Two Bildungsromans in One Story Essay Example for Free

Two Bildungsromans in One Story Essay In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout and Jem Finch become more cultured and mature young-adults by experiencing different events. Scout became more lady-like when she observed and helped Calpurnia at her Aunt Alexandra’s brunch. Jem learned from Atticus and Miss Maudie that you should not take pride in your talents. Jem and Scout Finch became more adult-like and mature young people by experiencing different events. It begins with Scout sitting in on her Aunt Alexandra’s missionary brunch. Scout Finch became more lady-like when she observed and helped out at her Aunt Alexandra’s brunch. Scout saw that Calpurnia was doing everything, so she asked if Cal needed any help. ‘â€Å"Can I help you Cal?’ I asked, wishing to be of some service.† (Lee 306). Even when Miss Stephanie Crawford asked Scout if she wanted to be a lawyer when she grew up, Scout stopped and thought for herself, rather than to please others. ‘â€Å"Don’t you want to be a lawyer?† Miss Maudie’s hand touched mine and I answered mildly enough, ‘Nome, just a lady.†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Lee 308) Scout learned in this chapter how to be a lady, just as Jem over the course of chapters, learned how to be a gentleman. Jem learned from Atticus and Miss Maudie that a gentleman never takes pride in his talents. When Jem saw his father shoot a wandering mad dog dead-on, he realized something very important; a gentleman should never take pride in his talents. â€Å"Jem became vaguely articulate: ‘D you see him, Scout? D’ you see him just standin’ there?’n’ all of a sudden he just relaxed all over, an’ it looked like that gun was a part of him†¦an’ he did it so quick, like†¦I hafta aim for ten minutes ‘fore I can hit somethin’†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Lee 129). Miss Maudie had to explain to Jem why his father never told him about his talent in hunting. ‘â€Å"People in their right minds never take pride in their talents,’ said Miss Maudie.† (Lee 130). Both Jem and Scout Finch had small, different realizations throughout the book. Both Jem and Scout Finch learned to become adults in their own different ways. With Scout, she figured out that if you want there to be change in the world, you can’t sit around and do nothing, you have to go out and get it, wherever you can. â€Å"‘Jem, how can you hate Hitler so bad, an’ then turn around and be ugly about folks right at home-†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Lee 331). For Jem, growing up is more about facing the world for it is, and not what he wished it would be. â€Å"Atticus said that Jem was trying hard to forget something, but what he was really doing was storing it away for a while, until enough time passed. Then he would be able to think about it and sort things out.† (Lee 331). In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout and Jem Finch became more informed, and mature young-adults by watching the examples set by their family, and the people who love them. Scout learned from Calpurnia that if you can help someone, then you should. Jem learned from Miss Maudie that people in their right minds never take pride in their talents. Even though they learn it by going through different events, they both come to the conclusion that to change the world, you must first change what is around you. Works Cited Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 1960. Print.

The Different Types of Love Expressed by Pre-1914 Poets Essay -- Poetr

The Different Types of Love Expressed by Pre-1914 Poets These 3 poems are completely different to each other. Porphyria’s Lover is obsessive and violent love, How Do I Love Thee? Is more of an undying love and the poem Remember is more like truthful love. In this essay I’ll take each poem and in a sentence or two explain the type of love that each poem demonstrates. I’ll also use quotations to show each of my poems shows a different type of love. The poem Porphyria’s Lover portrays the type of love in a sexual and passionate way. In the poem Porphyria’s Lover a man is speaking about the woman he loves. The love portrayed in Porphyria’s Lover is different than in the other poems because in this poem the man kills the woman so he can take control over her forever this is demonstrated here, ‘I found a thing to do, and all her hair In one long yellow string I wound Three times her little throat around, And strangle her’ with this sentence the poet means that the man killed the woman so that he can take control over her forever. I think that the man killed the woman so that she could never fall in love with someone else and that the woman would do what the man wants. I don’t think that the poem suggests that relationships are loving because he still killed her if it was love he wouldn’t kill her. The poem Porphyria’s Lover is a perverse love poem because he killed her and he wanted her just for himself and to use her for sex. Also I don’t think that Porphyria’s Lover is a love poem at all because the poem is just telling us how much the man loved the woman and what he would do just so she would be with him forever the man even kills her so that he can control her so I don’t think it’s a love poem ... ...’s Lover, How Do I Love Thee? And Remember show a different way of love. I think that the poem with the most realistic interpretation is Remember because many people that love each other say, ‘Remember me when I am gone away’ and love each other when they live in different countries or when they are apart from each other. Each poem shows a different way of love. Porphyria’s Lover is a violent way of love and the writer is trying to show that how much the man does just for the woman to love him. In the poem How Do I Love Thee? The love is expressed that it’s undying, that nothing would stop their relationship. In the poem Remember the love is shown in a undying way aswell as if their relationship would never end. I think that both Remember and How Do I Love Thee? Are the same kinds of poems but Porphyria’s Lover is completely different to both of them.

