick came to realize that love is not simply an increase in liking but a separate emotion altogether. The elevation of human love can be linked to the elevation of emotionality in revivalist evangelicalism. Evangelicals associated spontaneity of feeling with true faith. [17] Thus spontaneous emotions in heterosexual love, although treated cautiously, were no longer discredited; now they were regarded as a sure, though mysterious, sign of Providence. The Puritan view was reversed: love came first, sympathy and understanding followed. [18] In much of European romanticism love, an all-consuming and private sentiment, was seen as a potentially subversive emotion, with a tendency to disregard the world and a potential for disaster. Themes of love and death were intimately connected. In American advice literature, in the emergent woman's fiction, and in reformers' hopes, romantic love was metamorphosed into true love, a sentiment in harmony with the social order, conducive to the betterment of humanity and society. [20] The romantic notions of inexplicable attraction, oneness, forgetfulness of self in the other were transformed into Christian virtues. [21] Attraction became the sign of a God-ordained union, oneness a spiritual ideal deemphasizing sensual and sexual implications, and selfforgetfulness the epitome of selflessness. True love was a stable foundation for the future family. True love, in the image of Christian love, was "not a folly; in its purity, it is a noble, unselfish thing, the inspirer and friend of moral excellence." [22] It wa s domesticated love, whose "proper place" was the home. [23] To be sure, the truelove model absorbed important elements of romantic love: it approved, if tamed, its fervor, and acknowledged its mystery. The ideal of marriage, based on true love, was advocated by reformers and feminists alike. Gail Hamilton (pen name for Mary A. Dodge) maintained that training girls for marriage drove them into uncongenial unions, degrading both women and marrige: "depreciate marriage? I magnify it! It is you who depreciate, by debasing it. You lower it to the level of the market. You degrade it to a question of political and domestic economy. You look upon it as an arrangement. I believe it to be a sacrament ... I see in it the type of mortal and immortal union ... All that is tender, grand, ennobling finds there its home, its source of sustenance, its inspiration, and its exceeding great reward." She believed that "marriage, in its truest type, is spiritualizing life; the union of the mightiest and subtlest forces working f or the noblest results." [24] Love as spiritual union enhanced the expectation, already inherent in the ideal of romantic love, of finding completeness or wholeness through love in a perfect match of temperament and values. Lucy Larcom believed

that "a life of 'single blessedness'" was preferable to "'marrying and giving in marriage' unless one is sure that the one is the one, and no other. You know that I never arrived at that certainty, but have always loved Frank as a brother." [25] In 1363 Frances Willard, a year after breaking her engagement, wrote in her diary: "Oh, so much better to wait for years and years if we may hope to find at last the one who can be all things to the heart. I am glad, heartily glad, I did not perjure myself in 1862. [26] Neither found "the one," neither married. Love, involuntary and mysterious, held a strong grip on the imagination. However, even in the most "untamed" versions, the tragic side of romantic love was conspicuously missing, and love had an easy affinity with domestic bliss. This quality of American romantic love accounts for its harmonious coexistence with the social institution of marriage. The lovers were not pitted against social and familial forces, as was often the case in European romanticism, but were happily planning to walk down the aisle. This easy and intimate connection between love and marriage on the one hand and marriage and society on the other made the link between love and society seem more commonsensical, the implication being that even in their private emotions people carry the kernel of public responsibility. And we should not underestimate the attraction of the true-love ideal; it was influential beyond the realm of the advice literature. In the moralistic, serious idiom that informed women's self-appraisals in letters and diaries , romantic love seemed somewhat frivolous and selfish, while true love connected the individual with the larger moral universe in a satisfying way. True love led to marriage, and marriage could not be contemplated lightly. Susan B. Anthony found a deep resonance with her own values when she read Elizabeth Oakes Smith's Bertha and Lily. Bertha's opinion of marriage is that it is very sacred, very lovely, in my eyes, and therefore, to be sustained from pure motives." Anthony sent a note of thanks to the author. "From the very depth of my heart, do I rejoice that the good Father put it into your heart to pen those noble truths." [27] These "noble truths" about love and marriage influenced many a young woman's resolution not to marry unless she could give her whole heart to someone. As Emily Howland recorded with pleasure: "M.H. ... will not lower her ideals to enter the state of matrimony." [28] For Lucy Larcom, "A true marriage ... is the highest