Book Reports / Fitzgerald shows in his novel that materialism causes the corruption of society [2]

This is an essay re-write. I made some changes on the essay. Can you proofread my essay? How can I add more explaination to quote labeled page 141? Also, how can I prove that Lucille, the woman from Gatsby's party, is corrupted? Thanks in advance!

The Roaring Twenties was a new era in response to the horrific World War I. Many people, seeing the wounded returning and knowing families that had lost loved ones, felt lost and disconnected from their previous life. As a result, many women and young people adopted a more relaxed moral attitude that went against traditional roles and values. This typical 1920s society is presented in Fitzgerald's novel, The Great Gatsby. In his novel, Fitzgerald reveals materialism is corrupting the society.

One character that confirms that materialism is corrupting society is Daisy. Daisy is materialistic from the beginning. Gatsby states, "She only married you [Tom] because I was poor" (137). The fact that Daisy left Gatsby and married Tom for his money shows that she is materialistic. Furthermore, Daisy's materialism reflects on her character. Daisy does not care for others, and she values Tom's money over Gatsby's love. The materialistic values that Daisy holds, therefore, ultimately corrupt her. Her corruption is further proven when Gatsby later describes to Nick Daisy's car accident, "Well, first Daisy turned away from the woman toward the other car, and lost her nerve and turned back...Daisy stepped on it." (151). Daisy's cruel action shows her corruption, since she continues to drive without any consideration of the pedestrian, Myrtle. As is evident, her materialism results in her lack of a sense of humanity. She disregards the welfare of other human beings, because she cares only for her possessions. Furthermore, Daisy's materialism causes her to act selfishly through her careless lifestyle. Nick states, "Daisy...smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into [her] money or [her] vast carelessness..." (188). Daisy's carelessness reveals her corruption. She uses her wealth and position to escape whatever she chooses. In this case, she flees from the death of Tom's mistress, Myrtle, and lets Gatsby take the blame, showing her corruption. Moreover, her action demonstrates the dishonest exploitation of power for personal gain, as she uses her money as she pleases in her advantage over the lower class. Thus, materialism corrupts her, causing her to disregard the feelings of others. In addition, she gives no respect to the person she runs over. Thus, her attachment to money causes her to be corrupted, since materialism causes her to show no compassion for human beings altogether.

Another character that demonstrates the corruption of materialism is Gatsby. From the beginning of the novel, Gatsby is also materialistic. Nick comments, " he took out a pile of shirts and began throwing them one by one before [Daisy]...green and lavender and faint orange" (98). As a result, his action in displaying his different colored silk shirts serves as a statement to Daisy of the wealth he has accumulated. In the process of impressing her, he becomes materialistic. Gatbsy's ambitions are sacrificed for his determined obsession of living up to Daisy's standards and pursuing Daisy. Unfortunately, materialism causes Gatsby to act desperately, which leads to his corruption. Gatsby's corruption is made known when Tom tells Daisy, "He and this Wolfshiem bought up a lot of side-street drug stores here in Chicago and sold grain alcohol over the counter" (141). Consequently, Gatsby's materialistic desire of winning Daisy's heart causes him to be involved in shady businesses with Wolfshiem, proving materialism corrupts him. As a result, Gatsby's materialistic values ultimately are damaging, since Gatsby receives a notorious reputation and is known as a corrupted man.

A third character that exhibits corruption of materialism is Tom. From the beginning of the novel, Tom is materialistic. Nick comments how Tom states, " 'I've got a nice place' [and] turn me around by one arm...along the front vista, including a sunken Italian garden, a half acre of deep pungent roses and...through a highway into a bright rosy-colored space" (12). Obviously, Tom takes pride in and is devoted to his possessions. His boastful remark of having a "nice place" clearly reveals his obsession with his riches. Furthermore, the flaunting of his place clearly shows that he gives much attention to the house's grandeur and great appearance. Tom, therefore, is materialistic. Accordingly, Tom's materialism leads to his corruption. Tom states, "I told [Wilson] the truth...That fellow had it coming to him" (187). Tom's focal interest in money results in his corruption when he only thinks of his own comfort and pleasure and retreats back to his money following Myrtle's death. Since he leaves Gatsby behind to be killed, he is responsible for the horrible manslaughter of Gatsby. As is evident from Tom's false accusation, he cares more about money than he does for the death of a human being. The terrible outcome of Tom's materialism shows Tom's corruption, as he is devoid of emotion for others and lacks morality.

Besides characters, Fitzgerald uses Gatsby's party, a symbol that also shows materialism is corrupting society. The people from the party defy moral principles. Nick states, "His guests diving from the tower of [Gatsby's] raft...conducted themselves according to the rules of behavior associated with amusement parks" (43, 45). The people of the party take advantage of Gatsby by using his belongings. They treat Gatsby's mansion as they would "amusement parks." Their vulgar manner and outrageous behaviors reveal the corruption of society. Such unpleasant behaviors and selfish actions from the people at Gatsby's party are caused by their materialistic values. Nick notices, "the number of young Englishmen ...agonizingly aware of the easy money in vicinity [and] the two or three people of whom I asked [the host's] whereabouts stared at me in such an amazed way and denied so vehemently any knowledge of his moments" (46). The conversation among these men reveals that they are interested in money. The people from Gatsby's party are so concerned with their wealth that they do not pay attention to the host. Their concern for money is the reason for their lack of morality and the disorder of the mansion. Lucille, another person from Gatsby's party, also holds materialistic values. Nick recalls what Lucille says, "When I was here last I tore my gown on a chair, and [Gatsby] asked my name and address-inside of a week I got a package from Croirier's with a new evening gown in it...Two hundred and sixty five dollars" (47-48). Lucille brings up the incident of how she got a new evening gown. The only thing she can describe of this event is the monetary value of the gown. Because the guests at Gatsby's party are overly enthralled with the lavish party, they show little attention to their morality. Gatsby's party is simply a gathering for his guests to socialize about their personal gains and money. As a result, Gatsby's party demonstrates the corruption of materialism.

