Frank Norris’ work “Vandover and the Brute” Essay Example for Free

Frank Norris’ work â€Å"Vandover and the Brute† Essay The development of sexuality in Frank Norris’ work â€Å"Vandover and the Brute† is an interesting reflection of the Puritanical views that Americans have towards sexuality, promiscuity and the consequences thereof. The importance of this book is that it openly examined this value system in 1914, a time when Vandover’s behavior, even without the lycanthropy, was considered brutish and improper. Yet the American environment was in the midst of the first â€Å"sexual† revolution as many young women of the 1920s would don clothing that revealed their flesh and boyish haircuts for the â€Å"Roaring Twenties†. Again in the 1960s, the next major era of women’s rights movements, sexuality would be tied to freedom and women would equate burning their bras and free love with freedom and independence. This book then is a look at how a young man might acquire the values of the community around him without ever being taught directly that sex is dirty and that women are somehow degraded when they participate in it. The interesting thing about Norris’ work, which was published after his death, is that Vandover managed to acquire these misguided notions of sexuality on his own. In the first chapter, the author points out that during his adolescent years Vandover’s only female contact was with the housekeeper with whom he was constantly at odds. In addition, because his father would not discuss sexuality with him, he was forced to turn to an Encyclopedia Britannica to answers his questions about women and sex. He was subjected to the crude jokes and unconscious sexual immaturity of boys going through puberty, but without a mother, governess or other strong feminine influence to teach him right from wrong. Indeed, if one assumes that the author was in fact trying to make a statement about society rather than just tell a story about a maladjusted young man in the late 19th century, it becomes clear from the very first chapters that one of Norris’ indictments is against Vandover’s father and his unwillingness to talk to his son about the facts of life. In dead, one of the underlying themes through the entire work is the idea that people only hint at their feelings and do not openly discuss the sexual nature of humanity even though it is a significant portion of their lives. One of the most interesting facets of this book is the discussion of Vandover’s first sexual encounter and his embarrassment and guilt over it. If the situation had perhaps been handled with some amount of discussion, it might have prevented the events that would later occur, including Vandover’s seduction of a â€Å"good girl†, her subsequent suicide, and his eventuality degradation to gambling and alcoholism. The author’s message that society needs to quit hiding its own nature and covering for the high class when they engage in reckless behavior is evident mid-book when Haight explains to Vandover that several of the young, classy women at a cotillion were drunk. Haight tells his friends that society should call a spade a spade and that when women of class drink too much they should be considered drunk as much as any man. This dual criticism of the means by which people receive a sexual education and the double-standards applied to men and women is perhaps the most interesting passage in the book. Another interesting idea that Norris sets forth through the theme of the book and the story itself is that Vandover’s sexuality and promisecuity are to blame for the turn of events for him, including the loss of his family fortune and his new role as a werewolf. Interestingly, rather than approaching the concept that Vandover’s situation might be a result of his addictive behavior including his sexually predatory nature, his alcoholism and his gambling addiction, the reader is left with the idea that the bad things which happen to him are consequences of his sexuality alone. Though Norris portrays Vandover throughout the novel as a weak-willed individual who is too lazy to work hard and get what he wants out of life, everything in his life is blamed on his sexuality and his desire for women of a certain type. The fact that Vandover does not settle down with a fine, upstanding woman, regardless of his feelings for her is seen as an affront to society as a whole. The most important messages about sexuality that are relayed via â€Å"Vandover and The Brute† are the concepts that sexuality exists as it does because people don’t talk about it and that there are consequences for sexual behavior. The first concept is perhaps the most intriguing because it still applies now, almost 100 years later. Though we do not have the same level of closed-mouth attitudes toward sex as Vandover encountered, it is not uncommon even in the modern day to find parents of high school students who do not want their children exposed to sex education for fear that the education will lead to promiscuity. Instead of teaching real information regarding the dangers, both physical and emotional, of beginning a sexual relationship at the wrong time, too many parents concentrate on the Puritanical approach to sex education, associating it with guilt and sin. Young people are not properly educated regarding the safety issues of sex and sexually transmitted diseases continue at epidemic levels when they could be prevented with adequate discussion of the topic. Ironically, as we approach the 100-year mark for the publication, Norris’ primary criticism of the teaching of sexuality still stands today.