state of earthly happiness--the flowing of the deepest life of the soul into a kindred soul, two spirits made one." [29] This formulation expresses the promise of marriage as most nineteenth-century middle-class women understood it, and for some, it also implied that extreme caution was necessary when contemplating such a union. If spiritual fusion was possible in true marriage, anything less was a compromise. The Young Lady's Friend (1837) urged women to remember that "the great end of existence, preparation for eternity, may be equally attained in married or single life; and that no union, but the most perfect one, is at all desirable." For this end, young women were urged to set their standa rds high: "The more perfectly you perform all your duties, the more diligently you carry on your moral and intellectual education, the higher is your standard of character, and the more spiritual are your aims, the less will be your danger from the tenderness of your heart." [30] By "tenderness of heart" the author meant an undiscriminating romantic sensibility. Mrs. Abell (1853) also believed that young women who did not have high standards would fall in love indiscriminately, thereby compromising the very ideal of Victorian love. [31] "Falling in love" was morally admirable only if it was accompanied by a strong conviction that the beloved was ones other half. Influenced by romantic notions of oneness and prevailing understandings of womens supreme capacity for emotions, many women questioned their own feelings, measuring them against highly idealized expectations and finding them wanting. One young woman wrote, "All the time I feel within me that I do not love you with that intensity of which I am capable." [32] Lucy Larcom, at thirty, wrote about her fianc[acute{e}] to a friend: "I love him warmly, but not passionately, as some do, or as perhaps I might love ... I shall refuse and defer no longer." [33] But a year later she was still hesitating: "I love him still, better than other men, but not as I could love, and he knows it," she wrote to friends. [34] A few years later, at Frank's urging, she was again scrutinizing her feelings: "I could almost believe I love him enough to go to him at once," yet "I am sure there are chambers in my heart that he could not unlock ... I do feel that it is in me to love, humanly, as I have never loved him." [35] Many found it difficult to imagine how their high ideals of marriage could possibly be realized. Harriot Hunt, who never married, described her ideals as "that holy union of truth and good, that sum of light and warmth,-approach it reverently; dare not ridicule it by sneers, slights." [36] William Barton recalled how his aunt, Clara Barton, "said she had her romances and love affairs [37] ... but ... though she thought of different men as possible lovers, no one of them measured up to her ideal of a husband." [38] These women did not define their emotional life in terms of interiority, purely personal sentiments. They constantly contrasted their own feelings with ideals that set an impersonal standard offering criteria to evaluate emotions. Thus Ella Lyman, at twenty-seven, wrote to her suitor: "Choosing to marry is choosing to live a dual life, to bring two different lives into union and we don't do that unless the tie which unites them, the life in common, is holier, higher than the work of either apart." [39] For two years, she could not decide whether to marry Richard. In answering his marriage proposal, she assured him of their closeness, yet was unable to accept: "Marriage is so vital and earnest a responsibility that even to spare you suffering I cannot answer now." [40] Two days later she wrote in the same vein : "Dear Richard, I am glad of this deeper knowledge of you, glad in your love ... As yet I have not realized the meaning of marriage, and it is so sacred a tie that I must grow into the knowledge of it before I enter its presence. I am unworthy to share your life unless I can give myself to you with perfect oneness

and I cannot now." [41] Here Ella Lyman pointed to a crucial feature of the contemporary ideal of lovemarriage: "pe rfect oneness" was not only an achievable goal but the goal to achieve. Given her belief in the possibility of perfect fusion, it is no surprise that she was still hesitating a year later. Lucy Stone was similarly unconvinced by Henry Blackwell's ardent courtship: "You are dearest to me ... but all that you are to me, does not come near, my ideal of what is necessary, to make a marriage relation ... If there were real affinity between us--the elements by which a true marriage could be made, I do not think that I should so instinctively recoil from the thought of it." [42] Suffragist and women's rights advocate Lucy Stone, who firmly resolved never to marry, was nonetheless willing to enter such a union if, as she assured Henry, "my love for you had in it, that glad self-surrender, and boundless trust which is a wedded love ... no nothing ... should or could prevent my public recognition of it ... So now, I ... wait for full assurance." [43] Ellen Rothman has argued that in spite of culture's idealization of marriage, middle-class women did not want to marry so badly that any men would do. My argument is the opposite: it was precisely because of the idealization of marriage that middleclass wo men were