In “The Judgement,” Kafka portrays Georg as a steady man with a good business and a mediocre life. He is meant to get married to his fiance and deliberates whether of not he should let his childhood friend in Russia know of his engagement. Georg’s uneasiness about telling his friend suggests that his friend serves as everything Georg would be giving up when he will be getting married.

Georg’s friend is portrayed as everything that Georg is not. Georg is stable, with a job, and family. His friend is described to have “virtually fled” to Russia without any ties (p. 58). Additionally, Georg never gives us a clear picture of his friend. While Georg’s picture is imagined very easily, he describes his friend with “a full exotic beard poorly concealing his face” and as a “big child” (p, 57). The adjectives that Georg gives to describe his friend leave the reader confused and unable to fully picture the friend.

This friend of Georg’s seems to represent everything that Georg will be giving up when he gets married. This is why he is so afraid of telling him of his engagement. He feels that once he tells the friend, the engagement will be real and he will have to give up everything he is without being bound down. When Georg cannot decide whether he should inform his friend or not, he actually just cannot decide if he himself wants to get married or not. In trying to figure out whether to tell his friend, he tells his father: “I didn’t want to tell him I was engaged. To spare his feelings…I told myself that he could hear about my engagement from someone else, although that would be quite unlikely, given his solitary lifestyle” (p.63). However, the father knows there is more to what Georg is saying and tells him: “Do not deceive me. It’s a trivial matter, it is not worth wasting one’s breath on, so do not hoodwink me. Do you really have that friend in St. Petersburg?” (pg. 64). It seems that even his father does not believe that his friend is real. And, the paradoxes that Georg continually uses to describe his friend make the reader believe that this friend is not real, as well.

Georg seems to yearn freedom. However, his engagement is making him feel bound down and scared to commit to it.

This collage definitely portrayed freedom or flight to me. In the middle is a big picture of a bird, and surrounding it are words such as “peace, air, flight” and “open.” It was interesting that there was also a picture of a gavel on the collage, and a picture of the lady of justice. This somewhat counteracted the freedom in my head, but a gavel can certainly portray both freedom and restraint. It also said “Ask me anything,” which would express freedom to me. If someone is open to be asked anything, then they are generally free and not closed minded.

I also liked the quote on the poster which said: “Everything other than responsibility is extremely appealing to you.” Just reading the quote made me feel free like the bird in the picture. The whole poster works cohesively, even though it is made of such separate entities. They all are connected to one another in some way.

It is also pretty interesting how a picture can have different meanings to different people, as with the gavel. I liked this activity because it allowed us to make any connections we wanted. It allowed us to form the poster without having to rethink and second guess ourselves.

Up until writers began to use the realism style, the objective of their stories was to teach the reader a lesson, or strike a thought in their heads. The goal of the writer was rarely to simply tell a story. There was always a message lying between the lines that the author was trying to portray to the reader.

When realism came to surface, we began to see many texts that lack this aim or lesson. The aims of most realism works was to recreate life and mirror society. The writings did not necessarily have to have a lesson or objective other than to tell a story to the reader and present them with a real view of society. For instance, when we look at A Simple Heart, by Gustave Flaubert, we do not see any particular lesson at the end of the story, nor do we see the story line as being extravagant and unusual. As the name implies, it is a simple story about the simple life of a woman, and that was the aim- to tell a story. Unlike previous styles of writing, realism brought in very heavy descriptive language. In A Simple Heart, Felicite is described distinctly, as well as the rest of the characters. The narrator allows the reader to form his/her own opinion and inference from his description of Felicite, It is very objective and unbiased. We can infer from Felicite’s simple clothing and the fact that she “looked like a wooden doll driven by clock-work,” we can assume that Felicite has not had many unusual experiences in her life (Flaubert, 712). Her life does not consist of extravagant things, but we are led to believe she is used to working hard day by day. Or, the reader can take something different away from Felicite’s description. The author leaves it open for the reader to form their own decision.

We also see very descriptive language about the mistress’ house. In realism styles of writing, not only are the people describes vividly, but also the objects are given detailed descriptions. The mistress’ house had beautiful furniture covered with dusty sheets. Again, from this detail, we may infer that there used to be some kind of lavish life in the house at one point in time, but it has been a while since the mistress has really allowed guests or happiness into her life because of these dusty sheets covering the furniture.

As writing styles transformed from realism into naturalism, we see the same realistic mirroring of society, but naturalism takes the reality a step further. In naturalism styles of writing, we see the author being objective with descriptions of objects and people, but the author also provides information from the character’s pasts to explain to the reader why the characters act the way they do.

We see this technique used in Separate Ways, by Higuchi Ichiyo. Not only are the characters describes physically, but their life stories are also included. From their background, we learn why the characters are the way they are, and why they act the way they do. For example, we learn why Kichizo has such abandonment issues when the author explains that he was an orphan, and has lost any figure he would look up to throughout his life.

Naturalism and realism allow the reader to form their own opinions about characters, and make the readings more open to interpretation. There is no one clear message that can be taken from the text, but rather the reader can take away whatever they would like. The author simply aims to provide the reader with the information about the characters so that they can infer what they would like about the story.

