Daedalus and Icarus - Greek Mythology Daedalus was an ingenious inventor.

He was expelled from Athens for killing his nephew for surpassing his inventive genius. He ended up in Crete where he served King Minos and Queen Pasiphae. The queen requested that he build a fake cow that she could hide in so she could mate with a beautiful bull given to her husband by Poseidon god of the sea. The union of the bull and Pasiphae produced the Minotaur, a creature with a mans body and a bulls hea. Theseus the hero of Athens later encountered the Minotaur and killed it. King Minos had Daedalus build a labyrinth. A labyrinth is a large complicated maze which is nearly impossible to escape. After the king discovered the cow Daedalus made for his wife. He punished Daedalus and his son Icarus by locking them up in the Labyrinth. To escape, Daedalus used his inventive skills to create wings held together with wax for he and his son. The two were able to get airborne and fly out of their maze prison. Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly too high or to low by the sea. Icarus soared so near the sun that the wings melted. The boy plunged to his death into the sea south of Samos. The sea was then called the Icarian Sea. *** The most familiar literary telling explaining Daedalus' wings is a late one, that of Ovid: in his Metamorphoses (VIII:183-235) Daedalus was shut up in a tower to prevent his knowledge of his Labyrinth from spreading to the public. He could not leave Crete by sea, as the king kept strict watch on all vessels, permitting none to sail without being carefully searched. Since Minos controlled the land and sea routes, Daedalus set to work to fabricate wings for himself and his young son Icarus. He tied feathers together, from smallest to largest so as to form an increasing surface. He secured the feathers at their midpoints with string and at their bases with wax, and gave the whole a gentle curvature like the wings of a bird. When the work was done, the artist, waving his wings, found himself buoyed upward and hung suspended, poising himself on the beaten air. He next equipped his son in the same manner, and taught him how to fly. When both were prepared for flight, Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly too high, because the heat of the sun would melt the wax, nor too low, because the sea foam would soak the feathers. They had passed Samos, Delos and Lebynthos by the time the boy, forgetting himself, began to soar upward toward the sun. The blazing sun softened the wax which held the feathers together and they came off. Icarus fell into the sea and drowned. His father

cried, bitterly lamenting his own arts, and called the land near the place where Icarus fell into the ocean Icaria in memory of his child. An early image of winged Daedalus appears on an Etruscan jug of ca 630 BC found at Cerveteri, where a winged figure captioned Taitale appears on one side of the vessel, paired on the other side, uniquely, with Metaia, Medea: "its linking of these two mythical figures is unparalleled," Robin Lane Fox observes: "The link was probably based on their wondrous, miraculous art. Magically, Daedalus could fly, and magically Medea was able to rejuvenate the old (the scene on the jug seems to show her doing just this)". The image of Daedalus demonstrates that he was already well known in the West.

*** The Eagle And The Beetle -- Aesop A BEETLE once begged the Eagle to spare a Hare which had run to her for protection. But the Eagle pounced upon her prey, the sweep of her great wings tumbling the Beetle a dozen feet away. Furious at the disrespect shown her, the Beetle flew, to the Eagle's nest and rolled out the eggs. Not one did she spare. The Eagle's grief and anger knew no bounds, but who had done the cruel deed she did not know. Next year the Eagle built her nest far up on a mountain crag; but the Beetle found it and again destroyed the eggs. In despair the Eagle now implored great Jupiter to let her place her eggs in his lap. There none would dare harm them. But the Beetle buzzed about Jupiter's head, and made him rise to drive her away; and the eggs rolled from his lap. Now the Beetle told the reason for her action, and Jupiter had to acknowledge the justice of her cause. And they say that ever after, while the Eagle's eggs lie in the nest in spring, the Beetle still sleeps in the ground. For so Jupiter commanded. Even the weakest may find means to avenge a wrong.

***

The Nightingale And The Rose Oscar Wilde Summary The Nightingale and the Rose is a story in which the first character that appears is a Student. This boy is sad because a girl promised to dance with him on condition that he brought her red roses, but he did not find any red rose; there were white roses and yellow roses, but he could not find red roses. While he was moaning because her love would not dance with him, four characters from nature started to talk about him. A little Green Lizard, a Butterfly and a Daisy asked why he was weeping, and the Nightingale said that he was weeping for a red rose. The first three characters said that weeping for a red rose was ridiculous. The Nightingale, who understood the Student, started to fly until she saw a Rose-tree. She told him to give her a red rose, and she promised, in exchange, to sing her sweetest song, but the Rose-tree told her that his roses were white, and he send the Nightingale to his brother that grew round the old sun-dial. The Nightingale went to see this new Rose-tree, and after promising the same in exchange for a red rose, the Rosetree told her that his roses were yellow, but he send the Nightingale to his brother, who grew beneath the Student's window, so the Nightingale went there, and when she arrived, she asked the Rose-tree to give her a red rose. The Rose-tree said that his roses were red, but that the winter had chilled his veins and the frost had nipped his buds, so he could not give her a red rose. The Rose-tree gave her a solution: he told her that if she wanted a red rose, she had to build it out of music by moonlight and stain it with her own heart's blood. She had to sing to the Rose-tree with her breast against a thorn; the thorn would pierce her heart and her life-blood would flow into the Rose-tree veins. The Nightingale said that death was a great price to pay for a red rose, but at the end, she accepted. The Nightingale went to see the Student and told him that he would have his red rose, that it was her who was going to build it up with her own blood; the only thing she asked him for in return was to being a true lover. Although the Student looked at her, he could not understand anything because he only understood the things that were written down in books. But the Oak-tree understood and became sad because he was fond of the Nightingale, and asked her to sing the last song and when she finished, the Student thought that the Nightingale had form, but no feeling. At night, the Nightingale went to the Rose-tree and set her breast against the thorn. She sang all night long. She pressed closer and closer against the thorn until the thorn finally touched her heart and she felt a fierce pang of pain. The more the rose got the red colour, the fainter the Nightingale's voice became, and after beating her wings, she died. The rose was finished, but she could not see it. The next morning, the Student saw the wonderful rose under his

window. He took it and went to see the girl and offered her the rose, but she just say that the rose would not go with her dress and that the Chamberlain's nephew had sent her real jewels and that everybody knew that jewels cost far more than flowers. After arguing with her, the Student threw the rose into a gutter, where a cart-wheel went into it, and he said that Love was a silly thing and that he preferred Logic and Philosophy. Characters The Student is the first character in the story. He is a boy who dreams of dancing with the girl he loves, but he is worried because he does not have a red rose, that that was what the girl asked for in return of dancing with him. He dedicates his life to books: he likes Philosophy, and he considers books the only useful thing in life. We have an example of this when the Nightingale tells him that he is going to have his rose: The Student looked up from the grass, and listened, but he could not understand what the Nightingale was saying to him, for he only knew the things that are written down in books. The three next characters could go together: the little Green Lizard, the Butterfly and the Daisy. They are all personified elements of nature. They think that it is ridiculous to weep for a red rose, and the Green Lizard even laughed outright. The next character is our protagonist. The Nightingale is all goodness. She thinks that the most important thing in the world is love, and she even gives her life for love. The three next characters could go together too. The three Rose-trees, although the important one is the one who has the red rose. He tells the Nightingale to die for a red rose. The last character is the daughter of the Professor, the girl the Student loved. She makes much of material things and she looked down on the rose the Student gave her just because it had less material value than the jewels another boy sent her. Time and Space The action takes place in the room of the Student, when he is reading at the end of the story; in the garden that is near the Student's room's window, where we find the Rosetree that has the red rose and where the Nightingale knows about the problem the Student has and the last places is the daughter of the Professor's house, where she despises the Student and his rose.