severely selective in choosing husbands. [44] Ella Lyman wrote about "perfect oneness in marriage, Lucy Stone referred to the "glad self-surrender ... which is wedded love," Lucy Larcom understood matrimony as "two spirits made one." These spiritualized images of love and marriage were closely linked to the rise of "moral motherhood." [45] The maternal ideal emphasized women's emotional qualities, which during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries came to be more highly valued. [46] As affection took on a moral and religious connotation, [47] feminine affection was conceived of as above lust, passion, or sensuality. "The higher women rise in moral and intellectual culture, the more is the sensual refined away from her nature, and the more pure and perfect and predominant becomes her motherhood." In this spiritualized understanding, feminine love was inseparable from woman's motherly nature and distinctive moral qualities. [48] "Love is the very nature of woman. She may be said to possess it in a general sense, independently of individual applications. All the passions of woman relate in the last analysis to her maternal role." [49] Feminine love was caring, tender, and selfless, not only in the prescriptive literature but in women's private accounts of their aspirations. 6. Women's Economic and Social Position Women's involvement in politics between the late 1870s and 1914 also took place in a changing economic and social context. Working-class women were largely employed in three main occupations throughout the period, textiles, clothing and domestic service, but there was also a steady expansion in newer areas of work such as retailing and clerical employment. There were more opportunities for women from all social classes to gain employment in professional occupations, in particular as nurses, teachers, midwives and social workers. This enabled some middle-class women to live independently of their families and the 1890s became identified as an era of the 'new woman'; her greater personal freedom when compared to the previous generation was most often symbolised by the bicycle. Perhaps the greatest change for married women was the steady reduction in family size from the 1870s onwards, although the rate of change varied between classes and occupational groups. It was still rare for middle-class wives to engage in paid employment. Married working-class women, however, continued to contribute to family income, although the extent and nature of their employment varied from region to region ( Helen Meller discusses many of these issues in her sections on health, medicine and women's bodies and women in the cities). Geometric Character Analysis (adapted from Lauren May and David Panenheimer) By listing geometric shapes to represent characters and arranging them on paper to suggest their interrelationships, students explore and discuss possible characterizations and conflicts. How: Read a short story or novel with complex characters. Draw several geometric figures on the board (circle, triangle, rectangle, square, blob). Ask students what types of personality each shape suggests to them. List the characters. Students choose three. Along the side of a blank piece of paper, they devise a shape to represent each character, labeled with the character's name. In the middle section of the paper, students group the shapes, keeping in mind that the placement and size of the shapes should show the relationships of the characters to one another. On the board, selected students draw then explain their geometric shapes--justifying shape, placement, and size. Individually, students color each shape, cut it out of construction paper and arrange it on paper, placing the figures so they represent character relationship. Students use arrows, dotted or jagged lines, varying shades, to better explain these relationships. Finally, students write about what their geometric design represents about each character. They explain color, shape, size and placement, referring to specific details from the story or novel. Students write a reflection on the activity. Why:

Students gain a better understanding of a story's characters, situations, relationships, and conflicts. When: During or after a short story, novel or text. Collaborative Talk In an unstructured format, students discuss a work of literature in order to clarify meaning. This strategy works well after the text has been read and allows participants to learn from and relate to others through the text. Grand Conversation A group leader encourages students to join in a discussion of the text. The leader records topics and issues discussed. At the conclusion of the grand conversation, the leader looks for any patterns that appear in the recorded responses and reports them to the group. This strategy encourages and shared responses, expansion, inquiry and exploration of the text. The teacher may begin: "What the did you think of the story?" Teacher probes; students contribute. Everyone's contributions are accepted. The discussion is freewheeling and is not guided by a teacher. The teacher asks for clarification, elaboration, and explanation and keeps a record of the main ideas discussed. The teacher shares the record with the group for closure. The leader's role is to facilitate and encourage comments to a higher level of thinking. Interrupted