One Era To Another: The Telephone Essay -- Inventions, Alexander Graha

The modern version of the telephone has proven a significant change over the years from what it was at one point. What allows us to communicate with the world at any hour; minute and second of the day only exhibits how significant the invention has been for individuals. It is one of the most used pieces of electronics in the world today. Over time research has not only led to different versions of the phone, but to the developments of different tones, caller id’s, dialing, call tracing and allowing a person to listen to music while on hold. Alexander Graham Bell was born in March of 1847 in Edinburgh to a family whose life revolved around sound, speech and communication (Stern and Gwathmey 1). It was at the beginning of the second decade of the rule of Queen Victoria and Britain was entering an age of industrial expansion, with science on the rise. Bell at a young age proved to be quite the gentlemen, his training in etiquette and public speaking only proved to serve him well throughout life. It was during a visit to the London workshop of Sir Charles Wheatstone, he discovered the scientist’s invention of the speaking machine that fascinated him (Stern and Gwathmey 2). Curious and ambitious he set out and took a position as a professor of music and elocution, the study and art of speaking clear at a boarding school. Shortly thereafter tragedy struck in the Bell family and fearing further loss the family relocated to Brantford, Ontario in 1870. Bell spent a short time in Canada and quickly found his love of lif e in Boston. Bell began teaching deaf children and it was here he met Thomas Sanders and Gardiner Greene Hubbard. Little did Bell know these two men would play a prominent role in the patent of the telephone and directio... ...phone service. Here we sit in the 21st century and look at the one instrument that once brought people together, and has now spawned an industry that keeps them apart. Ultimately the telephone led in a new era, in which it has changed the way we talk to people and access information. Having a telephone allows families to stay in contact, business’s to advertise and one of the largest contributions is how it has brought on the ability to call during emergencies. Bell once wrote in 1878: "I believe in the future wires will unite the head offices of telephone companies in different cities, and a man in one part of the country may communicate by word of mouth with another in a distant place." (Marples, thehistoryof) From the telephone's earliest days and little did one know, it is safe to say Bell understood his invention's vast potential and what it would be today.

Us history

We take nothing by conquest, Thank god. Zinn uses this statement to present how atrocious the conquest really was since there was a conquest. America wanted to hide it's evil ways behind the facade of saying that America acquire land always through peaceful purchases. The war was very unpopular to many.Polk said that the war was to gain California and also said that Mexicans invaded first. On this chapter Zinn focuses on the Mexican American war and how it really was a conquest caused by Polk. In 1821, Mexico won it's independence in a revolutionary war against Spain. Mexico was a large country which included Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and part of Colorado. In 183 Texas broke of from Mexico and declared itself † The lone star republic† and in 1845 the U. S Congress brought it into the union as a state.Later in spring of 1846, all that was needed was a military incident to begin the war Polk wanted. It happened after General Taylor's quartermaster, Colonel Cr oss isappeared. His body was found eleven days later. It was assumed that the Mexicans had killed him. A lot of the Anti-Slavery congressmen voted against all war measures. Seeing the mexican campaign as a means of extending the southern. Slave territory Joshua Giddings explains his vote against supplying men and arms for the war.To Howard Zinn looks like Polk was the only one that wanted California to be part of his nation. The war barely begun in the summer of 1846, when a writer who lived in Washington refused to pay his Massachusetts poll tax. Denouncing the mexican war. He was put into Jail and spent the night there. Zinn argues that the president Polk pushed for the war because he wanted to expand. He wanted to go as southwest as possible. He thought the United States needed to be larger. Polk wanted California for America before anyone else could get it.It was not right for him to move his troops into an area that was already claimed by Mexicans. The war was not popular and t he soldiers wanted to go home. Like Zinn said † I don't think it was right to Just take land from Mexico Just because the president wants it. I think thats ot fair. Polk's leadership as president ofa nation that was quickly expanding not care for the mexican people already living there. Zinn gives a quote from the diary of Colonel Ethan Allen Hitchcock, who opposed measures taken by General Taylor to annex Texas.Hitchcock explains, â€Å"He seems to have lost all respect for Mexican rights and is willing to be an instrument of Mr. Polk for pushing our boundary as far west as possible,† (A people's history of the United States page 150). The feelings for this burst of expansion were varied; some believed it unnecessary to ifferent degrees and opposed or refuse to go into war with Mexico Just to take their land , while others strongly favored the extra land.In fact, a new attitude was developed during this time, the one of â€Å"manifest destiny'Americans technically wen t into conquest because Cross was found dead eleven days after he disappeared and Mexicans were responsible for it. They didn't know who killed it so they actually went into conquest because Polk was already planning on taking California from Mexico. Americans assumed the war begin by the mexicans after killing Cross. No one wanted to go to war with anyone. The American people were not excited or impatient for this.In conclusion a part of me was shocked while another part of me knew that these actions were not uncommon. While it is hard for me to determine what the United States' goal is right now (perhaps stability) it's easy to see what kind of mindset these powerful leaders back then had. It was all about the idea that Americans were entitled to the land they set their eyes on. knowing that the united states of America used to be so grossly land-obsessed. Then again, who knows what our country is obsessed with today; it could be land once again. Us history We take nothing by conquest, Thank god. Zinn uses this statement to present how atrocious the conquest really was since there was a conquest. America wanted to hide it's evil ways behind the facade of saying that America acquire land always through peaceful purchases. The war was very unpopular to many.Polk said that the war was to gain California and also said that Mexicans invaded first. On this chapter Zinn focuses on the Mexican American war and how it really was a conquest caused by Polk. In 1821, Mexico won it's independence in a revolutionary war against Spain. Mexico was a large country which included Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and part of Colorado. In 183 Texas broke of from Mexico and declared itself † The lone star republic† and in 1845 the U. S Congress brought it into the union as a state.Later in spring of 1846, all that was needed was a military incident to begin the war Polk wanted. It happened after General Taylor's quartermaster, Colonel Cr oss isappeared. His body was found eleven days later. It was assumed that the Mexicans had killed him. A lot of the Anti-Slavery congressmen voted against all war measures. Seeing the mexican campaign as a means of extending the southern. Slave territory Joshua Giddings explains his vote against supplying men and arms for the war.To Howard Zinn looks like Polk was the only one that wanted California to be part of his nation. The war barely begun in the summer of 1846, when a writer who lived in Washington refused to pay his Massachusetts poll tax. Denouncing the mexican war. He was put into Jail and spent the night there. Zinn argues that the president Polk pushed for the war because he wanted to expand. He wanted to go as southwest as possible. He thought the United States needed to be larger. Polk wanted California for America before anyone else could get it.It was not right for him to move his troops into an area that was already claimed by Mexicans. The war was not popular and t he soldiers wanted to go home. Like Zinn said † I don't think it was right to Just take land from Mexico Just because the president wants it. I think thats ot fair. Polk's leadership as president ofa nation that was quickly expanding not care for the mexican people already living there. Zinn gives a quote from the diary of Colonel Ethan Allen Hitchcock, who opposed measures taken by General Taylor to annex Texas.Hitchcock explains, â€Å"He seems to have lost all respect for Mexican rights and is willing to be an instrument of Mr. Polk for pushing our boundary as far west as possible,† (A people's history of the United States page 150). The feelings for this burst of expansion were varied; some believed it unnecessary to ifferent degrees and opposed or refuse to go into war with Mexico Just to take their land , while others strongly favored the extra land.In fact, a new attitude was developed during this time, the one of â€Å"manifest destiny'Americans technically wen t into conquest because Cross was found dead eleven days after he disappeared and Mexicans were responsible for it. They didn't know who killed it so they actually went into conquest because Polk was already planning on taking California from Mexico. Americans assumed the war begin by the mexicans after killing Cross. No one wanted to go to war with anyone. The American people were not excited or impatient for this.In conclusion a part of me was shocked while another part of me knew that these actions were not uncommon. While it is hard for me to determine what the United States' goal is right now (perhaps stability) it's easy to see what kind of mindset these powerful leaders back then had. It was all about the idea that Americans were entitled to the land they set their eyes on. knowing that the united states of America used to be so grossly land-obsessed. Then again, who knows what our country is obsessed with today; it could be land once again.

