Mellin AP Lit

In “The Tempest,” William Shakespeare raises the thought-provoking question: Are humans basically good? This motif is provoked by several mischievous characters in this play such as Ariel, Caliban, and Alonso. In taking a look at these characters it seems the answer would be “no,” but I would like to argue the contrary: humans are innately good, whatever that may mean. A human, as with any other terrestrial animal, is designed to do whatever they can in order to survive and procreate to effectively preserve the human race. This means that humans act with the intention of benefiting themselves no matter the situation. Therefore, humans always have good intentions whether they are selfish or not. In addition, humans are inherently compassionate. This is why we strive for long-lasting relationships and are ultimately afraid of loneliness. Therefore, in my opinion, it seems that humans only have good intentions and would never, except in rare cases, willingly inflict harm on another unless...

One and half scenes in, the Tempest looks like it will be an interesting play. The diction, as in any Shakespearean work, is quite dated and difficult to understand. The only prediction I have in terms of themes and motifs based on our reading in class is that there seems to be a clear separation of social classes. For example, characters are called "Master" and "Boatswain" instead of their real names. I wonder if this struggle between upper and lower classes might continue to drive the plot and lead up to The Tempest. If this is not what the tempest in the title symbolizes, I wonder what it does. Will there be a different and more significant conflict? Or will the tempest represent an internal struggle in a main character? I am excited to continue reading this play and hopefully answer my questions.

In The Poisonwood Bible , Kingsolver writes from the perspective of five out of the six main characters. She excludes Nathan Price from this primarily because the novel is not about him, it is about how the women in the novel react to him and how he has changed their lives. For example, if the book were a sentence, Nathan would be the object and the women would be the subject. If Nathan were given a chance to speak his mind, it would humanize him and thus destroy his role as the object of the story. We learn just enough about Nathan's character to form an opinion about him and his beliefs and to understand the actions of other characters in response to him. I believe that it is important to have this information rather than having a completely dehumanized character because it gives the book a sense of roundedness or reality. We understand that Nathan is misogynistic, racist, and hypocritical which makes Orleanna's leaving him and his daughters leaving Christianity more comprehe...