The Grapes Of Wrath Essay

          The Grapes Of Wrath is the story of the experiences of the Joad family from the time of their eviction from a farm near Sallisaw. Oklahoma to their first winter in California. THe novel has little plot in the ordinary sense. It has thirty chapters, fourteen of which deal with the Joad story. They are, instead essays dealing with the larger significance of the situation in which the Joads find themselves. These chapters utilize the material that Steinback had found in his visits to the migrant camps and his observations of the general situation of drought and depression.

          I divided this book into four parts, the main character, the main character's enemy, climax, outcome. First, the main character is Tom Joad, as a representative of all migrant workers, is the main character of this book. He is the rootless man, the individual who must learn responsibility for what capitalism has done to people and to the earth. Along with Tom, the Joads and the other migrants are sent on the road on a quest to rethink their relationship with both humanity and the land itself. This process has been called "education of the heart." By the end of the novel, Tom relinquishes his self-absorption and embraces Casy's mixture of Emersonian idealism and a particular form of American communalism. He plans to translate Casy's dream of organizing people to improve their living conditions into action.

          The main character's enemy is poverty. It was the same enemy to all migrant workers. Poverty throws people into an intense relationship with nature and its contingencies. Steinbeck, a naturalist, believed that people were the helpless victims of an indifferent environment. The Oklahoma land companies and the Californian landowners are the forces that inflict the poverty in the context of the novel.

          The climax occurs in Chapter 26 when Casy is murdered, and Tom avenges his death and goes into hiding. These events cause Tom to mature and accept the philosophies of Casy. He realizes that the only way to fight the poverty and poor treatment is to take unified action.

          The last one is outcome. The novel outwardly ends in tragedy. The Joad, like all the migrant workers, are continually plagued and threatened from the start of their journey to California. Their lives progressively deteriorate until the novel's ending when the family is considerably reduced in number, and Rose of Sharon's stillborn child is seen floating downstream. They have no money or no food for the winter, and have no idea how they will make it. Tom Joad, the protagonist, fully shares in the family's suffering from intense poverty. In addition, Tom lives in fear of being discovered as a murderer. The only bright spot in a bleak ending to the novel is Tom Joad's new insight about life. He becomes aware that he has to be concerned not only for his own family's welfare, but also for the welfare of all families. It is only through a united effort that the migrant workers can rise above their extremely low level of poverty. Ma, the pillar of strength, who has cared mainly for her own family, also embraces this philosophy, and Rose of Sharon is seen nursing a dying man in the last scene of the novel. These are also small signs of hope.

The Girl

When the sun is covered by darkness

the only guide is my heart toward her

as we watch a shooting star fly by

shadows hide us from the world

beneath the fragnant cedars

in the sweet grass

swaying gently in the breeze

I touch her hair

holding her close

asking her to make a wish 

so we could always be together

with love under the darkenss

where secrets hide in the dark

Julius Caesar

                          Briefly, Julius Caesar is about a story of three people, Caesar and Brutus and Cassius. They struggled to get powers of the king. People wanted Caesar to be the king of the Republic, but Brutus and Cassius were not positive to that. Brutus and Caesar were familiar. They were nice friends, and Caesar always believed in Brutus. There was a man, named Cassius. He made Brutus get a bad feeling of Caesar. Cassius said like Caesar would abuse the power of the king, and he did not deserve to be the king. Brutus slowly started to get a bad feeling of Caesar. But Caesar didn't know that two men were trying to get his power. Brutus and Cassius made some plans to kill Caesar. Also, Caesar's wife dreamt that someone came to kill Caesar. She wanted Caesar to hide somewhere no one could know, but Caesar thought that's just a dream. But after a few days, Caesar got killed by Brutus and Cassius. There was a funeral after his death. In the funeral, Brutus and Cassius addressed to people that Caesar would abuse his power. People did not know anything, so people started to think that Caesar was a tyrant. There was Antony, who was a friend of Caesar. He addressed that Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar because they wanted the power, not because Julius Caesar was a tyrant. People got confused.
                        This was a brief plot of this story. We can know there were many conflicts between people who wanted powers. There were Brutus and Cassius. Brutus was Caesar's friend, but Brutus made some plans with Cassius to kill Caesar. Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar to get powers. This is an example of a conflict between people who wanted powers. We can easily know they killed Caesar not because Caesar was a tyrant, but because they wanted powers of their country.