We can easily see in the story that the action develops in some hours. The evening and the night of one day, when the Nightingale listens to the laments of the Student, when he find the Rose-tree that can give her a red rose and when she dies building the red rose for the Student; the other period of time is the next morning, when the Student goes to talk to the girl he loves. In the story we do not see any flashback, we see a liner account. Style The main words in this tale belong to the semantic fields of nature, knowledge and love. We are going to see different examples of this. We see the semantic field of nature in asked a little Green Lizard.., said a Butterfly, whispered a Daisy, He is weeping for a red rose -said the Nightingale, She passed through the grove, In the centre of the grass-plot was standing a beautiful Rose-tree, But the Oak-tree understood, etc. The semantic field of knowledge can be seen in cried the young Student, Ah, on what little things does happiness depend! I have read all that the wise men have written, and all the secrets of philosophy are mine, yet for want of a red rose is my life made wretched, It is not half as useful as Logic, for it does not prove anything, and it is always telling one of things that are not going to happen, and making one believe things that are not true [] I shall go back to Philosophy and study Metaphysics. The Semantic field of love is present in these examples: Here at last is a true lover, Surely Love is a wonderful thing, Yet Love is better than Life, and what is the heart of a bird compared to the heart of a man?, All that I ask of you in return is that you will be a true lover, for Love is wiser than Philosophy, though she is wise, and mightier than Power, though he is mighty, She sang first of the birth of love in the heart of a boy and a girl. Apart from these semantic fields, we can find some stylistic resources such as comparison, that is the most resorted stylistic characteristic: His hair is dark as the hyacinth-blossom, and his lips are red as the rose of his desire; but passion has made his face like pale ivory, It is more precious than emeralds, and dearer than fine opals, My roses are white, as white as the foam of the sea, and whiter than the snows upon the mountains, My roses are yellow, as yellow as the hair of the mermaiden [] and yellower than the daffodil that blows in the meadow [], And a delicate flush of pink came into the leaves of the rose, like the flush in the face of the bridegroom when he kisses the lips of the bride.

Another stylistic resource is personification. We can see that the main characters, apart from the Student, are animals or elements from nature, such as a little Green Lizard, a Daisy, a Butterfly, a Nightingale, a Rose-tree and an Oak-tree. Other outstanding features One remarkable thing is that at the end of the tale, when the Student says that the daughter of the Professor is ungrateful, we can see that the really ungrateful one is the Student himself, who look down on the Nightingale's life. We can see that the most important theme in this tale is beauty, it is everything for the artist who gives her life for it, and the less important thing for her is materialism, represented by the Student and also by the daughter of the Professor. The Nightingale sacrifices her life to create the rose that will give love to the Student. The bird is very ancient as a symbol in the cultural tradition. The bird is the symbol of immaterial beauty, and the election of a nightingale in this story has a deeper meaning: this is a lonely and shy bird. Our Nightingales is able to die in exchange for eternal love: Love, in our story is represented by the Rose, that is the most perfect flower in the world: And the marvellous rose became crimson, like the rose of the eastern sky. Crimson was the girdle of petals, and crimson as a ruby was the heart, Here is a red rose! I have never seen any rose like it in all my life. It is so beautiful that I am sure it has a long Latin name. We can also see in this tale some elements I listed before, such as prototypical characters (the Student), or the number three (the Nightingale goes to three Rose-tree to find the red rose, and the characters that are with the Nightingale while the Student is moaning, are three: the Green Lizard, the Butterfly and the Daisy). Find symbols (symbolic) of the rose, the student, the girl, the nightingale and the oaktrees. In my opinion the rose is the symbol of the blinded love that the girl will give to the student if he brings her one. Thus, the rose, supposed to be the ultimate gift that will bring love to the giver, is made with the Nightingale's blood which is very ironic because the birth of the rose came with the death of the bird. The object of the girl's love (rose) has been formed by the sacrifice of the Nightingale, which, actually, was worthless. The student is the symbol of the young and naive person who is, at first, passion by his philosophy books before he gets attracted in the arms of Love.

In this story, the girl is definitely the bad person. After having found a red rose, made by the Nightingale's sacrifice, the girl doesn't even dance with the student because she is more attracted with jewels and money, things that the Prince can give her. The Oak tree is like an old, wise man. He sees the Nightingale's death and he is really sad of it because, without saying it, he knows about life and he knows that this sacrifice is worthless because love is always a bad and vicious thing ( according to the moral of the story ). Find examples of similes, metaphors, personification, alliteration, assonance and consonance. Metaphor: " [my roses are] yellower than the daffodil that blooms in the meadow before the mower comes with his scythe" Simile: " Passion has made his lace like pale ivory" Personification: Almost all the character of the story are examples of personification (Oak tree, Nightingale, butterfly, lizard...)

Mr. Know-All Literary analysis THE STORY Mr. Know- All is a story with a moral lesson. The subject is simple. A rich British merchant of Oriental origin, called Mr. Kelada, meets a group of Westerners on a ship sailing across the Pacific Ocean. His cabin-mate, a British citizen who is the nameless narrator of the story, dislikes Mr. Kelada even before he sees him. However, at the end of the story Mr. Kelada, the Levantine jeweller, proves to be a real gentleman when he sacrifices his own pride and reputation to save an American ladys marriage. As a result, he earns the respect of the narrator. THE SETTING Time a short time after World War I. It is mentioned for two reasons. First, it justifies the accidental meeting in the same cabin of the narrator and Mr. Kelada. The passenger traffic on the ocean-liners was heavy, so the narrator had to agree to share a cabin with a person he disliked. Second, it may give us a possible reason for the narrators unjustified antagonism towards Mr. Kelada. Usually, during periods of war, feelings of prejudice and dislike for foreigners grow stronger. Place it takes place on a ship in INTERNATIONAL WATERS a neutral place. The journey for the USA to Japan takes 14 days. The ship becomes the symbol of the world with people who are prejudiced and even racists. THE PLOT The story consists of two plots: the main plot and the sub-plot. 1. The main plot deals with the conflicting relationship between the narrator and Mr. Kelada. The sub-plot deals with the relationship between Mr. Kelada and Mr. Ramsay. They discuss real pearls (nature-made) and cultured pearls (man-made), then they bet whether Mrs. Ramsay's necklace is made of real pearls or an imitation.

The two plots are connected. The sub-plot serves to bring the complications of the main plot to its climax and solution. That is, after the narrator discovers that Mr. Kelada is in fact a gentleman (despite his vulgar manners) he changes his opinion about him. THE CHARACTERS The characters may be divided into different groups: The major characters: Mr. Kelada and the narrator The minor characters: Mr. And Mrs. Ramsay, and the doctor. The prejudiced: the narrator and Mr. Ramsay. The non-prejudiced: Mr. Kelada, the doctor and Mrs. Ramsay. The Oriental: Mr. Kelada The Westerners: Mr. And Mrs. Ramsay and the narrator.

The characters are described by their appearance and characteristics, except for the narrator. THE NARRATION- point of view The story is told in the first person the narrator sees everything and is a part of the plot. In the first episode, where he meets with Mr. Kelada, the narrator is more active, and involved. He observes, comments and judges Mr. Kelada as he sees him through his own eyes. Since he is influenced by his prejudiced society, his judgments are subjective. In the second episode, involving the necklace examination, the narrator is less involved. He is like a cameraman who takes photos and writes down what he hears objectively. After the chain examination is over, the narrator becomes subjective again. In the last episode, the narrator discovers Mr. Keladas true character. As a result, he undergoes a change he realizes that people should not be judged by their looks but by their actions and character. It is the narrator who closes the story. CRISIS and TURNING POINT OF THE STORY The cultured pearls topic is the crisis of the story. The heated argument between Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Kelada reveals their true characters.