Comparing and Contrasting Wong’s “Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns” with Dash’s “Rice Culture”

â€Å"What did you have for dinner? † is a question asked thousands of times every day. Admittedly, people are facing a difficult problem of choosing what to eat, given the variety of options such as Chinese cuisine, American cuisine, and Japanese cuisine, not to mention many variants within each style. Throughout the years, the food industry has incorporated traditional methods as well as adaptations to a changing society. Fast food, for example, has grown exponentially over the past half century. By contrast, traditional foods such as rice remain a crucial part of food culture.Two essays that highlight this contrast are Seanon Wong’s â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns† and Julie Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture. † Wong’s essay illustrates the significance of fast food, whereas Dash’s essay discusses traditional cooking methods. While both authors talk about food and cultural traditions, Dash uses an informal voice to discuss preserving her traditions, whereas Wong uses an academic voice to describe the evolution of food traditions in Chinese culture. The main topic for both articles is food.Wong reports on the flourishing of fast food in Hong Kong, showing how Chinese fast food companies have made inroads into the Hong Kong market. For example, as Wong points out, â€Å"Hong Kong’s fast food industry†¦ is dominated by Chinese companies such as Cafe de Coral, Fairwood and Maxim. † (123) By contrast, Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture† clearly narrates her own rice tradition. Dash begins by telling us â€Å"I come from a family of rice eaters† (138). Apparently, food is the main idea of both Wong’s and Dash’s passages, and therefore, they use food as a reason to develop their stories.Additionally, both authors discuss food in a manner that acts as a springboard to analyzing food’s cross-cultural dimensions. Rice is, admittedly, a basic food in the Eastern world. Howeve r, â€Å"Rice Culture† tell us how Dash and Aunt Gertie cook rice American style. â€Å"Before cooking, Aunt Gertie would wash her rice, really scrub it in a bowl of water until all the water was clear† (Dash 140). She also asserts that â€Å"in the years that followed, the South Carolinian African captives played a major role in establishing a powerful rice culture in the antebellum South† (139).American and African cultures were blended, Dash argues, through the South Carolinian method of introducing a African influence into the American form of rice cooking. Just as traditional cooking benefitted from cross-cultural pollination, so too did fast food, which, Wong argues, created a mixture of American and Chinese food culture. In â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns†, he finds that â€Å"As American fast food chains have boomed in Hong Kong over the last three decades, the demand for fast food — American or otherwise — has grown even fasterà ¢â‚¬  (123).The cross-cultural issues are ostensibly merged. Moreover, both Wong and Dash illustrate the ways in which food terminology and language are altered cross-culturally. Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture† looks at foreign terms used to describe German foods. She compares â€Å"German spritzal to†¦ elbow macaroni and cheese† (138). In this case, â€Å"spritzal† is explained as a kind of German noodle dish. Similarly, Wong uses â€Å"foreign† or non-native vocabularies as a way of introducing Chinese food.His article states â€Å"In 1996, Daniang Dumplings was merely a community restaurant in Changzhou in Jiangsu province with only six employees selling arguably the most prototypical of northern Chinese food — Shuijiao†. (126) â€Å"Shuijiao† is a foreign term that describes Chinese boiled dumplings. Both Wong and Dash explore the ways in which native foods are influenced by vocabulary and foreign influence, and this is a similarity in comparing the two articles. Although both Dash and Wong focus on food writing and the intersections between Western and Eastern cultures, there are noticeable differences in tone and voice between the two articles.One huge distinction lies in their respective formality of language. In Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture†, she narrates the story in first person. She says, â€Å"Today as I stand over a bowl of cold water and rice, scrubbing, I feel Aunt Gertie watching me. † (Dash 140) â€Å"I† dominates the article; her goal in the passage is not to make larger statements, but rather to share her personal experience of cooking rice. The first person tone is intimate. By contrast, Wong’s tone is formal and