Thus, through his characters and through the party that can be viewed as a microcosmic symbol of the larger society, Fitzgerald shows that materialism causes the corruption of society. Through Fitzgerald's novel, he reflected the Roaring Twenties, a decade of broken traditions. The flappers, young and unrestrained women, disregarded society's former conventions of etiquette and fashion. In addition, these women, using makeup and wearing short dresses, cut their hair in what was called a "bob." Furthermore, they smoked and drank, enjoying speakeasies that were created to dodge prohibition and sell illegal alcohol secretively. As demonstrated in history, the society of 1920s lost its spiritual values, and it was corrupted.

Writing Feedback / Comparison essay - the consequences of Hulga's disillusionment [4]

Can you proofread my essay and offer suggestions on how to improve it? Thanks!

Prompt: Compare the causes or the consequences of Hulga's disillusionment with that of Young Goodman Brown in Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown."

When a person is confident, he or she is sure about the nature or facts of something. However, the sureness of something does not make the nature or facts true. Consequently, confidence sometimes causes a person to accept observations or speculations as facts. In short stories "Young Goodman Brown" and "Good Country People," Nathaniel Hawthorne and Flannery O' Connor reveal that confidence can cause a person to overlook deception. As is evident in the short stories, protagonists Goodman Brown's and Hulga's confidence are the causes of their disillusionment.

From the beginning of the short story, Hulga exhibits her confidence in a proudly contemptuous manner. Hulga believes that her PH.D shows her scholarly understanding of everything and gives her high standing above others. She impertinently calls Mrs. Freeman's daughters "Glycerin and Carmel" rather than their proper names Glynese and Carramae (100). By doing so, she insults the girls, nicknaming them after a liquid of fat and a chewy candy. Clearly, her confidence in her educational background inflicts others in a condescending manner. Hulga then meets Manley Pointer, a nineteen-year-old bible salesman, who presents himself as "just a [simple] country boy" (105). She perceives Pointer as an innocent and devout Christian boy. Moreover, she believes that he has an undeveloped understanding of life. Thus, she thinks that her "true genius can get an idea across...to an inferior mind" (109). This continuance belief that she is superior displays her naiveté. She later tells him, "I am thirty years old...I have a number of degrees" (112). Through Hulga's patronizing speech, she presents herself to Pointer as a woman of experience and strong educational background. Such confidence is haughty and arrogant.

In contrast, Goodman Brown exhibits his confidence less explicitly. Goodman Brown self-assuredly regards his wife, Faith, as a person of virtue. He states, "she's a blessed angel on earth" (81). Goodman Brown's confidence in his wife's goodness leads him to compare her to angel. Unlike Hulga, Goodman Brown reveals his confidence mentally. As also shown in his acknowledge of Goody Cloyse as "a very pious and exemplary dame, who had taught his catechism in youth" (83). Through Goodman Brown's experiences with his wife and his spiritual advisor, he recognizes them as innocent people, believing that they are pure and uncorrupted by evil.

Unfortunately, the protagonists' confidence causes their disenchantment. In the process of Hulga's boastfulness and confidence, she is misled by the Pointer's geniality and innocence. Pointer's hypocrisy is revealed when he takes Hulga's artificial leg and shows her the whiskey, a pack of cards with obscene picture, and a box of condoms. In disbelief, Hulga states, "You're a fine Christian! You're just like them all-say one thing and do another" (114). Hulga is manipulated and outsmarted by Pointer's façade. Her intelligence results in her current predicament, as her confidence prohibited her from completely evaluate her acquaintance's motives. Similarly, Goodman Brown discovers that Faith and Goody Cloyse have been tempted by the devil. Because of the wild dream of witch meeting, he becomes "a stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man" (89). Goodman Brown's confidence of their innocence is demolished by the epiphany that pious people can be evil.

Writing Feedback / proofread 1st part of another comparison essay--meaning of nothing [4]

I made some changes to the essay. Can you proofread my essay? This is suppose to be a compare and contrast essay between the meaning of Hulga's belief in "nothing" and the meaning of "nada" in Hemingway's "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place." I am having trouble structuring the compare and contrast part within the essay. What are your suggestions? Thanks for the help!

Nothing is defined as something that does not exist, or has no value or importance to someone. However, having nothing does not necessarily mean one does not have a physical object. It could be that one lacks a certain sentiment or shows little interest towards someone or something. Evidently, the definition of nothing depends on the situation. In the short stories, "Good Country People" and "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," Flannery O' Connor and Ernest Hemingway explore the meaning of nothing. Connor examines the meaning of Hulga's belief in "nothing" while Hemingway examines the old waiter's meaning of "nada." These characters' different personal life experiences individually influence their definition of "nothing" or "nada."

Hulga's experience with a physical disability and poor health are factors of her definition of "nothing." Hulga's nothingness is developed from not only her difficult experience from childhood to adulthood, but also her isolation and different life style as a result of her condition. For example, Hulga is perceived differently. Hulga's mother sympathizes, "...poor stout girl in her thirties who had never danced a step or had any normal good times" (103). As is evident, Hulga's appearance affects her mother's perspective of Hulga. Hulga's condition makes her mother see Hulga as a child, rather than an adult. In this manner, she belittles and makes Hulga feel that she is helpless, which makes Hulga desire nothingness. As a result, she is "...bloated, rude, and squint-eyed" (103). Nevertheless, Hulga's condition exempts her from her vulgar manners, as she is left feeling helpless and frustrated. The only solution for Hulga to find stability is to be "rude" and in constant opposition to everyone's perspective. She appears rough on the outside, reflecting how much she is hurting in the inside. Hulga must live each day with the reality of her condition and be specially treated like a child, since her infirmity partially immobilized her.