2.

Mr. Ramsay appears to be a prejudiced person who does his best to have a fling at the Levantine. Mrs. Ramsays character is also revealed as being insincere in her relationship with her husband, whom she had been deceiving. When she was alone in New York for a year, she probably had a lover who gave her the expensive pearls. Nevertheless, she has the decency to secretly return to Mr. Kelada his lost money. Mr. Kelada, who has been considered a pushy, inconsiderate and vulgar person, turns out to be a real gentleman who saves Mrs. Ramsay's marriage. The narrator also undergoes a change. When he realizes that Mr. Kelada behaves considerately with Mrs. Ramsay, he says At that moment, I did not entirely dislike Mr. Kelada. Suddenly, he becomes aware that GENERALIZATION is not the right way to judge people. This is the moral lesson of the story. REAL PEARLS and CULTURE PEARLS At first glance, real pearls and cultured pearls look the same. But only a closer inspection can reveal what is real and what is imitation. The same goes for people. People from the same nationality seem the same. But only when we get to know them, we see that each person is different. For example, the narrator in the story dislikes Mr. Kelada because of his name, luggage, appearance and nationality. However, when he sees the true character of Mr. Kelada, he realizes that prejudice is not the right way to judge people. Therefore, the saying DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER is relevant here THE THEME: CULTURAL and RACIAL PREJUDICE The opening paragraph reveals this theme. From the start, the narrator expresses his prejudices against Mr. Kelada for no logical of apparent reason. The narrator dislikes Mr. Keladas name, his luggage, his appearance, his manners and even his pride in being British. When the narrator says that there are too many labels on Mr. Kelada's luggage it has a double meaning: for one thing, Mr. Kelada travels a lot so there are labels from different ports on his suitcases. Second, people put labels on him so they are prejudiced and stereotyped about him. The narrator repeats the expression I disliked Mr. Kelada a number of times.

In spite of the fact that Mr. Kelada is jovial, hearty and sociable, the writer criticizes him for being talkative, boring and obnoxious. Strangely, all the Westerners feel the same, and they give Mr. Kelada the nickname Mr. Know-All. What seems good and friendly to Mr. Kelada seems bad, pushy and vulgar to the Westerners. Ironically, despite the cultural differences between the narrator and Mr. Kelada, they share the same attitude towards women. Both refer to Mrs. Ramsay as a pretty little thing. The author does not name the narrator for a purpose: the racist narrator can be any one of us. We all may be guilty of judging people by stereotypes and generalizations rather than examining the true character of people and getting to know them as individuals. Can you give me an analysis of Mr Know All written by William Somerset Maugham? The story takes place in international waters on an ocean going liner sailing from San Fracisco, U.S.A to Yokohama, Japan on the Pacific ocean. As the war had just ended, it was difficult to get accomodations. Therefore, the narrator had to share a cabin with a total stranger, but he expected him to be one of his own countrymen. Instead, he was deeply shocked to realize it was a chatty Levantine of oriental origin, Mr. Max Kelada, who was not British, but a native of one of the British colonies (he did have a British passport). Although his origin isn't stated precisely, his name suggests Spanish, Portugese, Syrian or even Jewish origin. The narrator mentions Mr. Kelada's "hooked nose", which might imply an antisemitic remark against Jews. The narrator was prepared to dislike Mr. Kelada even before he saw him. When he first entered the cabin, he saw Mr. Kelada's luggage and toilet things that had already been unpacked. The man's name and the sight of his things aroused a strong repulsion in him since he was prejudiced against all non- Britons, feeling superior to them. The irony of the story lies in the fact that the list of Mr. Kelada's "negative" traits presented in the beginning of the story shows an orderly, neat and tidy gentleman. When the narrator met Mr. Kelada, his hatred got even stronger. He abhorred the cultural differences between Kelada and himself. He both detested and despised Mr. Kelada's gestures. Therefore, the description of Kelada is negative and biased. The narrator's prejudice is based on several cultural differences between him and Mr. Kelada: a) A total stranger should address a gentleman with "Mr." and be formal. b) A gentleman shouldn't be pushy.

c) A gentleman should be modest. d) A gentleman should keep quiet during meals. e) A gentleman shouldn't be too chatty and argumentative. f) A gentleman shouldn't show off and boast about his super knowledge. g) A gentleman shouldn't be too dogmatic. Mr. Kelada was a person that seemed to know everything and was involved in everything, not sensing that he was disliked by everybody. He was very chatty and talked as if he had been superior to everybody else. The passengers mocked him and called him Mr. Know All even to his face. There was another dogmatic person on the ship - Mr. Ramsay who was an American Consular Serviceman stationed in Kobe, Japan. He was on his way to Kobe after having picked up his pretty little wife, who had stayed on her own in New York for a whole year. She looked very modest. Her clothes were simple although they achieved an effect of quiet distinction. She looked perfect and was adorable. One evening, the conversation drifted to the subject of pearls. As Mrs. Ramsay was wearing a string of pearls, Mr. Kelada announced that it certainly was a genuine one which had probably cost many thousands of dollars. He was ready to bet a hundred dollars on it. Mr. Ramsay, on the other hand, that his wife had bought it for 18 dollars in a department store. When Mr. Know - All took out a magnifying glass from his pocket, he noticed a desperat appeal in Mrs. Ramsay's eyes. He then realized that Mrs. Ramsay got the pearls from her lover.Since Mr. Kelada didn't . want to destroy Mrs. Ramsay's marriage, he ruined his reputation instead - he told everybody that he was wrong and that the string was an excellent imitation. He gave Mr. Ramsay a hundred dollars. The story spread all over the ship and everybody mocked Mr. Kelada. Later, while the narrator and Mr. Know - All were in their cabin, an envelope was pushed under the door. It contained a hundred dollar bill from Mrs. Ramsay. It was then that the narrator learned to value the dark - skinned Levantine. He was amazed at Mr. Kelada's generosity. This story shows that first impressions are often misleading and that appearances are sometimes deceptive. Mr. Kelada who is described as a disgusting person who shows off all the time and knows everything better than others, is in reality a sensitive, brave gentleman who wouldn't hurt others. On the other hand, Mrs. Ramsay, whose modesty and good qualities no one questions, has been unfaithful to her husband. The moral of the story is that we must not judge a book by its cover. Rather than judging a person by his looks, color or origin we should observe his behaviour and reactions in

difficult situations. Is W. Somerset Maugham a Racist? Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race(1). Racism can also be defined as prejudice or animosity against other races (2). In W. Somerset Maughams short story, Mr. KnowAll, the narrator displays racism on at least three different occasions throughout the story. The first occasion is when the narrator prejudges his cabin-mate, Mr. Kelada, by his last name. The narrator decided that he would not like Mr. Kelada, but would have liked him more if he had a more English last name, such as Smith or Brown. His heart (the narrators) sank upon hearing that name because he associated the name with a particular region and subsequently referred to him as a Levantine. Mr. Kelada tells the narrator from the beginning that he is English, however the narrator ignores him and uses the term Levantine to refer to him. A Levantine is someone from the eastern Mediterranean region comprising modern-day Lebanon, Israel, and parts of Syria and Turkey (3). The narrator also imagined that his cabin-mate would stink. This was clearly an example of racism because the narrator held some animosity toward his cabin-mate based upon his name. Secondly, the narrator displays his racism in his physical description of Max Kelada. According to the narrator, Mr. Kelada was short and sturdy, had a hook nose and liquid eyes. Mr. Kelada also had dark skin and long black hair that was sleek and curly. This added to the narrators theory that this man was merely a Middle Easterner attempting to pass as an Englishman. The narrator states that "a closer inspection of that British passport would have betrayed the fact that Mr. Kelada was born under a bluer sky than is generally seen in England (p. 14)." In other words, Mr. Kelada was born in a much more tropical region, namely the Middle Eastern region, especially for him to have the "dark skin" that he possessed. Just because Mr. Kelada had dark skin, it did not mean that he was not born in England. His parents could have come to live in England and he could have indeed been born there. Again the narrator is assuming that from his physical features that maybe Mr. Kelada had a fake passport. The narrator shows his belief that race determines human traits.