Who wrote Shakespeare

          The question of this story is "who wrote shaekspeare?" Shakespeare wrote about great roman characters like Julius caesar, Mark Anthony, and coriolanus. He also wrote wonderful petry. But after his death, some academics and professors belived that the man from the stratford could not have had the brains and education to write such plays. Actually, there weren't any letters by Shakespeare, any books owned by Shakespeare. There weren't even any mentions of "who wrote the Shakespeare was" by the other stratford people. Many people started the suspicion that Shakespeare's plyas were not written by William Shakespeare. There are some possible people who disguised as William Shakespeare.
          First, There's Queen Elizabeth 1, who could not be seen to write something as "common" as a stage play. She had to disguise as someone else. She also had the necessary education for writing some plays. Computer experts matched Elizabeth's portrait with Shakespeare's and say that they are the same person. That's why some people think she was Shakespeare. But shakespeare continued writing the plays after her death. So we concluded Shakespeare was not her. There's another person, named William Stanley, Earl of Derby. According to a letter someone found, the Earl of Derby was busy writing comedis. But there is no record of a stanley or derby play ever being performed. People think the plays were performed as Shakespeare's plays. There's christopher Marlowe, who was a brilliant young play wright and a huge success when William Shakespeare was in London. Christopher had a troulbe, so he had to fake his death to save his life. The guess is , "Christopher produced plays under Shakespeare's name." These three are the people who have the most possibilities in my opinion.
          Elizabeth had the necessary education for writing essays, so I thought she was aShakespeare. But, Shakespeare continued producing plays after her death. The another man, William Stanely, had the plays which were not performed. But we cannot prove only with this reason. Lots of people writep lays which weren't get performed. I think Christopher was Shakespeare. He had to fake his death and disguise to save his life. I think he produced his plays under Shakespeare's name. That's why I think Christopher Marlowe was Shakespeare.

Essay about Edward Snowden

Essay


                    The topic is " Is Edwards Snowden a whistle blower, a criminal, or both?" My answer is "Edward Snowden is both" He is a whistle blower and a criminal.
     
                    I admit that Edward Snowden is a criminal. Edward Snowden leaked lots of documents that contained many secrets of gorvernment. For example, Edward Snowden leaked a document that said the Obama Administration enabled the National Security Agency to collect caller information. He leaked government's screts. So he was a criminal. But, as a result, many Americans could realize that the privacy of them were exposed. Many Americans called the domestic spying an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Because he helped many Americans protect their privacy. I think Edward Snowden deserves to be called a whistle bloser. We can see another example. Edward Snowden leaked another document that regarded Europeans as a "location target." He should be called a criminal because he exposed government's screts. Thanks to Edward Snowden, however, Europeans could notice about the document. So he was a criminal and a whistleblower. All documents Edward Snowden leaked were about governments' screts. The all documents were helpful for many people. Briefly, Edward Snowden was a criminal because Edward Snowden leaked lots of information about the telephone calls without any permission. Thanks to it, many people's privacy were leaked. And some people started abusing the document. But he also should be regarded as a whistleblower. Some people started abusing but the other people could find a way to protect their privacy themselves.

                       I read 3 articles about Edward Snowden. One article was about the documents he leaked. Another document was about that Edward Snowden was a whistleblower. The other document was about that Edward Snowden was a criminal. He made a crime, but he also helped may people to realize about the documents which governments treated secretly. That's why I though "Edward Snowden is a criminal and a whistleblower."

Autobiography

Autobiography



           In my childhood, I often thought about marriage.When  I was young, I wanted to get much older than me.I wanted to get older than my age quickly, and graduate all schools as quickly as possible. I often thought about marriage, and wanted to marry a nice girl. But, now I don't want to get older. I dont want to marry.
           If I marry a girl, I will get a son or daughter and I will have to spend my all times with my family. I will want to marry when I get much older. But I want to spend my time for my life until I am young.

Essay

Essay

I think this story is a dramatic irony. Readers all know that Mary Maloney killed her husband. But all characters except Mary do not know that Mary killed her husband at all. Dramatic irony means there are one or more characters who don't know, but readers know.

As I said, all readers can know that Mary killed him, but the police officers and detectives think someone who hates Mary's husband killed Patrick. The all characters except Mary do not know the murderer. That is why I think this story is a dramatic irony.

Also, I got some examples of dramatic irony. One example is when Mary Maloney went to the store after she killed her husband. She acted as if nothing happened. She kept saying brightly to the clerk in the grocery store. The reason why I think this is one example of dramatic irony, is because the readers know more about what happened to her and her husband in this story. The clerk thought Mary Maloney was happy to give her husband dinner, but we all know he was dead. This is one example of dramatic irony.

Another example is when the policemen ate the leg of lamb. The dramatic irony was that the leg of lamb was used as a weapon but the policemen were eating the evidence when the killer served it to them. Yet the policemen just kept eating assuming the leg of lamb could never be a weapon, while Mary Maloney was giggling in the other room. Readers all know the leg of lamb was used for weapon to kill Mr.Maloney, but the policemen never thought that the killer used the leg of lamb for weapon. This is why I pick it as the example of the dramatic irony.

The last example is when the detectives told Mary Maloney about the killer and the weapon. The detectives said “Her husband had been killed by a blow on the back of the head with a large piece of metal. The killer may be a man.” In this part, The policemen were assuming that the killer was a man, not a woman. And we know that the weapon was a leg of lamb, not the large piece of metal.

These are the examples and reasons why I think this story is a dramatic irony.