quantitative, a technique he employs to establish credibility and grab the reader’s attention.He relies on facts, evidence, and statistics, in contrast with Dash’s more qualitative narration. In â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns †, Wong cites statistics such as, â€Å"over 60 percent of the city’s denizens eat at take-away restaurants at least once a week, compared to only 41 percent and 35 percent in mainland China and the United States respectively† (123). For most readers, these numbers help to establish Wong’s credibility and are more persuasive as arguments rather than simply stating an opinion.The tone of voice contrast between Wong and Dash can subtly lend credibility to their assertions. By analyzing our two main contemporary food models—modern and traditional—Seanon Wong and Julie Dash give us contrasting and complementary ways of looking at food culture. Dash brings up a method of how her aunt cooks rice, â€Å"Before cooking, Aunt Gertie would wash her rice, really scrub it in a bowl of water until all water was clear,† (140) Dash illustrates â€Å"Sometimes she would change the scrubbing water up to ten times! (140) this is an unorthodox and rarel y used method, at least in the modern world. Thus, it can be regarded as a traditional way of cooking food, one that served the Aunt Gertie of the world well, but a way that even Dash finds hard to emulate. By contrast, Wong summarizes the fast food industry in Hong Kong. In his article, fast food represents a new, modern model for people who eat outside, or for people whose time constraints don’t allow for more traditional ways of cooking. In â€Å"Noodles vs.Sesame Seed Buns†, Wong says â€Å"Considering the omnipresence of McDonald’s, KFC and Pizza Hut, American fast food has been a revolutionary force in China’s everyday culture. † Undoubtedly, in Wong’s account, this is a kind of cultural invasion, in which he thinks that Western modern fast food has been detrimental to the values and traditions, not to mention health, of Eastern societies. The pervasiveness and variety of food culture and the importance of cultural distinctions are inc reasingly obvious in the contemporary world. This awareness is especially important where cultures intersect.In these two essays, both authors come to terms with their own food culture, and address cross-cultural issues which are increasingly common. Dash uses a narrative voice to tell her traditional way of cooking rice, while Wong quantifies the modern fast food trend in Hong Kong. The traditional approach seems to emphasize quality, while the modern approach (with fast food signifying modern) emphasizes convenience. Most likely, the food industry of tomorrow will be more mixed, finding a way to integrate quality and offer convenience.When that happens, we will have the best of both worlds; Dash’s traditional approach melded with Wong’s modern sensibilities. Word Count: 1260 words Bibliography Dash, Julie. â€Å"Rice Culture. † Mirror on America: Essays and Images from Popular Culture. Ed. Joan T. Mims and Elizabeth M. Nollen. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. M artins, 2009. 138-41. Print. Wong, Seanon. â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns. † Mirror on America: Essays and Images from Popular Culture. Ed. Joan T. Mims and Elizabeth M. Nollen. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 124-27. Print. Comparing and Contrasting Wong’s â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns† with Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture† â€Å"What did you have for dinner? † is a question asked thousands of times every day. Admittedly, people are facing a difficult problem of choosing what to eat, given the variety of options such as Chinese cuisine, American cuisine, and Japanese cuisine, not to mention many variants within each style. Throughout the years, the food industry has incorporated traditional methods as well as adaptations to a changing society. Fast food, for example, has grown exponentially over the past half century. By contrast, traditional foods such as rice remain a crucial part of food culture.Two essays that highlight this contrast are Seanon Wong’s â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns† and Julie Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture. † Wong’s essay illustrates the significance of fast food, whereas Dash’s essay discusses traditional cooking methods. While both authors talk about food and cultural traditions, Dash uses an informal voice to discuss preserving her traditions, whereas Wong uses an academic voice to describe the evolution of food traditions in Chinese culture. The main topic for both articles is food.Wong reports on the flourishing of fast