Hulga's uneasy life at home is also another factor of her definition of "nothing." Hulga's mother does not praise her for her achievement. She feels that her daughter is a disappointment, explaining, "You could say, 'my daughter is a nurse,' or 'my daughter is a school teacher,'...You could not say, 'my daughter is a philosopher'" (104). Along with living life with an artificial leg and a weak heart, Hulga does not have parental support in what she does. Rather than being happy for Hulga's occupation, her mother criticizes it for its lack of practicality. In this way, her mother further lowers Hulga's self-esteem and self-worth, which makes Hulga want nothing. As a result, Hulga's concentration on her high education is used as a compensation for her poor health, physical loss, and a lack of a sense of belonging. Feeling that she cannot do anything about her leg and heart, Hulga believes that her brain is the only thing that she can control. When Manley Pointer kisses her, she feels, "...the power went at once to the brain...she was pleased to discover that it was unexceptional experience and all a matter of the mind's control" (110). By being able to have control of her brain, she feels that she is not powerless and is capable of something. Moreover, she allows herself to feel that she has something, her dignity and identity.

Through Hulga's narrow perception of life, she presents her definition of "nothing." Despite the control she can exert from her brain, Hulga's focus is limited to her thoughts. Because her mind is not broadened, she lacks experience. Therefore, she allows herself to be ignorant of the world. Hulga bluntly states, "I don't even believe in God" (110). By being an atheist, she is believing in nothing. Thus, Hulga would not live a life of faith only to be rejected by others and be embittered. Hulga's ignorance of the world is further established when narrator says, "She didn't realize he had taken her glasses but this landscape would not seem exceptional to her for she seldom paid attention to her surroundings" (112). Hulga's unawareness of her surroundings is a way for her to be not part of anything. By not confronting her surroundings, Hulga can dismiss its presence and rejection. Hulga states, "I'm one of those people who see through to nothing" (112). Hulga does not have anything to look forward in her life. Her leg and weak heart exclude her from the workforce as well as society. Her life at home is unpleasant. Hulga and her mother do not relate.

On the other hand, the old waiter's many years of life experiences allows him to define the word "nada." The old waiter's conversation with the younger waiter about the rich and old deaf man reveals much about the old waiter's knowledgeable life experiences and how that influenced his definition of the word "nada" or nothing. The younger waiter with a wife comments on the deaf's man lonesome. The old waiter says, "He might be better with a wife" (97). The old waiter, who has more life experiences than the younger waiter does, understands life is lonely without companionship. Regardless of a person's age, sharing moments with another person help vanish the feeling of loneliness or "nada." In the deaf man's case, spending his nights in the café is the same as finding company. Hemingway describes, "In the day time the street was dusty, but at night the dew settled the dust and the old man liked to sit late because he was deaf and now at night it was quiet and he felt the difference" (96). The deaf man, who does not hear anything, is able to relate to the muteness of the peace and quiet of the night. Unlike the night, the day is filled with people and loudness, which does not communicate across to the deaf man comprehensively and provide him comfort. The older waiter then says to the younger waiter, "You have youth, confidence, and a job...I have never had confidence and I am not young" (98). Through the old waiter's long life, his confidence is gone and his youth has faded. The old waiter establishes the idea of being striped away and having "nada" or nothing as time goes by. The meaning of "nada" is also revealed as the old waiter prays, "Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada" (98). Throughout the Lord's Prayer, he replaces some of the words with nada, which makes this prayer a prayer in hope to reach from nothing to something.

Writing Feedback / "Sicko" - movie review to correct [3]

Can you proofread my movie review of Sicko? What are your suggestions for improvement? Thanks for the help!

Although the movie Sicko was long, its evaluation of the medical services in America allowed me to see America and the U.S. government's role in policing the medical profession from another perspective. Before I watched this movie, I thought that living in America was living the American dream. However, this American dream is only a façade or an illusion that takes my mind away from some of America's flaws.

I thought the health insurance companies' extreme actions in order to maximize profits are pitiless and selfish. The health insurance tried to find loopholes to either deny insurance or disapprove coverage to many Americans. It often claimed the medical treatments as "experimental" treatments to avoid paying the large expenses. Because many Americans were without coverage, they either died or have to live with their sickness. Seeing a mother lose her child or a wife lose her husband is painful. In one situation, a man without insurance had to stitch the wound on his leg by himself. In another sad yet hilarious situation, a man accidentally sawed off his middle and ring finger, and he must choose from the two fingers to have stitched back by the surgeons. He could pay $12,000 for his ring finger or $60,000 for his middle finger. Being a sweet man, he chose the ring finger. In a third situation, a husband has heart problems and his wife has cancer. Their constant check-ups and treatments cause them to go bankrupt and move into their daughter's house. These situations made me think there is no justice in society. Many people are dying, suffering, or forced to poverty because of the companies' greed and lack of compassion. I thought the lack of humanity in America is horrifying. Regardless, the way Michael Moore narrates and continuously targets the U.S. government and the health insurance company makes the content of the movie overly dramatic and exaggerated. Nevertheless, Moore gives an actual portrayal of the voiceless Americans who are overpowered by the big authority figures.

I thought the denial by the insurance company to the 9/11 rescuers were cruel. The rescuers search throughout the site for any sign of human bodies. As a result, they risk their health for other people. Even the heroic people were turned down after what they have done. It is an outrage. Michael Moore makes known to the public that the insurance denial can happen to anyone. I thought that it was unbelievable and insane when Moore actually took these people by boat from Florida to Cuba for the medical treatments they deserve. By doing so, Moore implicitly shows how America's lacks support for its people, as Moore and the 9/11 rescuers have to find the medical care and support in another country.