Lastly the narrator shows his racism by judging Mr. Kelada simply by calling him Mr. Know-All. He dislikes Mr. Kelada because Mr. Kelada has something to say about everyone and everything. Mr. Kelada had an answer for everything and he seemed to know everyone. The narrator was agitated by this. According to the first definition of racism stated above, race determines human capabilities. Because Mr. Kelada was not an Englishman, he should not have known everything that he knew. In fact, Mr. Kelada should have never opened his mouth if race alone determined his capabilities because he was from a barbaric country where there is no form of education, except for maybe religious education. These are just three occasions where the narrator shows signs of being a racist. The important thing to realize is that even thought the narrator displays outright racism, this does not mean that this is the stance of the author. While Mustafah may have been correct in calling the narrator racist, it is unclear that the author of the short story is racist.

The Necklace Guy De Maupassant Type of Work The Necklace, published in 1881, is a short storyamong the finest surprise-ending stories in any language. It is a compact, neat little package with just the right amount of character and plot development and nary a wasted word. It is one of many of Maupassants short stories that earned him recognition as a master of the genre. Setting The action takes place in Paris, France, in the second half of the nineteenth century. Specific locales include the residence of the Loisels, the home of Madame Jeanne Forestier, the palace of the Ministry of Education, Paris shops, and the streets of Paris, including the Rue des Martyrs and the Champs Elyses. Characters Mathilde: Pretty young woman born into a common, middle-class family. She yearns for the wealth, privileges, and fashions of highborn young ladies. Monsieur Loisel: Government clerk whom Mathilde marries. Madame Jeanne Forestier: Friend of Mathilde. She allows Mathilde to borrow a necklace to wear to a gala social event. Housemaid: Girl from Brittany who does the Loisels' housework. Her presence reminds Mathilde of her own status as a commoner. Jeweler: Dealer who provides a replacement necklace. Monsieur and Madame Georges Rampouneau : Minister of Education and his wife, who invite the Loisels to a party. Child With Madame Forestier: See number 5 under "Unanswered Questions" for information about this character. Plot Summary Even though Mathilde is pretty and quite charming, she has none of the advantages of upper-class girls: a dowry, a distinguished family name, an entree into society, and all the little fineries that women covet. Consequently, she accepts a match made for her with a clerk, Monsieur Loisel, in the Department of Education. Her home is common and plain, with well-worn furniture. The young girl from Brittany

who does the housework is a constant reminder to Mathilde of her own status as a commoner. But she dreams of having more: tapestries, bronze lamps, footmen to serve her, parlors with silk fabrics, perfumed rooms, silver dinnerware, exotic food, jewelry, the latest fashions. One evening, her husband presents her an envelope containing a special surprise. He is sure it will please her. Inside the envelope she finds a card inviting her and her husband to a social affair as guests of the Minister of Education, Georges Rampouneau, and his wife at the palace of the Ministry of Education. But Mathilde is not at all pleased, for she has nothing to wear. When her husband asks her what it would cost to buy her suitable attire, she says four hundred francs the exact amount he has set aside to buy a gun to shoot larks at Nanterre with friends. However, he agrees to provide the money, and she buys a gown. When the day of the fte draws near, Loisel notices that Mathilde is downcast and inquires into the cause of her low spirits. She tells him she has no jewels to wear. As a result, others at the party will look down on her. But her spirits brighten when Monsieur Loisel suggests that she borrow jewels from her friend, Madame Jeanne Forestier. Wasting no time, Mathilde visits her friend the following day. Madame Forestier, only too willing to cooperate, opens a box and tells Mathilde to choose. Inside are glittering jewels. Mathilde selects a diamond necklace so beautiful that it quickens her heartbeat. At the party, Mathilde is the center of attention. Handsome men of high station ask who she is and line up to dance with her. Not until 4 a.m. do the Loisels leave the palace. On their way out, Mathildes husband puts a wrap on her shouldersan article of clothing from her everyday wardrobe. To avoid being seen in it, she hurries out against her husbands wishes. He wants to wait for a cab to arrive. Out in the cold, they search for transportation, wandering toward the Seine. In time, they find a cab, and it takes them to their home on Rue des Martyrs. In her bedroom, Mathilde stands before a mirror and removes her wrap to gaze upon the woman who has enchanted so many men. Then she notices to her horror that the necklace is missing. She and her husband search through their belongings but cannot find it. After they conclude that the necklace must have come off on their way home, Monsieur Loisel goes out to search for the cab they rode in. He returns at 7 a.m. after failing to find it. Visits to the police and the cab company, as well as other measures, also leave them empty-handed. At her husbands suggestion, Mathilde writes to Madame Forestier, telling her that the

necklace clasp has broken and that it is being repaired. This ploy will buy time. Next, they decide that their only recourse is to replace the necklace. Going from jeweler to jeweler, they search for a facsimile. They find one in a shop in the Palais Royal. The price: 36,000 francs. To raise the money, Loisel uses all of his savings and borrows the rest, writing promissory notes and signing his name on numerous documents. Then the Loisels buy the replacement, and Mathilde takes it in a case to Madame Forestier. The latter expresses annoyance that it was returned late, then takes the case without opening it to check its contents. Thereafter, the Loisels scrimp and save to pay their debt. After they dismiss their housemaid, Mathilde does the work herself, washing dishes and linen, taking out the garbage, and performing other menial labors. She also wears common clothes and haggles at the market. Monsieur Loisel moonlights as a bookkeeper and copyist. Ten years later, they are out of debt. They have paid back every borrowed franc and sou. By this time, Mathilde is fully a commoner, with rough hands, plain clothes, and disheveled hair. And she looks older than her years. Occasionally, she thinks back to the day when she wore the necklace and when so many men admired her. What would have happened if she had never lost the necklace? One Sunday on the Champs Elyses, she encounters Madame Forestier walking with a child. When Mathilde addresses her, her friend does not recognize her so haggard does Mathilde look. After Mathilde identifies herself, she decides to tell Madame Forestier everything. What could be the harm? After all, she has paid for the necklace, working ten long years at honest, humble labor to fulfill her obligation. Madame Forestier then holds Mathildes hands and says, Oh, my poor Mathilde. But mine was false. At most, it was worth five hundred francs!