Economic Restraints And The American Revolution - 1286 Words

Joy Ansell Upon arriving in North America, John Winthrop stated the purpose of the colonies, We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us. The passengers on the boat that left England had a vision, to be an example for the rest of the world. And for over 100 years, Great Britain ruled over these colonies, under the undocumented policy of salutary neglect. Salutary neglect was a long standing policy that allowed the colonists to violate the laws of trade. However, the British reversed this policy to raise taxes for the debts caused by the French and Indian War. After the reversal of the policy, the colonists started to grow tired and angry over the taxation. They debated Great Britain’s legal power to tax them†¦show more content†¦To pay for soldiers, which cost about 320,000 pounds a year. They imposed the Sugar Act in the colonies in 1764, to collect taxes on imported molasses. In fact, the Sugar Act lowered the tax on imported sugar from six pence a g allon to three pence. However, the taxes were actually being collected as opposed to when they were not under salutary neglect, which upset the colonists. To get out of paying the taxes, colonists began to smuggle the sugar. And in response to the smuggling, the British gave its Navy more power to capture merchant vessels. To supply the Navy with even more power, the British also passed the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act required that all legal documents in the colonies bear a tax stamp that could only be purchased from official tax collectors. The colonists were furious, however England was open to new ideas and solutions. Prime Minister George Grenville, the author of the Stamp Act said, â€Å"I am not set upon this tax, If the Americans dislike it and prefer any other method of raising the money themselves and if they choose any other mode I shall be satisfied, provided the money be raised.† England was more than happy to change the tax, as long as the colonists could come up w ith another way to pay revenue. After all the taxes were the colonists responsibility as colonies and for their part in the war debts.