food in Hong Kong, showing how Chinese fast food companies have made inroads into the Hong Kong market. For example, as Wong points out, â€Å"Hong Kong’s fast food industry†¦ is dominated by Chinese companies such as Cafe de Coral, Fairwood and Maxim. † (123) By contrast, Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture† clearly narrates her own rice tradition. Dash begins by telling us â€Å"I come from a family of rice eaters† (138). Apparently, food is the main idea of both Wong’s and Dash’s passages, and therefore, they use food as a reason to develop their stories.Additionally, both authors discuss food in a manner that acts as a springboard to analyzing food’s cross-cultural dimensions. Rice is, admittedly, a basic food in the Eastern world. Howeve r, â€Å"Rice Culture† tell us how Dash and Aunt Gertie cook rice American style. â€Å"Before cooking, Aunt Gertie would wash her rice, really scrub it in a bowl of water until all the water was clear† (Dash 140). She also asserts that â€Å"in the years that followed, the South Carolinian African captives played a major role in establishing a powerful rice culture in the antebellum South† (139).American and African cultures were blended, Dash argues, through the South Carolinian method of introducing a African influence into the American form of rice cooking. Just as traditional cooking benefitted from cross-cultural pollination, so too did fast food, which, Wong argues, created a mixture of American and Chinese food culture. In â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns†, he finds that â€Å"As American fast food chains have boomed in Hong Kong over the last three decades, the demand for fast food — American or otherwise — has grown even fasterà ¢â‚¬  (123).The cross-cultural issues are ostensibly merged. Moreover, both Wong and Dash illustrate the ways in which food terminology and language are altered cross-culturally. Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture† looks at foreign terms used to describe German foods. She compares â€Å"German spritzal to†¦ elbow macaroni and cheese† (138). In this case, â€Å"spritzal† is explained as a kind of German noodle dish. Similarly, Wong uses â€Å"foreign† or non-native vocabularies as a way of introducing Chinese food.His article states â€Å"In 1996, Daniang Dumplings was merely a community restaurant in Changzhou in Jiangsu province with only six employees selling arguably the most prototypical of northern Chinese food — Shuijiao†. (126) â€Å"Shuijiao† is a foreign term that describes Chinese boiled dumplings. Both Wong and Dash explore the ways in which native foods are influenced by vocabulary and foreign influence, and this is a similarity in comparing the two articles. Although both Dash and Wong focus on food writing and the intersections between Western and Eastern cultures, there are noticeable differences in tone and voice between the two articles.One huge distinction lies in their respective formality of language. In Dash’s â€Å"Rice Culture†, she narrates the story in first person. She says, â€Å"Today as I stand over a bowl of cold water and rice, scrubbing, I feel Aunt Gertie watching me. † (Dash 140) â€Å"I† dominates the article; her goal in the passage is not to make larger statements, but rather to share her personal experience of cooking rice. The first person tone is intimate. By contrast, Wong’s tone is formal and quantitative, a technique he employs to establish credibility and grab the reader’s attention.He relies on facts, evidence, and statistics, in contrast with Dash’s more qualitative narration. In â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns †, Wong cites statistics such as, â€Å"over 60 percent of the city’s denizens eat at take-away restaurants at least once a week, compared to only 41 percent and 35 percent in mainland China and the United States respectively† (123). For most readers, these numbers help to establish Wong’s credibility and are more persuasive as arguments rather than simply stating an opinion.The tone of voice contrast between Wong and Dash can subtly lend credibility to their assertions. By analyzing our two main contemporary food models—modern and traditional—Seanon Wong and Julie Dash give us contrasting and complementary ways of looking at food culture. Dash brings up a method of how her aunt cooks rice, â€Å"Before cooking, Aunt Gertie would wash her rice, really scrub it in a bowl of water until all water was clear,† (140) Dash illustrates â€Å"Sometimes she would change the scrubbing water up to ten times! (140) this is an unorthodox and rarel y used method, at least in the modern world. Thus, it can be regarded as a traditional way of cooking food, one that served the Aunt Gertie of the world