Style In "The Necklace," Maupassant makes every word count, each one contributing to the overall effectiveness of the story. He provides only minimal details to further the plot and describe the important characters. The result is a simple, easy-to-understand story that moves smoothly and swiftly from beginning to end. Details that he leaves out allow the reader to interpret the events and the characters in his or her own way. One may compare "The Necklace" to a painting with subtle shades of meaning. Maupassant himself remains aloof from his characters, passing no judgments on them, neither praising nor

condemning them. For example, it is up to the reader to decide whether Mathilde is a victim of bad luck (or fate) or of her own warped perception of the world as a place where success and recognition result from wealth and status. Fate vs Free Will Is Mathilde a hapless victim of fate or a victim of her own desires and the choices she makes to fulfill them? In the opening sentence of the story, Maupassant introduces the notion of fate as a controlling force: Original French: C'tait une de ces jolies et charmantes filles, nes, comme par une erreur du destin, dans une famille d'employs. Literal Translation: She was one of those pretty and charming girls, born, by a mistake of destiny, into a family of employees (common middle-class workers). He expands on this idea when Mathilde borrows a necklace of imitation diamonds in the mistaken belief that they are real. Finally, comes the coup de grce: She loses the necklace and replaces it with a lookalike necklace made of genuine diamonds. She and her husband work ten years to pay for it only to discover that the original necklace was fake in the first place. All of these developments suggest that Mathilde is the plaything of fate. However, Maupassant also points out early on that Mathilde longed to live like the highborn. Fashionable clothes, jewels, a home with spacious rooms and tapestriesall were badges of success, according to Mathilde's distorted view of the world. In further developing this ideathat it was perhaps Mathilde's own yearnings, not fate, that got her into trouble, the narrator says, Original French: Elle et tant dsir plaire, tre envie, tre sduisante et recherche. Literal Translation: She had so much desire to please, to be envied, to be enticing, to be sought after. In the end, the reader is left to decide for himself whether Mathilde's downfall was of her own making or fate'sor a combination of both. Translations by M.J. Cummings Climax The climax of a literary work, such as a short story or a novel, can be defined as (1) the turning point at which the conflict begins to resolve itself for better or worse, or as (2) the final and most exciting event in a series of events. The climax of "The Necklace" occurs,

according to the first definition, when Mathilde discovers that she has lost the necklace. According to the second definition, the climax occurs at the end of the story, when Madame Forestier informs Mathilde that the lost necklace was a fake.

Themes False Values People should evaluate themselves and others on who they are intrinsically (that is, on their character and moral fiber), not on what they possess or where they stand in society. Mathilde Loisel learns this lesson the hard way. Real Values Honesty, humility, and hard work are what shape character, not the clothes or jewels that a person wears or the high station into which he or she is born. Appearances Are Deceiving Mathilde Loisel believed the necklace genuine the moment she saw it. Likewise, she believed that all the people at the party were real, genuine human beings because of their social standing and their possessions. The necklace, of course, was a fake. And, Maupassant implies, so were the people at the party who judge Mathilde on her outward appearance. Character List Mathilde Loisel - The protagonist of the story. Mathilde has been blessed with physical beauty but not with the affluent lifestyle she yearns for, and she feels deeply discontented with her lot in life. When she prepares to attend a fancy party, she borrows a diamond necklace from her friend Madame Forestier, then loses the necklace and must work for ten years to pay off a replacement. Her one night of radiance cost her and Monsieur Loisel any chance for future happiness. Beautiful Mathilde Loisel was born into a family of clerks, and her utter conviction that her station in life is a mistake of destiny leads her to live her life in a constant rebellion against her circumstances. Although she has a comfortable home and loving husband, she is so unsatisfied that she is virtually oblivious of everything but the wealth she does not have. Her desire for wealth is a constant pain and turmoil. She cannot visit her wealthy

friend Madame Forestier without being overcome with jealousy, and the idea of going to a party without expensive clothes drives her to tears. Mathilde is a raging, jealous woman who will do anything in her power to reverse the mistake of destiny that has plunged her into what she perceives as a wholly inappropriate and inadequate life. Mathilde is happy at only one point in The Necklace: on the night of the party, when her new dress and borrowed jewels give her the appearance of belonging to the wealthy world she aspires to. Fully at ease among the wealthy people at the party, Mathilde feels that this is exactly where she was meant to beif it hadnt been for the mistake of destiny. She forgets her old life completely (her husband dozes in an empty room for most of the night) and immerses herself in the illusion of a new one. Her moment of happiness, of course, is fleeting, and she must spend the next ten years paying for the pleasure of this night. However, her joy was so acute and her satisfaction, for once, so completethat even the ten arduous years and her compromised beauty do not dull the partys memory. Just as Mathilde was oblivious to the small pleasures that her life once afforded her, she is oblivious to the fact that her greed and deception are what finally sealed her fate. Monsieur Loisel - Mathildes husband. Monsieur Loisel is content with the small pleasures of his life but does his best to appease Mathildes demands and assuage her complaints. He loves Mathilde immensely but does not truly understand her, and he seems to underestimate the depth of her unhappiness. When Mathilde loses the necklace, Monsieur Loisel sacrifices his own future to help her repay the debt. He pays dearly for something he had never wanted in the first place. Monsieur Loisels acceptance and contentment differ considerably from Mathildes emotional outbursts and constant dissatisfaction, and although he never fully understands his wife, he does his best to please her. When he comes home bearing the invitation to the party, he expects Mathilde to be excited and is shocked when she is devastated. He cannot understand why Mathilde will not wear flowers to the party in lieu of expensive jewelryin his view, that they cannot afford expensive jewelry is simply a fact of their life, not something to be railed against. When Monsieur Loisel tries to appease Mathilde, he does so blindly, wanting only to make her happy. When she declares that she cannot attend the party because she has nothing to wear, he gives her money to purchase a dress. While she complains she has no proper jewelry, he urges her to visit Madame Forestier to borrow some. When she dances all night at the party, he dozes in a coat room and allows her to enjoy herself.

Monsieur Loisels eagerness and willingness to please Mathilde becomes his downfall when she loses the necklace. He is the one to venture back into the cold night to search for the necklace in the streets, even though he is already undressed and has to be at work in a few short hours. He is the one who devises a plan for purchasing a replacement necklace and orchestrates the loans and mortgages that help them pay for it. Although this decision costs him ten years of hard work, he does not complain or imagine an alternate fate. It is as though his desires do not even exist or, at the very least, his desires are meaningless if they stand in the way of Mathildes. The money he gives her for a dress had been earmarked for a gun, but he sacrifices this desire without a word just as he mutely sacrifices any hope of happiness after he buys the necklace. Rather than force Mathilde to be accountable for her actions, he protects her, ultimately giving up his life so that she can relish her one moment of well-dressed happiness. Madame Forestier - Mathildes wealthy friend. Madame Forestier treats Mathilde kindly, but Mathilde is bitterly jealous of Madame Forestiers wealth, and the kindness pains her. Madame Forestier lends Mathilde the necklace for the party and does not inspect it when Mathilde returns it. She is horrified to realize that Mathilde has wasted her life trying to pay for a replacement necklace, when the original necklace had actually been worth nothing. Themes The Deceptiveness of Appearances The reality of Mathildes situation is that she is neither wealthy nor part of the social class of which she feels she is a deserving member, but Mathilde does everything in her power to make her life appear different from how it is. She lives in an illusory world where her actual life does not match the ideal life she has in her head she believes that her beauty and charm make her worthy of greater things. The party is a triumph because for the first time, her appearance matches the reality of her life. She is prettier than the other women, sought after by the men, and generally admired and flattered by all. Her life, in the few short hours of the party, is as she feels it should be. However, beneath this rightness and seeming match of appearances and reality is the truth that her appearance took a great deal of scheming and work. The bliss of her evening was not achieved without angst, and the reality of her appearance is much different than it seems. Her wealth and class are simply illusions, and other people are easily deceived.