The lower rating of the United States compared to many countries on health insurance is humiliating. It serves as a bad representation of United States. I found Michael Moore's investigation hilarious. He sees no exchange of money and is stunned by that. Moore finds the free health services unusual from America and interrogates the people from other countries. Canada, France, and Cuba all provide free medical treatments without insurance! The French people get at least five weeks off from work after their medical treatment. In addition, the French people are paid when they are away from work by the government and employer. Furthermore, the daycare center charges $1 per hour, which is cheap. Moreover, the government-paid nannies and doctors provide the French people with free home service. In Cuba, the inhalers are five cents. In contrast, the inhalers in America are $120.

The ridiculous contrast to America is shameful for the Americans. Seeing these countries provide cheap or free services and cheap medicine for their people make me think America does not care about its people as much. Moreover, I realize the Americans only care for themselves. Even so, Michael Moore underrepresented America through his overly dramatic documentary. There is much that I can be grateful about living in America. In America, there is freedom and many opportunities. Many people desire to live where I am living today. Despite the exaggeration in Moore's portrayal of America, it does not change my views on the idea that the U.S. government should provide free health insurance for everyone. I still sympathize for the unfortunate people who turned down by the health insurance. No one should be turned away from necessary medical treatment. The Americans should learn to be more like the French, Cuban, and Canadian, because they care for one another. Profits should not be America's first propriety when the lives of many people are at expense. Moore did an exceptional job in making this known to America in a critical yet humorous way.

Writing Feedback / Comparison Essay--Rushdie and Doctorow [7]

Here is the whole essay. I just included the first half the essay for reference. The only changes I made to that part is what you suggested. Can you proofread my essay? What are your suggestions? How can I make the conclusion better? Thanks for the help! :)

In the essays "Imagine There's No Heaven" and "Why We Are Infidels," Salman Rushdie and E.L. Doctorow advocate different principles. Although Rushdie criticizes while Doctorow defines the nation's religious beliefs, these writers both focus on secular humanism. Nevertheless, Rushdie's and Doctorow's dissimilar styles of writing affect readers differently.

Because of Rushdie's critical style of writing, "Imagine There's No Heaven" is more stirring. Rushdie straightforwardly rejects religions. He states, "Only the stories of 'dead' religions can be appreciated for their beauty...So you will be told that belief in 'your' stories...must become a vital part of your life in the crowded world" (517). Rushdie candidly dismisses religions as dead, considering them no more than just something to be "appreciated for their beauty." He makes this point in order to bluntly establish that religions are not as important as "your life." Rushdie further states, "every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong" (518). Rushdie delivers openly a strong statement that all religion is "simply wrong." Because his statements are unconcerned with the opinions of others, his writing is provocative.

Rushdie then blames religion for many of society's problems. He states,"...if too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing...to fight against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases" (518). Rushdie decries religion for prohibiting birth control, which interferes with the fight against sexually transmitted diseases and causes overpopulation. Later, Rushdie criticizes religion for people living in ignorance. He states, "To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities" (518). Rushdie claims that religion inhibits a person from thinking for himself and humanity. He concludes, "The ancient wisdoms are modern nonsenses" (519). Rushdie's blunt conclusion is that religions are ancient wisdoms" that are not pertinent today. His closed-minded statements against religion conveyed through his writing are incendiary.

In contrast, Doctorow's logical style of writing articulates "Why We Are Infidels" more persuasively. First, Doctorow defines the word, infidel. He states, "True, the infidel is not necessarily a nonbeliever; he may also be a believer of the wrong stripe" (514). In other words, an infidel can be someone who has a different belief from another person. He then develops his objective through examples. Doctorow states, "...our religions or religious cults testify to the deeply serious American thirst for celestial connection" (514). Doctorow reveals that Americans' desires for "celestial" or spiritual connection are the reasons for practicing religion. He then states, "The abolitionists decried slavery as sin against God. The South claimed biblical authority for its slaveholding...the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacy groups invoked Jesus as a sponsor of their racism" (515). Clearly, Doctorow makes evident that Americans abusively use religion to justify their actions or defenses. Through Doctorow's logical argument, he makes a persuasive argument that makes the readers understand why we are infidels. As Doctorow simplifies through his examples, the people are considered infidels, since through their religion they discriminate others for their differences.

Rushdie and Doctorow both conclude with the purpose of their essays. Rushdie concludes, "Imagine there's no heaven, my Six Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit" (519). Similarly, Doctorow concludes, "Not just on other shores are we considered a nation of infidels" (516). Through Rushdie's critical style of writing and Doctorow's logical style of writing, both writers conclude on a secular humanism prospect. The difference is that Rushdie suggests the people to be unreligious while Doctorow is simply making known that the people are infidels.

Writing Feedback / America today is a nation of people with different ethnicities; Cultures Conflict [4]

Can you proofread what I have? What are your suggestions for improvement? I feel that I don't have much to say in the essay except for what is already said in the quote. Thanks for the help!

America is what it is today through the different ethnicities that were brought into the country by immigration. Initially, however, distance, water, or landscape barriers separated the countries and inhibited communication and interaction among people from different countries. Because of this isolation, each country established its own distinct characteristic in its culture, lifestyle, and language. When these people from different countries immigrated into America, they experienced culture shock. Thus, tension and conflict is built as the minority culture feels threatened or overpowered by the American culture that dominated the country. This conflict is examined in Alice Walker's "Everyday Use" and Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni's "Mrs. Dutta Writes a Letter."