well, but a way that even Dash finds hard to emulate. By contrast, Wong summarizes the fast food industry in Hong Kong. In his article, fast food represents a new, modern model for people who eat outside, or for people whose time constraints don’t allow for more traditional ways of cooking. In â€Å"Noodles vs.Sesame Seed Buns†, Wong says â€Å"Considering the omnipresence of McDonald’s, KFC and Pizza Hut, American fast food has been a revolutionary force in China’s everyday culture. † Undoubtedly, in Wong’s account, this is a kind of cultural invasion, in which he thinks that Western modern fast food has been detrimental to the values and traditions, not to mention health, of Eastern societies. The pervasiveness and variety of food culture and the importance of cultural distinctions are inc reasingly obvious in the contemporary world. This awareness is especially important where cultures intersect.In these two essays, both authors come to terms with their own food culture, and address cross-cultural issues which are increasingly common. Dash uses a narrative voice to tell her traditional way of cooking rice, while Wong quantifies the modern fast food trend in Hong Kong. The traditional approach seems to emphasize quality, while the modern approach (with fast food signifying modern) emphasizes convenience. Most likely, the food industry of tomorrow will be more mixed, finding a way to integrate quality and offer convenience.When that happens, we will have the best of both worlds; Dash’s traditional approach melded with Wong’s modern sensibilities. Word Count: 1260 words Bibliography Dash, Julie. â€Å"Rice Culture. † Mirror on America: Essays and Images from Popular Culture. Ed. Joan T. Mims and Elizabeth M. Nollen. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. M artins, 2009. 138-41. Print. Wong, Seanon. â€Å"Noodles vs. Sesame Seed Buns. † Mirror on America: Essays and Images from Popular Culture. Ed. Joan T. Mims and Elizabeth M. Nollen. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 124-27. Print.

In vs. Into How to Choose the Right Word

The words in and into are both prepositions, and these terms can be confusing to use for English-language learners and native speakers alike. But they have slightly different meanings as well as different uses. In generally refers to being inside something, as in: Adam stood alone in the elevator. The word into generally means movement toward the inside of something, such as: Adam walked into the elevator. Examples, usage notes, and tips on how to distinguish the terms can show how to use them correctly. How to Use In Use in when you mean that a person, place, thing, or animal is located inside a location, as in: They were already in (inside) the stadiumHe was in (inside) the house when the murder was committed. You can also use in to indicate that something (such as an idea) rests within an object or another idea, such as: The chief value of money lies  in  the fact that one lives  in  a world  in  which it is overestimated. In is used in two different ways here. In the first, the value of money lies in the fact: Literally, this means that the value of money (the idea that money has value) rests within the fact that a person lives in (inside) a world in which (referring again to the world) it is overestimated. The notion of living in a world is also a little tricky here. A person does not actually live in the world (inside the Earths core). Instead, the presumption is that the person is an inhabitant of the world (Earth). How to Use Into Use into in the sense of coming toward something, as in: In defiance of the Roman Senate, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubican and marched into Rome with his army. In this use, Caesar, with his army, is walking toward and entering Rome, in a menacing way, and, indeed, in a way that changed history. In that sense, this may be one of the most dramatic uses of into in Western civilization. Another use of into might read: Captain Kirk stepped into the transporter, and in a moment, he was gone. The famous fictional character in the Star Trek television show and movies stepped into the transporter (that is, he moved toward the transporter and entered it). The use of in here is slightly different than above. In this case, in doesnt mean inside a location, but inside an instant of time (in a moment). Examples Using both in and into in the same sentence best helps to distinguish them. For example: After waiting in the hallway for 20 minutes, Joe finally stepped into the managers office. In this sentence, Joe waited inside the hallway, thus in is the correct preposition. However, after waiting inside the hallway for 20 minutes, he stepped into the managers office—that is, he