In “A Carcass,” Charles Baudelaire manages to include various interesting contrasts in the poem. He begins the poem by recalling with his “love” (line 1) about a “beautiful morning in June” (line 2). As the reader, you start out visualizing a sunny, nice, flowery summer morning. However, as you keep reading, Baudelaire contrasts this beautiful morning with the carcass that was seen. He becomes extremely descriptive about this carcass as we can see in the following excerpt:

“Her legs were spread out like a lecherous whore,

Sweating out the poisonous fumes,

Who opened in slick invitational style

Her stinking and festering womb.” (lines 5-8)

It seems that Baudelaire somewhat personifies this “thing” which is just a dead human, or animal, and is not supposed to have personality. He gives this non-living thing personality by giving it verbs such as “sweating.” Why is it that Baudelaire used the word “sweating” when describing the fumes coming out of the body? He must have wanted to give some sort of life to this dead creature through his words. He also describes the carcass’ legs as “opened” and inviting, like a “lecherous whore.” Again, we see this dead creature coming to life. We see this dead creature as appealing to Baudelaire in a state that does not constitute death. His vulgar contrast of life and death perhaps suggests that he is able to bring life out of this carcass. He is able to see the humanity and liveliness of a still, and dead creature. His words show that this carcass has personality, beyond its death. Perhaps he is suggesting that his words and poem may bring life out of death.

As Baudelaire continues to describe the carcass, he gives the feeling that nature works in harmony to do what it needs o do in order to bring the carcass to the state it needs to be in. We can see this when he says:

“The sun on this rottenness focused its rays

To cook the cadaver till done …(lines 9-10)

…And the sky cast an eye on the marvelous meat… (line 13)”

It is as if the sun, and sky work in harmony in order to prepare the carcass for the next step, or do what nature inclines for. We also see Baudelaire personifying nature here, by giving the sun the verb of focusing, and allowing the sky to “cast an eye.”  It is interesting, however, that in the previous excerpt we saw the carcass being personified as if it had life. However, in this excerpt, as soon as nature is involved, and as soon as Baudelaire begins to personify the sun and sky, he suddenly stops personifying the carcass, by calling it “meat” and taking it away from this ability to have lifelike abilities. Perhaps he does this to show the superiority of nature.

Baudelaire goes on to say:

“The shapes wore away, as if only a dream

Like a sketch that is left on the page

Which the artist forgot and can only complete

On the canvas, with memory’s aid (lines 29-32)”

I feel that again, Baudelaire, is trying to show how he, as the artist is able to bring color to this “sketch” that has lost itself. He, as the artist is able to tell what something is that other people cannot see, such as this carcass. He sees the life past the death of this carcass. He sees more than just a dead thing, and I think that he is trying to say that through his art, or poems in this case, he can bring life to this dead thing and show people what it actually is beyond death. I feel this concept again in this last excerpt:

“Ah then, oh my beauty, explain to the worms

Who cherish your body so fine,

That I am the keeper for corpses of love

Of the form, and the essence divine! (lines 45-48)”

Again, I feel that Baudelaire is saying that he will keep the memories of the “form,” or souls of the bodies. He will allow them to be immortal through his art, and poems.

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her essay,”A Vindication of the Rights of Women” as a response to the French Revolution and a response to certain writers’ views, including Jewan-Jaques Rousseau. Wollstonecraft was one of the first to write about feminism, and was one of the first to make people think about the concept of feminism, and spark some kind of a reaction from it. During the French Revolution, it was clear that many philosophers and writers were questioning traditional thought with reason, which Wollstonecraft does not stray from one bit.

It is obvious that Wollstonecraft has a direct connection to the theme in her essay, as she is a woman in society who certainly questioned her place, and the inequality standards placed on many other fellow woman in society. From the short background given about her, it is also clear that Wollstonecraft was not one to stick to traditional values. The book states that she had a child out of wedlock and was widely mocked for her views. She obviously questioned why there was an inequality for woman and certainly tried to resolve the issue with her feminist values.

To Wollstonecraft, inequality is crafted from the inability to reason. She believes that both men and woman have reason and are able to be reasonable and rational beings. However, the education that woman receive, as is very opposite to the quality that men receive, prevents woman from being able to reason properly.She mentions that the main port of education is derived from society and social values. So, as long as society remains the same with the values it had, it will just continue breeding a human race that is unequal. Wollstonecraft’s tone throughout the essay is somewhat attempting to spark a revolution and change, as most works were at this time. She is somewhat subliminally encouraging woman and men to change the values of society so that the human race can thrive off of real reason.

Wollstonecraft is very strong at conveying her point throughout the essay. However, I found this to also be a slight weakness of hers just because she seems to repeat her point over and over again. I would have rather heard new points, rather than have heard her thesis repeated so many times. However, I do see why she did this because repeating this need for change so many times subconsciously sparks a revolution in the mind of the reader, which is certainly what she was trying to do, and succeeded at it. The work was clearly successful because it became the first true written essay about feminism that dared to question this tradition that was around for years. She wanted to make people angry, and make them want to change. And, even though she got mocked for her thoughts and work, it was still noticed.

Looking back from now, surely progress has been made. Woman have definitely outgrown this role that they were forced to play. It is not to say, however, that sexism does not exist anymore, because we still see it all around us. We see all kind of -isms and inequality. Although we have came a long way from racism, sexism, and other inequalities, it will always be a hinder in the world, and I am pretty sure it will never be fully put away.