Walker's foil characters, Maggie and Dee, serve as representations of two different conflicting cultures. Maggie represents the minority culture. Her knowledge reveals that she continues to preserve her culture. Maggie informs Dee, "Aunt Dee's first husband whittled the dash...His name was Henry, but they called him Stash" (563). The small facts Maggie remembers of who whittled the dash and the alternative name the person is called by, show the significant pieces of information of her ancestor that she continues to keep. In a sense, she is living under the practice of her culture by continuing to keep this knowledge. Maggie's sincere devotion to her culture is further demonstrated when she willingly lets Dee have the quilts. Maggie states, "She can have them Mama...I can 'member Grandma Dee without the quilts" (564). Because she does not necessarily need to possess something tangible to remember Grandma Dee by, her culture is not based on materialistic practice. She, therefore, truly upholds the family's culture spiritually. Her mother confirms Maggie's faithfulness to her culture when she states, "It was Grandma Dee and Big Dee who taught her how to quilt herself" (564). As is evident, Maggie keeps the family's tradition by learning how to make a quilt. Because she is able to make a quilt, she is capable of practicing the family's culture throughout her lifetime. Thus, the culture is part of her.

In contrast, Dee represents the dominant modern and materialistic culture. Dee's superficiality is exhibited in her excess concern with her appearance. Her mother explains, "Dee wanted nice things...At sixteen she had a style of her own: and knew what style was" (560). In this instance, she shows a lot of interest in her style. Dee's self-interest causes her to show no interest in her adopted culture. Moreover, Dee is so absorbed in her image that her only concern is what others think about her. Her mother explains, "She wrote me once that no matter where we 'choose' to live, she will manage to come see us. But she will never bring her friends" (561). Obviously, Dee's conscious attention to her appearance presents her lack of confidence in her culture. She wants to keep her friends from meeting her family, who is part of her adopted culture. By being ashamed of her family, Dee also shows that she is ashamed of her culture. Dee's shallowness diminishes her value for her culture. Her attitude towards her name shows her lack of concern for culture. Dee states, "Not 'Dee,' Wangero Leewanika Keemanjo!...She's dead...I couldn't bear it any longer being named after the people who oppress me" (562). Dee's statement is a speech of rebellion against her family as well as her culture. Dee feels "oppress[ed]" by her old name, believing it is a slave trade name. By changing the name her parents have given her after her ancestors, she is evading herself from her culture. Dee's desire lacks spirituality. Dee's reason for wanting the family's handmade quilts is just to "Hang them" (564). Her interest in the quilt is only materialistic. Dee wants the quilt only to decorate the house. In the same way as she does not intend to use her quilt, Dee does not interest in and does not practice her family's culture.

With the coexistence of the two different cultures, Dee's dominant culture overwhelms Maggie. In Dee's presence, Maggie feels overpowered and threatened by Dee. Their mother explains, "Maggie attempts to make a dash for the house, in her shuffling way..." (561). When Dee comes to visit, Maggie feels that she needs to vanish, since she feels uncomfortable when Dee is around. Maggie's avoidance of Dee represents her tension she feels around the modern and materialistic culture. Her unconfident appearance further demonstrates her overwhelming feelings toward Dee's culture. Dee's and Maggie's mother describes, "...Maggie cowering behind me" (562). Maggie is terrified by Dee and feels that she needs to hide. Her sense of inferiority causes her behave in this cowardly manner. Maggie feels threatened by Dee's domineering culture.

When Mrs. Dutta moves from India to America to live with her son, she is in conflict with the American culture. The expectations are different in America. Dutta notices, "There is no need for her to get up early here in Sunnyvale, in her son's house...But the habit, taught to her by her mother-in-law when she was a bride of seventeen, a good wife wakes before the rest of the household, is one she finds impossible to break" (568). Mrs. Dutta is so used to fulfilling her mother-in-law's prescribed role as "a good wife" that she continues to do it while she is living in her son's house. She is not used to the holidays celebrated in America. She states, "A strange concept, a day set aside to honor mothers. Did shabs not honor their mothers the rest of the year, then?" (572). The idea of honoring mothers for one day is unusual. She feels contempt for the Americans, who she believes does not honor their mothers every day, as traditional in India. Her disapproval of Mother's Day is representative of the disapproval towards the American culture.

Furthermore, Mrs. Dutta has trouble adjusting to American's lifestyle when the way she washes clothes in India is different from America. The narrator explains, "Washing clothes has been a problem for Mrs. Dutta ever since she arrived in California...Mrs. Dutta asked Sagar to put up a clothesline for her in the backyard (573). In India, Mrs. Dutta was used to hand washing and hang drying the clothes. She is not used to the washing and drying machine used in America. When Mrs. Dutta asks her son to show her to use these machines, the narrator notes her terrified response afterward. The narrator states, "...when she faced them alone, the machines with their cryptic symbols and rows of gleaming knob terrified her. What if she pressed the wrong button and flooded the entire floor with soapsuds?" (574). Mrs. Dutta's response shows that she is overwhelmed by a highly technologically-advanced machine. Her fear of the washing machine can be interpreted as more than just her fear of a machine. It can be seen as the alienation and indecipherability for entire American culture that causes her fear for both the machine and America. Mrs. Dutta gets in another dispute with the American culture for conforming to expected roles assigned to a woman in India. Because Mrs. Dutta was raised under India's culture, she refuses to allow her son to wash the clothes. "No, no, no, clothes and all is no work for the man of the house. I'll do it" (574). Accustomed to women fulfilling household duties, she feels that she is responsible with the laundry. Her daughter-in-law rebukes, "That is why Indian men are so useless around the house. Here in America we don't believe in men's work and women's work. Don't I work outside all day, just like Sagar? How'll I manage if he doesn't help me?" (574). Mrs. Dutta does not understand that there is no "men's work and women's work." In America, the wife is not the only person obligated to household duties in a marriage. Duties vary from household to household. Like Mrs. Dutta's daughter-in-law, women have equal rights as men to go to work.