moved toward the inside of the managers office. The next example reverses the terms: On her way back from Detroit, Lee ran into a snowstorm and took a wrong turn in Flint. Here, Lee was moving in the direction of something, in this case, a snowstorm. Hence, the correct use is to say that Lee ran into the snowstorm. He then found himself inside of Flint (in Flint) and took a wrong turn once he was in (inside) that city. Into can also have a slightly different connotation; rather than moving toward a specific location, you could find yourself moving toward a situation, as in this example: The No. 1 way of getting your parents attention is getting into trouble while you are in school. In this case, the unspecified student is moving toward trouble (getting into trouble) while she is inside of school (in school). How to Remember the Difference Using both in and into in the same sentence can help illustrate the difference between the terms, as in this example: In  five minutes, you will come to a gate. Walk through the gate  into  the field, then head upstairs and go into the press box. In this case, in five minutes means after a period of five minutes. You can tell that in is the correct term if you swap it for into, as in, Into five minutes, you will... Clearly, that phrase does not make sense, so you need the preposition in here. You can also swap in for into to see the difference. So, if you were to say: Walk through the gate and in the field, then head upstairs and go in the press box. That distinction is more nuanced but not correct in this example. If you say, Walk through the gate and in the field, that implies that you are already inside the field, rather than simply entering it. The same goes for, head upstairs and go in the press box. If you read the sentence aloud, you will see that you need to go into the press box before you are in it. Thus you need the word into for these two uses to show that you are moving toward and entering into the field and the press box. Into: Special Cases Into also has other uses in the English language. It can connote a high level of enthusiasm or interest in something, as in: Hes really into her.Shes really into her work.But, theyre both really into reggae. All three sentences convey that their subjects are really interested or enthusiastic about something: Hes really into her means that he really likes her; Shes really into her work implies that shes really dedicated to her work; But, theyre both really into reggae means that they both really like this Jamaican style of music, implying that they may have something in common. Into can also communicate that something is changed or that someone changes something, as in: The menu was translated into five languages.Sam changed into a tuxedo for the wedding.They divided the pizza into eight equal slices. In the sentences, the menu—which was presumably printed in just one language initially—was now printed in five more. In the second, Sam did not become a tuxedo, but he changed into a different set of (fancier) clothes than he was wearing before. The pizza, which was initially just one large, round pie, was then divided into many slices. In as a Phrasal Construction A phrasal verb is one that is made up of two or more words, which with regard to this term, means in plus another word, as in this often-used example: Sue called in sick. In this use, called is paired with in to create the phrasal, called in. Its important to distinguish this from the previously discussed uses for in. In this sentence, Sue is not inside somewhere. Instead, the phrasal causes the word in to take on a completely different meaning: that Sue called to let someone, possibly her boss, know that she was sick, and thus would not come into work or that she would not be in (inside) the workplace that day. Other examples of in used as part of a phrasal construction include, but are not limited to, blend in (become inconspicuous), break in (illegally enter a residence or business with an intent to steal), butt in (insert oneself into a conversation or situation, generally in an unwelcome manner), fit in (become part of a group, club, or society), and come in (enter a location). In this last use, the phrasal come in takes on a meaning closer to into, as in coming toward, or creating a movement toward, something. Into can, occasionally, also take on a phrasal construction, such as, enter into an agreement. In this use, a person is quite literally coming into an agreement, or in other words, agreeing to become a party to an agreement. Sources â€Å"Into vs. In To - Grammar Rules.†Ã‚  Writers Digest, 19 Dec. 2013.â€Å"In, Into.†Ã‚  English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary.â€Å"Phrasal Verbs with IN.†Ã‚  EFLnet.