The deceptiveness of appearances is highlighted by Madame Forestiers necklace, which appears to be made of diamonds but is actually nothing more than costume jewelry. The fact that it comes from Madame Forestiers jewelry box gives it the illusion of richness and value; had Monsieur Loisel suggested that Mathilde wear fake jewels, she surely would have scoffed at the idea, just as she scoffed at his suggestion to wear flowers. Furthermore, the fact that Madame Forestierin Mathildes view, the epitome of class and wealthhas a necklace made of fake jewels suggests that even the wealthiest members of society pretend to have more wealth than they actually have. Both women are ultimately deceived by appearances: Madame Forestier does not tell Mathilde that the diamonds are fake, and Mathilde does not tell Madame Forestier that she has replaced the necklace. The fact that the necklace changes unnoticedfrom worthless to precious suggests that true value is ultimately dependent on perception and that appearances can easily deceive. The Danger of Martyrdom Mathildes perception of herself as a martyr leads her to take unwise, self -serving actions. The Loisels live, appropriately, on the Rue des Martyrs, and Mathilde feels she must suffer through a life that is well beneath what she deserves. Unable to appreciate any aspect of her life, including her devoted husband, she is pained by her feeling that her beauty and charm are being wasted. When Mathilde loses the necklace and sacrifices the next ten years of her life to pay back the debts she incurred from buying a replacement, her feeling of being a martyr intensifies. She undertakes the hard work with grim determination, behaving more like a martyr than ever before. Her beauty is once again being wasted; this work eventually erases it completely. Her lot in life has gotten worse, and Mathilde continues to believe she has gotten less than she deserves, never acknowledging the fact that she is responsible for her own fate. Her belief in her martyrdom is, in a way, the only thing she has left. When Madame Forestier reveals that the necklace was worthless, Mathildes sacrifices also become worthless, and her status as a martyrhowever dubiousis taken away entirely. At the end of the story, Mathilde is left with nothing. Whereas Mathilde sees herself as a martyr but is actually very far from it, Monsieur Loisel himself is truly a martyr, constantly sacrificing his desires and, ultimately, his well-being for Mathildes sake. He gives up his desire for a gun so that Mathilde can buy a dress, and he uncomplainingly mortgages his future to replace the necklace Mathilde loses. Forced to sacrifice his happiness and years of his life to accommodate Mathildes selfish desires, he is the one who truly becomes a martyr.

The Perceived Power of Objects Mathilde believes that objects have the power to change her life, but when she finally gets two of the objects she desires most, the dress and necklace, her happiness is fleeting at best. At the beginning of The Necklace, we get a laundry list of all the objects she does not have but that she feels she deserves. The beautiful objects in other womens homes and absence of such objects in her own home make her feel like an outsider, fated to envy other women. The things she does havea comfortable home, hot soup, a loving husbandshe disdains. Mathilde effectively relinquishes control of her happiness to objects that she does not even possess, and her obsession with the trappings of the wealthy leads to her perpetual discontent. When she finally acquires the dress and necklace, those objects seem to have a transformative power. She is finally the woman she believes she was meant to behappy, admired, and envied. She has gotten what she wanted, and her life has changed accordingly. However, when she loses the necklace, the dream dissolves instantly, and her life becomes even worse than before. In reality, the power does not lie with the objects but within herself. In contrast to Mathilde, Madame Forestier infuses objects with little power. Her wealth enables her to purchase what she likes, but more important, it also affords her the vantage point to realize that these objects are not the most important things in the world. She seems casual about, and even careless with her possessions: when Mathilde brazenly requests to borrow her striking diamond necklace, she agrees. And later, when Mathilde informs her that the necklace in her possession is actually extremely valuable, she seems more rattled by the idea that Mathilde has sacrificed her life unnecessarily. The fact that Madame Forestier owned fake jewels in the first place suggests that she understands that objects are only as powerful as people perceive them to be. For her, fake jewels can be just as beautiful and striking as real diamonds if one sees them as such. Motifs Coveting Throughout The Necklace, Mathilde covets everything that other people have and she does not. Whereas Monsieur Loisel happily looks forward to having hot soup for dinner, Mathilde thinks only of the grandness of other homes and lavish table settings that she does not own. When Monsieur Loisel obtains an invitation for a party, she covets a new dress so that she can look as beautiful as the other wives as well as jewelry so that she does not look poor in comparison to them. She is so covetous of Madame Forestiers

wealth that she cannot bear to visit her, but she overcomes her angst when she needs to borrow jewelry for the party; there, her coveting is briefly sated because she gets to take one of the ornaments home with her. After the party, she covets the fur coats the other women are wearing, which highlight the shabbiness of her own wraps. This endless coveting ultimately leads to Mathildes downfall and, along the way, yields on ly fleeting happiness. It is so persistent, however, that it takes on a life of its own Mathildes coveting is as much a part of her life as breathing. Symbols The Necklace The necklace, beautiful but worthless, represents the power of perception and the split between appearances and reality. Mathilde borrows the necklace because she wants to give the appearance of being wealthy; Madame Forestier does not tell her up front that the necklace is fake, perhaps because she, too, wants to give the illusion of being wealthier than she actually is. Because Mathilde is so envious of Madame Forestier and believes her to be wealthy, she never doubts the necklaces authenticityshe expects diamonds, so diamonds are what she perceives. She enters willingly and unknowingly into this deception, and her complete belief in her borrowed wealth allows her to convey an appearance of wealth to others. Because she believes herself rich for one night, she becomes rich in others eyes. The fact that the necklace is at the center of the deception that leads to Mathildes downfall suggests that only trouble can come from denying the reality of ones situation. Realism Maupaussant, like his mentor, Flaubert, believed that fiction should convey reality with as much accuracy as possible. He strived for objectivity rather than psychological exploration or romantic descriptions, preferring to structure his stories and novels around clearly defined plot lines and specific, observable details. However, he argued that calling fiction realistic was not correctevery work of fiction, he believed, was an illusion, a world created by a writer to convey a particular effect to readers. He was faithful above all to the facts and believed that close, focused observation could reveal new depths and perspectives to even the most common, unremarkable aspects of life. The Necklace clearly demonstrates Maupassants fixation with facts and observations. Rather than explore Mathildes yearning for wealth or unhappiness with her life, Maupaussant simply tells us about her unhappiness and all the things she desires. At the end of the story, he

provides no moral commentary or explanation about Mathildes reaction to Madame Forestiers shocking revelation; he simply reports events as they happen.There is no pretense, idealizing, or artifice to Maupaussants prose or treatment of his characters. Realism began in France in the mid nineteenth century and rejected the tenets from the romantic movement that came before it, a literary movement that emphasized the idealization of characters rather than realistic portrayal of them. Realist literature often focused on middle-class lifesuch as the tragic lives of Mathilde and her husbandand was most concerned with portraying actions and their consequences with little or no subjectivity. Social factors and cultural environment are often powerful forces in realist literature, as are elements of rationalism and scientific reasoning. Flaubert was one of the earliest practitioners of realism, as typified by his novels Madame Bovary (1857) and Sentimental Education (1869). Realism was also an influential artistic school that included French painters such as Gustave Courbet, Edgar Degas, and duard Manet. The Surprise Ending and Irony The Necklace is most famous for its whip-crack or O. Henry ending. O. Henry, who wrote during the late 1800s, was famous for his twist endings that turned stories on their heads. In The Necklace, the surprise ending unhinges the previously implied premise of the story. Until this point, the reader has been able to interpret Mathildes ten years of poverty as penance for her stolen night of pleasure at the party and for carelessly losing the borrowed necklace. The ending shatters that illusion, revealing that the ten years of misery were unnecessary and could have been avoided if only Mathilde had been honest with Madame Forestier. Losing the necklace had seemed to be Mathildes fatal mistake, but it was actually Mathildes failure to be truthful with Madame Forestier that sealed her fate. This shocking realization sheds new light on the previous events and suggests that Mathildes futureeven though her debts are now repaid will be none too rosy. The horrible irony of the fact that the Loisels spent years paying off a replacement for what was actually a worthless necklace is just one instance of irony evident in The Necklace. Also ironic is the fact that Mathildes beauty, which had been her only valued asset, disappears as a result of her labor for the necklace. She had borrowed the necklace to be seen as more beautiful and winds up losing her looks completely. Perhaps the most bitter irony of The Necklace is that the arduous life that Mathilde must assume after losing the necklace makes her old lifethe one she resented so fullyseem luxurious. She borrows Madame Forestiers necklace to give the appearance of having m ore money

than she really does, only to then lose what she does have. She pays doubly, with her money and looks, for something that had no value to begin with.