Just as Mrs. Dutta must deal with the challenges as a minority culture, Maggie must face the overwhelming dominant culture. Both of these characters ideally present themselves as pure extremists to their culture. By holding onto their culture, they preserve their past and create conflict in their present. Moreover, these characters' strong convictions deprive them of their complexity. Typically, the adaptation is not an either-or concept. Most people who have immigrated into another country will accept some aspects of the new culture and reject others. America itself is complex with its cultural diversity. Americans and immigrants have coexisted and been accustomed to one another. Each person adjusts according to the lifestyle and custom he or she likes.

Writing Feedback / Essay on Deception, The Sparkling Bitch [3]

Can you proofread my essay? My introduction is short, and my conclusion is repetitive to what I've already said. I need to make my essay a little longer. I tried to expand my analysis as much I can. What are your suggestions for improvement? Thanks for the help!

Look at this one. I made some more changes. Can you proofread my essay? My introduction is short, and my conclusion is repetitive to what I've already said. I need to make my essay a little longer. I tried to expand my analysis as much I can. What are your suggestions for improvement? Thanks for the help!

The changes I made are in bold. Can you read and see if it is okay? What are your suggestions for improvement? Thanks for the help!

In "The Sparkling Bitch," Pauline Melville claims the city of London had become "a sparkling bitch in glass petticoats with see-through flighty underwear" (375). These images suggest the city presents deceptions through its external appearance. The city's "sparkling" exhibition is merely an illusion that masks its identity. Truly, the new London is morally inferior to the old city.

Charles Hay, who heads Hay Oil Incorporated, has an immoral influence on the new London. Hay's concern with his appearance is a reflection of the corruption of himself as well as the city. The speaker describes, "Manicured hands in double-cuffed shirts with monogrammed gold cuff-links flicked through the day's business papers... He understood the primacy of image" (376). Regarding image as the most important aspect of his company, Hay reveals his shallowness. His "manicured hands" and "monogrammed gold cuff-links" exhibit his materialism and egotism. While exploiting his workers, Hay is able to enjoy the luxury of enhancing his appearance. Hay simply reads the day's business papers and checks on the company's progress.

The control Hay exerts to establish the company's good appearance causes the city to appear unreal. The speaker describes, "If there was something slightly fake about the advertisements, the impression that the perfect marble pillars and white cornices were a façade, a film set rather than the real thing, it was international" (376). The façade that is created by the "perfect marble" and "white cornices" is alluding to the concealment of Hay's great personal benefits over those of the oppressed laborers. As a result, nothing appears real. The speaker states, "Everything inside the entrance lobby was elegantly faked. Marble-clad floors. Artificial streams and waterfalls...The air too was fake, warm and humid on a bright cold spring day. There were fake smiles on the lips of secretaries..." (376). Classifying everything as "elegantly" fake, the speaker shows that the fake appearance of the city is ingeniously and deliberately concealed. The illusion that the entire place is artificial reflects how Hay tainted the place with his self-interest.

The lack of morality of the city is also shown when the offices of the company are structured according to image. The speaker states, "One section of the public relations team was employed solely to keep an eye on the appearance and demeanour of the workforce...Anyone with a marginally unclean collar, bitten finger nails, scuffed shoes, dandruff or any other hint of lack of personal hygiene was liable to be hauled up in front of him (377). Hay's obsession with the company's appearance causes him to go as far to enforce hygiene on his workers. By doing so, he is controlling both his employees' work and their personal lives. Hay forces his employees to control the uncontrollable dandruffs and bad habits of biting their fingernails.

Thus, the new London loses its morality. Hay's greed and power are demeaning to others. Hay does not put any effort into or contribute to the company's earnings. He only observes the progress. The city is centered on images that are false. The employees are forced to display a good image for the company.

Book Reports / Essay on Marriage based on the two short stories [2]

Can you proofread my essay? What are your suggestions? Thanks for the help!

Love is an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion or a passionate feeling of romantic desire and sexual attraction. Through love, two people are united. In Raymond Carver's "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" and Kate Chopin's "The Storm," different views of marriage are explored. However, Carver provides the most realistic view of marriage.

The way Chopin presents Calixta's loveless marriage makes the marriage unrealistic. In the storm, Chopin demonstrates a woman's sexual restraint during a marriage. By society's standards, a woman was expected to be faithful and chaste. Like Calixta, most women were burdened with household duties. Chopin states, "Calixta, at home, felt no uneasiness for their safety, she sat at a side window sewing furiously on a sewing machine. She was greatly occupied and did not notice the approaching storm" (724). Calixta's marriage is controlled by society's expectations to be a good housewife. The storm acts as the society by confining Calixta's passion inside her home. Thus, Calixta devotes herself to the work at home. As the wind approaches, "...she seized Bobinot's vest" (725). By seizing Bobinot's vest, she is submitting herself to marital and social restrictions. Regardless, she rebels when Alcée visits. She puts away "the lengths of a cotton sheet which she had been sewing" (725). By putting away her sewing materials, Calixta puts away society's limitations and marriage confinement. Calixta, therefore, allows herself to go with her sexual desires. Despite her affair with Alcée, Calixta maintains her marriage with Bobinot. Upon her husband's return, she exclaims, "Oh, Bobinot! You back! My! But I was uneasy. W'ere you been during the rain?" (727). Strangely, Calixta carries on her marriage without guilt after her affair with Alcée. The sexually liberated view Chopin reflects, makes Calixta's marriage unrealistic.