Book Report This strategy is a thirty-second oral book report that provides: an oral language experience a quick reading assessment an opportunity to generate interest in recreational and extended reading Students stand in circle. Each has thirty seconds to highlight a book. A timer interrupts at exactly 30 seconds to signal the next student to begin. The process continues until all students have shared. Literary Report Card In the literary report card, fictional characters get A to F grades. The Literary Report Card is designed to evaluate characters after a reading. Students form groups to determine several criteria by which to judge characters, such as bravery, honesty, and influence. Each character is evaluated in each category. Each group ranks the characters in the text, assigning them grades from A-F. Each set of characters must get the full range of grades. No set of characters will ever get the same grade. Each group supports its grades, orally. The class need not come to consensus. Summarizing Teachers may introduce Summarizing by asking individuals to describe briefly what was said or written. They may do this individually or in groups, orally, or written. Students : Brainstorm ideas about what they have read or discussed. Delete irrelevant or unnecessary information. Organize remaining content into a summary. Summarizing helps students recall the major elements in a piece of literature or the major points in expository text. HERODOTUS AND THE ART OF NOTICING Ryszard Kapuscinski, author of the seminal works "Emperor" and "Shah of Shahs," is perhaps Europe's most renowned literary journalist. This is adapted from a talk he gave to Lettre International in Berlin. By Ryszard Kapuscinski WARSAW -- Herodotus -- who lived 2,500 years ago and left us his "History" -- was the first reporter. He is the father, master and forerunner of a genre --reportage. Where does reportage come from? It has three sources, of which travel is the first. Not in the sense of a tourist trip or outing to get some rest. But travel as a hard, painstaking expedition of discovery that requires a decent preparation, careful planning and research in order to collect material out of talks, documents and your own observations on the spot. That's just one of the methods Herodotus used to get to know the world. For years he would travel to the farthest corners of the world as the Greeks knew it. He went to Egypt and Libya, Persia and Babylon, the Black Sea and the Scythians of the north. In his times, the Earth was imagined to be a flat circle in the shape of a plate encircled by a great stream of water by the name of Oceanus. And it was Herodotus' ambition to get to know that entire flat circle.

Herodotus, however, besides being the first reporter, was also the first globalist. Fully aware how many cultures there were on Earth, he was eager to get to know all of them. Why? The way he put it, you can learn your own culture best only by familiarizing yourself with others. For your culture will best reveal its depth, value and sense only when you find its mirror reflection in other cultures, as they shed the best and most penetrating light on your own. (What did he accomplish with his comparative method of confrontation and mirror reflection? Well, Herodotus taught his countrymen modesty, tempered their self-conceit and hubris, the feeling of superiority and arrogance toward non-Greeks, toward all others. "You claim that the Greeks have created gods? Not at all. As a matter of fact, you've appropriated them from the Egyptians. You say your structures are magnificent? Yes, but the Persians have a far better system of communication and transportation." Thus Herodotus tried by means of his reportage to consolidate the most important message of Greek ethics: restraint, a sense of proportion and moderation. Beside travel, another source of reportage is other people, those encountered on the road, and those we travel to meet in order to get them to convey their knowledge, tales and opinions to us. Here Herodotus turns out to be the master extraordinaire. Judging by what he writes, whom he meets and the way he talks to them, Herodotus comes across as a man open and full of good will toward others, making contact with strangers easily, curious about the world, investigative and hungry for knowledge. We can imagine the way he acted, talked, asked and listened. His attitude and bearing show what is essentially important to a reporter: respect for another man, his dignity and worth. He listens carefully to his heartbeat and the way thoughts cross his mind. Herodotus notices the weakness of human memory, aware that his interlocutors relate different and often contradictory versions of the same event. Trying to be impartial and objective, he conscientiously leaves for us to decide about the most disparate variants and versions of the same story. Hence his reports are multidimensional, rich, vivid and palpable. Herodotus is a tireless reporter. He takes the trouble to go hundreds of miles by sea, on horseback or simply on foot only to hear another version of a past event. He wants to know, no matter the price he pays, and wants his knowledge be the most authentic, the closest to the truth. This conscientiousness sets a good example of the responsibility we assume, for all that we do. The third source of reportage is the reporter's homework: to read what has been written and endures in texts, inscriptions or graphic symbols on the topic a given reporter is working on. Herodotus also teaches us how to be investigative and careful. In his times, the amount of materials he could rely on was far smaller than that available today. So whatever he managed to collect was precious. He naturally was well read in Homer, Hesiod, poets and playwrights. He would decipher inscriptions on temples and town