The Bet Anton Chekhov A Structural Analysis of Anton Chekhovs The Bet It has always been a fact that Russian writers make stories based on themes of death, suffering, and grief. They also are famous for tumbling themes, i.e., themes that jump from one emotion to another. They also are known for their good style of playing around a particular theme and making it so unpredictable that audiences found out that their expected endings are wrong, thus putting them on real suspense. Among these Russian writers rose the names Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Anton Chekhov, who could manipulate such dark themes with amazing writing power. Chekhov showed it right in The Lament and The Boor, two of his well-renowned plays. However, he wrote in a much more extraordinary way in The Bet, where the two sides of the story are completely distinct of each other. Lets find out those two sides right now. Summary The story started when an unnamed banker reminisced an autumn party he held fifteen years ago, when he staked 2 million for anyone who could stay in prison for 5. But a young man, lawyer, did made the deal and even extended the terms: 15 years of solitary confinement. During those fifteen years the lawyer was provided an unlimited supply of whatever he wants: books, lectures, coffee, and everything else. The only things that were deprived of him were access and communication to the outside world. The fifteen years have made this lawyer as age, thinking that wisdom and everything that belongs to this Earth isnt good. He practically broke away with Earthly ways, and as a sign of which he broke the contract with the banker and eventually the world. Analysis Chekhov, a popular chronicler of the Russian street life, wrote a double sided story. The banker made a deal with the lawyer, and the lawyer accepted it. If you look at it in a shallow, non-logical, and non-literary position, you will see how the banker lost the bet he stayed in confinement for 15 years without violating the terms and conditions that were agreed upon 15years ago. However, the logical view states that the lawyer actually won the deal. One thing supporting this is that he went out 5 hours before 12 AM of November 14, 1885, the exact time set to free him, signifying that the lawyer broke out from the world and the contract, and thus violated the contract and defeated the banker. In one sense however the banker still won the deal, since the lawyer escaped five hours

before the fixed time, thus concluding that he cant stay for fifteen years and thus proving the banker right. The banker also won because the lawyer told his warden how he despised everything that belongs to this earth. He also was slowly being killed inside, therefore proving the original argument, capital punishment is better than life imprisonment, right. The story represents fictionally a reality of life. One should look in the optimistic side of life: that all suffering we have in this world has some meaning. Needless to say, The Eraser heads stresses this in their song Hard to Believe (sticker happy ). Here are a few lines: I find it hard to believe that all the pain that we are feeling has some meaning in this world. The lawyer was deprived of 15 precious years of his life, but inside his solitary confinement he learned lots of things and even enjoyed inside the prison. This signifies our very suffering in the world: That today is suffering, tomorrow is learning *** This short story portrays a situation in which the banker and lawyer wages a bet based on the idea of the death penalty and life imprisonment. The banker puts on the line two million dollars compared to the lawyer's life worth of fifteen years. For the next fifteen years the lawyer was placed in the banker's backyard without the knowledge of the outside world. It was clear that any attempt on the lawyer's part to break the conditions will result in the lawyer's loss of the bet. Fifteen years later, the banker is near bankruptcy from gambling on the stock market. If he pays the lawyer for winning the bet, he will be ruined. His only escape from his tragedy would be to kill the lawyer. When the banker opens the door into the cell, he discovers the lawyer now looking like a skeleton. He discovers a letter and reads it, but soon realizes the lawyer plans to lose. Five hours before the lawyer's time is complete, he runs away and terminates his eligibility to win the bet. From these events in the story, I have concluded that it was the banker who won the bet and the argument of whether life imprisonment is better than death. The bet has been argued to be many different aspects. It was stated in the story, "I'll bet you two millions you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years" (1). Taking this idea as the bet, it was shown at the end of the story that the lawyer lost the bet. The rule was clearly stated, "The slightest attempt on his part to break the conditions, if only two minuets before the end, released the banker from the obligation to pay him two millions"

(2). It was apparent that the rules were established, but violated. The lawyer stated, "I shall go out from here fire minutes before the time fixed, and so break the compactNext morningthey had seen the man who lived in the lodge climb out of the window into the garden, go to the gate, and disappear" (5). It is clear that the lawyer's action was to forfeit the bet by leaving and therefore the banker winning the bet. There has also been another argument of the idea of the bet. It has been argued that bet was not if the lawyer could stay in confinement for fifteen years; rather it was the original argument in which the bet had arose from. This argument was stated as, "Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?" (1). The lawyer had chosen life imprisonment to be better by saying, "To live anyhow is better than not at all" (1). The lawyer however stated in his letter to the banker, "I despise wisdom and the blessings of this world. It is all worthless, fleeting, illusory, and deceptive, like a mirage" (5) showing he has changed his opinion about the matter. By the end of the story, he admitted that he despised everything in life including life itself due to his suffering of fifteen years. He would have rather died than to have slowly suffered for those fifteen years and therefore, giving up his argument that life imprisonment is better than death. In addition to the argument of what the bet was, there has been argument that the lawyer had actually won because he had learned more during his time in confinement. However, there is no indication from the story that winning the bet involves gaining any knowledge. It was obviously stated in the story as an argument between the ideas of life imprisonment and death and the bet place on the wager of fifteen years of the lawyer's life and the banker's two million dollars. The argument present by me both times is reasonable in the sense that there is a potential winner for both sides and that it follows the story verbatim. Through facts and opinions presented, it is clear why the banker is the winner of the bet. The lawyer had violated one of the rules of the bet; breaking the confinement prior to the fifteen year term is complete, resulting in the banker winning the bet. The lawyer had also admitted in his letter that death is a better off than life imprisonment. He had regretted accepting the bet with the banker. These are only samples of potentially more examples to prove those who oppose the idea that the banker won wrong. Though many will still oppose this ruling, these reasons presented remain valid.

The Landlady -- Roald Dahl Important concepts to know 1. Mood: the feeling the reader gets based on the writers words and use of imagery. You can think of mood as the atmosphere that is created. 2. Foreshadowing: technique authors use to signal to the reader that something is going to happen 3. Irony: when the outcome of a situation is the opposite of what is expected Background information and summary The Landlady is a short story by Roald Dahl. It was first published in The New Yorker magazine in 1959 and has since appeared in many anthologies of Dahls stories, the first of which was Kiss, Kiss. Billy Weaver, a young man visiting the city of Bath for the first time, is looking for accommodation. He is inexplicably drawn to a house where the landlady seems to be expecting him. The house and landlady seem welcoming and friendly, and he looks forward to staying there. Signing the guest book, two names disturb him. Where has he heard them before? Why arent there any other guests? Pre-reading The Characters There are two principal characters in the story 'The Landlady' - the landlady herself, and Billy Weaver, a young man arriving in an unfamiliar city and looking for accommodation. Billy is 17 years old, optimistic and innocent. The landlady is middle aged with a friendly and welcoming manner; but does she have a sinister motive? 1. Billy Weaver Billy Weaver is introduced right at the beginning of the story, and we learn the following about him immediately: Billy was seventeen years old. He was wearing a new navy-blue overcoat, a new brown trilby hat, and a new brown suit, and he was feeling fine. He walked briskly down