The marriage between Mel and Terri is most realistic. Through Mel's definition of love, he makes known its contribution in their marriage. Mel states, "Physical love, that impulse that drives you to someone special, as well as love of the other person's being, his or her essence, as it were. Carnal love and, well, call it sentimental love, the day-to-day caring about the other person" (745). At the same time that he defines the different types of love, he describes his own experience in his marriage. As in any marriage, the husband and wife are drawn to each other through their passion and compassion for one another. Mel then describes the function of love. He states, "...the other person, would grieve for a while, you know, but then the surviving party would go out and love again, have someone else soon enough. All this, all of this love we're talking about, it would just be a memory" (746). Through his statement, he describes his philosophy on marriage. Calling love "a memory," he establishes love as a temporal warm feeling. People continue to reestablish love in their lives by remarrying. The reason for marriage is to fill a person's feeling of emptiness.

Because the two short stories were written a century apart, there are differences in the marriages. "The Storm" was written during the nineteenth century when more restrictions were put on women. As expected of women, Calixta is a housewife. In contrast, "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" was written during the twentieth century when women were given more privileges. Thus, the attention of the woman's role is not focused in Terri's marriage, rather the love that contributes in her marriage.

Writing Feedback / Essay proofread on Jealousy [2]

Can you proofread this essay? What are your suggestions? The changes I made are in bold. Thanks for the help!

Jealousy is a bitter and unhappy feeling in response to another person's advantages, possessions, or luck. Jealousy can be categorized as either passive or aggressive. Passive jealousy is limited to the boundaries of one's mind, whereas aggressive jealousy translates into physical action. In the short stories "Husband Returns in Form of Parrot" and "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love," Robert Olen Butler and Raymond Carver focus on different forms of jealousy.

Through the perspective of a parrot, Butler focuses on passive jealousy. When the parrot sees his human wife with a man, he explains, "I flap my wings and I squawk and I fluff up and I slick down and I throw seed and I attack that dangly toy as if it was the guy's balls, but it does no good. It never did any good in the other life either, the thrashing around I did by myself" (768). As a parrot, he is not able to express his jealousy directly just the same as when he was a human being. He keeps his jealously within himself, which makes him passive. As a parrot, he can only insult the man with limited vocabulary. The parrot states, "'Cracker.' He even flipped his head back a little at this in surprise. He'd been called that before to his face, I realized. I said it again, 'Cracker'" (769). Coming from a parrot, the name-calling is not taken seriously. Thus, his jealousy is harmless and rather passive. As a result, his jealousy remains unrecognized. He states, "I can never say what is in my heart to her. Never" (770). As a parrot, his limited words inhibit him from expressing his thoughts. In the same way, it can be interpreted and implied that he had been inarticulate as a human being.

Through the character Ed, Carver focuses on aggressive jealousy. Ed expresses his affection for Terri through violence. When Terri and Mel are together, Ed's jealousy causes him to experience emotional instability. Terri states, "'When I left, he drank rat poison'" (743). For Ed to see Terri with another man breaks his heart. Clearly, Ed is madly in love with Terri to go as far as to drink rat poison and to commit suicide. Mel, however, interprets Ed's violent actions differently. Mel recalls, "'He took this twenty-two pistol he'd bought to threaten Terri and me with. Oh, I'm serious, the man was always threatening. You should have seen the way we lived in those days. Like fugitives'" (743). Mel undoubtedly sees Ed as a threatening person. Nevertheless, Mel's inability to see others as more than just good or bad inhibits him from thinking before judging. Ed deeply cares for Terri since he goes through the trouble to treat Mel and Terri "like fugitives." His passion inspires this extreme act of jealousy. Regardless, Ed's intense emotion eventually causes his deterioration. Terri concludes, "'He shot himself in the mouth in his room'" (744). Ed feels overwhelmed by his feelings of envy that they become unbearable, which also leads him to the extremity of shooting himself.

As exhibited in the two short stories, Butler and Carver present jealousy in contrary forms. Butler's form of jealousy is passive, but Carver's form of jealousy is aggressive. Nevertheless, both are misunderstood in their different forms of jealousy. Ultimately, the two extremities of expressing too much and expressing too little lead to the misinterpretation of their true intentions.

Writing Feedback / "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall" essay [2]

What are your suggestions? How can I expand my conclusion? Thanks for the help!

In Katherine Anne Porter's "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall," after sixty years, the jilting by George looms so large in Granny Weatherall's mind. Granny's strong statements that the pain of the jilting is more than compensated for the happiness she ultimately found with her husband, her children, and her grandchildren should not be accepted. Throughout her life, she is in constant denial.

Granny's grudge of being jilted by George is demonstrated in her antagonistic relationship with men. Granny defies male authority figures. After a male doctor insults her by his condescending manner, Granny rebukes, "Get along and doctor your sick...Where were you forty years ago when I pulled through milk-leg and pneumonia?" (1028). As is evident, she continues to hold resentment for George at the same time when she reprimands sharply and expresses her strong emotions of abandonment towards the doctor. Just as the doctor was not there forty years ago to help her, George jilted and abandoned her after sixty years. Such resentment can also be seen in how she perceives her husband John. The speaker states, "She used to think of him as a man, but now all the children were older than their father, and he could would be a child beside her if she saw him now" (1030). Granny sees John as a stunted man, indicating that men declined in her esteem.

Granny feels that she need to conceal the hurtful feelings of being jilted through conscientious household tending. She states, "Things were finished somehow when the time came; thank God there was always a little margin over for peace: then a person could spread out the plan of life and tuck in the edges orderly" (1029). Granny forces herself to believe that everything can be manipulated and "tuck in the edges orderly." Ironically, she was not able to "spread out the plan of life" when she was jilted by George. With her family, she does not feel better after her jilting. She states, "No matter if Cornelia was determined to be everywhere at once, there were a great many things left undone in this place" (1030). Her "great many things left undone" can represent the feelings following her having been jilted.