a., U.S.--d. July 27, 1946, Paris), avant-garde American writer, eccentric, and self-styled genius, whose Paris home was a salon for the leading artists and writers of the period between World Wars I and II. Stein spent her infancy in Vienna and Paris and her girlhood in Oakland, Calif. At Radcliffe College she studied psychology with the philosopher William James. After further study at Johns Hopkins medical school she went

to Paris, where she was able to live by private means. From 1903 to 1912 she lived with her brother Leo, who became an accomplished art critic; thereafter she lived with her lifelong companion Alice B. Toklas (18771967). Stein and her brother were among the first collectors of works by the Cubists and other experimental painters of the period, such as Pablo Picasso (who painted her portrait), Henri Matisse, and Georges Braque, several of whom became her friends. At her salon they mingled with expatriate American writers, such as Sherwood Anderson and Ernest Hemingway, and other visitors drawn by her literary reputation. Her literary and artistic judgments were revered, and her chance remarks could make or destroy reputations. In her own work, she attempted to parallel the theories of Cubism, specifically in her concentration on the illumination of the present moment and her use of slightly varied repetitions and extreme simplification and fragmentation. The best explanation of her theory of writing is found in the essay Composition and Explanation, which is based on lectures that she gave at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and was issued as a book in 1926. Among her work that was most thoroughly influenced by Cubism is Tender Buttons (1914), which carries fragmentation and abstraction beyond the borders of intelligibility. Her first published book, Three Lives (1909), the stories of three working-class women, has been called a minor masterpiece. The Making of Americans, a long composition written in 1906-08 but not published until 1925, was too convoluted and obscure for general readers, for whom she remained essentially the author of such lines as "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." Her only book to reach a wide public was The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (1933), actually Stein's own autobiography. The performance in the United States of her Four Saints in Three Acts (1934), which the composer Virgil Thomson had made into an opera, led to a triumphal American lecture tour in 1934-35. Thomson also wrote the music for her second opera, The Mother of Us All (published 1947), based on the life of feminist Susan B. Anthony. Stein became a legend in Paris, especially after surviving the German occupation of France and befriending the many young American servicemen who visited her. She wrote about these soldiers in Brewsie and Willie (1946). BIBLIOGRAPHY. A critical study is Richard Bridgman, Gertrude Stein in Pieces (1971). James R. Mellow, Charmed Circle: Gertrude Stein & Company (1974, reissued 1982), describes her life in France. Shirley Neuman and Ira B. Nadel (eds.), Gertrude Stein and the Making of Literature (1987), contains scholarly essays. Bruce Kellner (ed.), A Gertrude Stein Companion: Content with the Example (1988), provides a literary guide, including an annotated bibliography of selected criticism. The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, published in 1933, is Gertrude Stein's best-selling work and her most accessible. Consisting of seven chapters covering the first three decades of the twentieth century, the book is only incidentally about Toklas's life. Its real subject, and narrator, is Stein herself, who reportedly had asked Toklas, her lifelong companion, for years to write her autobiography. When Toklas did not, Stein did. Stein published excerpts of the work in the Atlantic, which occasioned a response from behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner whose essay, "Has Gertrude Stein a Secret?'' connected the style Stein employed in the book with her work on automatic writing in Harvard's psychology laboratories a few decades before. Automatic writing, popularized by the surrealists in the 1920s, was writing that follows unconscious as well as conscious thought of the author. Stein's writing certainly has some of that element in the Autobiography but on the whole she sticks to telling a story of her life and times in more or less chronological order. That life includes details of her relationships with artists and writers who would become some of the most famous of the twentieth century, including Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, Max Jacob, and Sherwood Anderson. Stein's book is modernist not only because she discusses modernist art and artists but because of how she represents her subject through indirection, paradox, repetition, and contradiction.