the street. He was trying to do everything briskly these days. Briskness, he had decided, was the one common characteristic of all successful businessmen. The big shots up at the Head Office were absolutely fantastically brisk all the time. They were amazing." "He had never been to Bath before. He didn't know anyone who lived there. But Mr Greenslade at the Head Office in London had told him it was a splendid town. 'Find your own lodgings,' he had said, 'and then go along and report to the Branch Manager as soon as you've got yourself settled.' brisk: active; lively big shots: important, successful colleagues Bath: City of Roman origins in the west of England The next extracts from the story tells us a little bit more about what Billy looked like, according to the landlady. It is such a pleasure to open the door and see someone standing there who is exactly right..Like you" "I don't think they were famous. But they were incredibly handsome, both of them. They were tall and young and handsome, my dear, just exactly like you." "Seventeen is the perfect age! Mr Mulholland was also seventeen. But I think he was a trifle shorter than you are: in fact, I'm sure he was, and his teeth weren't quite so white. You have the most beautiful teeth, Mr Weaver, did you know that?" "They're not as good as they look," Billy said, "They've got simply masses of fillings in them at the back. It seems that Billy Weaver is a tall, handsome young man with beautiful looking teeth, but who dresses in a rather old-fashioned way, and who has been sent by his employers to find his own lodgings in an unfamiliar city before starting to work in a branch of the company. What Billy is doing and how he behaves is better understood if we understand that the story was written in 1959, when, we presume, it is set. 2. The Landlady The landlady herself - we never discover her name - is clearly described in the story. The physical description paints a fairly detailed picture. However, there is another character

that is hinted at throughout the text. This is not an obvious or overt description but relies on hints and suggestions. The physical description She was about forty-five or fifty years old, and the moment she saw him she gave him a warm welcoming smile. She had a round pink face and very gentle blue eyes. She seemed terribly nice. She looked exactly like the mother of one's best school-friend welcoming her into the house to stay for the Christmas holidays. He noticed that she had small, white, quickly moving hands and red finger-nails. Study Questions for Roald Dahl's The Landlady Some things to think about as you read and reread. Humor: Felicity, Dahls widow, explains the perception that her husband is a funny man: It is in his writing, in his descriptions of things. It was a hidden, subversive humour, not a comedian telling jokes (Day). Do you find evidence of this humor in The Landlady? Good and Bad Signs: Billy Weaver observes at the beginning of the story that Animals were usually a good sign in a place like this (143). What other signs, good and bad, do you notice? How are they presented? How accurately do they signal the place (the Bed and Breakfast) and the events to come? Descriptions of the Landlady: When the landlady first appears, she is compared to a jackin-the-box (144). Later she is described as having a round pink face and very gentle blue eyes. Some other similes and descriptions are she looked exactly like the mother of ones best school-friend... (145), the old girl is slightly dotty, and smiling down at him with pale lips. What do you make of these impressions that sometimes hint at oddities and other times evoke comfort? Is her reference to the Bed and Breakfast as my little nest an implied simile that she is like a mother bird? What is suggested by Billys speculation that his landlady has probably lost a son in the war, or something like that,

and...never got over it (146)? Does the peculiar smell emanating from her that reminds Billy of pickled walnuts? New leather? Or was it the corridors of a hospital? at all odd or unexpected (149)? Speed: Examine the briskness of Billy. It is a businessman quality he would like to have. When does Billy act briskly when does he not? What about the movement of the landlady? What is the significance of time and of how quickly or slowly things happen in the story? Why are words like at once or suddenly used so often in the story? Emphasis: Notice how italics are used in this story. There seems to be quite a few. What do they emphasize? What information or characteristic do they convey about the speaker or the plot? Irony: What is ironic about the names Christopher Mulholland and Gregory W. Temple (147)? The narrative presents them as entries in the landladys guestbook (147), Billy Weaver thinks they were headlines in the newspapers (149), and the landlady says theyre on the third floor, both of them together. Why are they in the story, or are they? Appearance vs. Reality: That parrot, Billy Weaver admits to the landlady near the end of the story, had me completely fooled when I first saw it through the window from the street. I could have sworn it was alive (150). What does it mean to be fooled into thinking that appearance equals reality? What effect does irony have on apparently innocent words, phrases, and statements like terribly (145, 150), a nice cup of tea and a ginger biscuit before you go to bed (148), Im a lucky fellow (147), and She was not only harmlessthere was no question about thatbut she was also quite obviously a kind and generous soul (146)? Suspense: Dahl has admitted that The main thing that ties all my work together is a terrible fear of boring the reader. I always feel compelled to hold the reader, get him by the throat and never let go until the last page (West 65). How does he grip the reader in

The Landlady Characters Billy Weaver the landlady Mr. Greenslade Christopher Mulholland Gregory W. Temple Setting Bath Bed and Breakfast Response 1: Guilty Pleasures Billy Weaver, in Roald Dahls The Landlady, gives a clear criterion for his preferred place to stay when he asks the porter is there a fairly cheap hotel not too far away from here? (142). Having also taken the slow afternoon trainpresumably cheap as wellwhich deposits him at a late hour (about nine oclock in the evening) in Bath, Billy reveals himself to be an aspiring businessman who is concerned not with the business of how much he could make but with how little he would spend. Yet, as he follows the porters ready reply to try the pub Bell and Dragon, he encounters a bed and breakfast. Here, Billy observes the brilliantly illuminated temptation: tall and beautiful pussy-willows which looked wonderful beside green velvety curtains, a bright fire burning in the hearth, a pretty little dachshund curled up asleep in a room filled with pleasant furniture, containing a baby-grand piano and a big sofa and several plump armchairs (143). Billys vacillation in front of this lavish visual so averse to his sense of thrift recalls an earlier contrast between seeing and feeling: the moon was coming up out of a clear starry sky over the houses opposite the station entrance. But the air was deadly cold and the wind was like a flat blade of ice on his cheeks (142). The setting for this story establishes a discomfiting tension between the pleasantness of what is seen and the unpleasantness of what is felt. The word dithering (143), used to describe Billy in front of the house window, contains both the physical and mental push and pull between his pleasure at the sight and displeasure of the idea: he was a tiny bit frightened of them [boarding -houses]. It is

also a continuing reminder of the deadly cold in the expositional discrepancy. By the time Billy sees the landladys warm welcoming smile (144), its contradiction to his earlier feeling toward rapacious landladies makes the conflict between seeing and feeling almost a motif in the story. Accepting to stay at the fantastically cheap bed and breakfast (144), then becomes an act of guilty pleasure for Billy not because of indulgent spending but because of indulgent skimping. His disapproving instincts lose to apparent low cost: The old girl is slightly dottybut at five and sixpence a night, who gives a damn about that? (145). The landladys guilty pleasures bring these words back to haunt Billy. Her pleasure in having beautiful boys smacks of illicitness: They were tall and young and handsome, my dear, just exactly like you (148) and we dont want to go breaking any laws at this stage of the proceedings (146). This vocabulary shift to proceedings, evocative of the court, hints at a shift in the story where the business at hand is no longer economic but (il)legal. One suspects that an overnight stay at a local bed and breakfast is turning into a longer mysterious series of events. Our act of continuing to read is Dahl pulling us inexorably into the mire of a murder that we would rather not be a part of, much like Billy Weaver being drawn into the house despite his trying to hold back (144). When Im writing for adults, Im just trying to entertain them, says Dahl (West 65). To continue reading is to continue seeing Billys downfall. Ignoring his feelings and believing only his eyes probably costs Billy his life. Even though the anticipated climactic murder never takes place explicitly in the text, are we ignoring our feelings of guilt as we are entertained by the pleasure not of killing, an illicit act, but of reading about it?