Granny thinks the pain of her jilting is gone. She states, "Yes, she had changed her mind after sixty years and she would like to see George. I want you to find George. Find him and be sure to tell him I forgot him" (1032). If her pain of her jilting were gone, she would not have to convince herself so. When Granny was jilted by George, she was deeply impacted. The speaker explains, "The whole bottom dropped out of the world, and there she was blind and sweating with nothing under her feet and the walls falling away" (1033). To feel that she was "blind" and "sweating," the experience must be awful and distressing.

Thus, Granny Weatherall is constantly feeling the pain of the jilting. Her reactions to men, meticulous household tending, and denial makes it clear that the pain of the jilting continues to exist.

Writing Feedback / 'transportation, hard work, and discipline' the world you come from - UC College [5]

Can you proofread my UC college essay and offer suggestions? Thanks.

Describe the world you come fromfor example, your family, community or schooland tell us how your world has shaped your dreams and aspirations.

UC College Essay

I can't log in my old account cat08, so I created a new one. I made changes to my college essay. I shorten my response on the first prompt, and I made the second prompt longer. Can you proofread and make any suggestions on my essay? Thanks!

Describe the world you come from-for example, your family, community or school-and tell us how your world has shaped your dreams and aspirations.

My parents were born in Vietnam, and I was born in America. Growing up in a different world from that of my parents, I lack the common understanding and appreciation of life that my parents developed from living in Vietnam for part of their childhood. My parents often view my life in America as much simpler than life in Vietnam, since they have worked hard to give me all the essential needs such as clothes, food, and a place to live. Nevertheless, I appreciate my life more through my parents' reiteration of gratefulness rather than understanding through firsthand experience why I should be thankful. Regardless, my parent's expectations have instilled in me a desire to succeed in academics.

From the start of my childhood, my parents emphasize the importance of earning good grades in school, going to a good college, and having a good career as a doctor or other health professional. I was just in the first grade when my parents first sat down with me and told me all this. Having heard it the first time and being only six years old, I blindly accepted the fact that my present has a big impact on my future. During that time, I tried hard in school and got good grades just to please my parents. I was oblivious to the fact that my parents wanted me to do well in school for me, not them.

Over the years, the message behind my parents' reiteration regarding my future became clearer. I strive for success in school, because I want a good future, not my parents. Fully understanding my parents' intentions for my success, I have become an ambitious individual who independently upholds strict expectations and self-discipline. Every summer, I look forward to the enrichment I receive from the swimming lessons to academic enrichment classes at a private school or at community colleges. During the school year, I tried hard in my academic classes not just for my parents' happiness, but also for my future and myself.

I have stop living life day by day as I did when I was in the first grade, and I have learned to live life continuing to appreciate my present while preparing for my future. I now work towards my future career as a pharmacist with my parents' support. My mother takes me to OCAPICA's Soar After-School Program, a free after-school program. There, I was able to take advantage of many great opportunities such as the goal-setting and college application essay workshop, college counseling, and academic guidance and assistance.

Through my parents' transportation, hard work, and discipline, I now have high expectations for myself and love learning. Regardless of our different perspectives of lives, our two separate worlds have developed my ambition for my academic enrichment and preparation for my career.

Tell us about a personal quality, talent, accomplishment, contributions or experience that is important to you. What about this quality or accomplishment makes you proud and how does it relate to the person you are?

I have always loved enriching my musical abilities. I sing along with the songs in church. Throughout elementary education, I loved the music lessons every week, so I decided to join choir. I played the violin when it was offered in the fourth grade, and I continued violin through the sixth grade. When I moved to a different school district, I discovered an interest in the piano and realized that I wanted to commit to that particular musical instrument for the rest of my life.

This spark of interest for the piano started when my mother took me with her to Allstate Insurance the summer following seventh grade. Near the insurance building was a building with a sign that read "Little Chopin Piano." I was eager to look inside the piano studio, so my mother and I went over to the piano studio after she completed her business at the Allstate building. In one of the rooms, I saw a girl take out her music sheets and simply breezed through the notes with the tips of her fingers on the piano keyboard. The beautiful music that she produced amazed me, and I imagined the possibilities of creating the same wonderful sounds from those very music sheets.

Starting September that year, I took private piano lessons every Tuesday. At first, my hands were stiff. My piano teacher would continuously instruct me to curve my fingers and relax. Every week, I was given homework out of the theory and note speller book and flashcards to study. Every two weeks, I was expected to memorize the two songs and play them to the teacher. I did not know what a metronome (device that mark time) was until I used one on the third week of piano lesson. Then, I was taught to play the C Major Scale with both hands at great speed. I remember thinking to myself that that was not possible. As a serious pianist, I did my homework, studied the flashcards, and practiced the songs and scale. As a result, I was able to read the notes on the music sheets and successfully played the songs and scale.

Thirteen months after my first piano lesson, I participated in some piano workshops, played in two piano recitals, and played the first year in the national piano-playing auditions. Through playing in front of an audience, I was able to build my confidence. I anticipated another year of piano lessons; however, when I was a freshman in high school, my mother feared my piano lessons would negatively affect my school performance, so she decided to discontinue my piano lessons. I cried and cried, and I did not know what I wanted to do with my life. Music was not just a hobby for me; it was my passion and what brought me joy.

Now, even though I no longer have piano lessons, I continue to appreciate life for the moments of musical enrichment and practice and play the piano, as music is part of who I am. I came out from my 13 months of piano lessons learning so much. I am able to read notes, play with both hands, and know so much about music theory. My hard work has contributed to my success as a pianist.