The Navy as Satire

           In Persuasion, Jane Austen satirizes the elements of society that pertain to social rank and the ability of people to move about the social ladder. She uses the Navy, an institution that allows people to gain power and fortune regardless of their birth, to satirize the social hierarchy of England.

Two characters that satirize social class the most are Admiral Croft and Sir Walter. Sir Walter is a baronet, a man born into wealth and power. Admiral Croft is a sailor and a man of good fortune; however, he worked hard to achieve his social rank and wealth, while Sir Walter has his rank by birthright. The two characters are opposites of each other and show how social class drives English society. Sir Walter declares, “I have two strong grounds of objection to it. First, as a means of bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction, and raising men to honours which their fathers and grandfathers never dreamt of; and secondly, as it cuts up a man's youth and vigour most horribly.,.” (Austen 17). It would follow that Sir Walter would dislike the Admiral because he lacks social rank and is a hard-working man. As it turns out, however, the two do respect and like each other, and Sir Walter even allows him to rent out Kellynch Hall, the home he did not want to leave at first. Austen uses the two characters to criticize the English social ladder. She shows that even a man such as Sir Walter who is extremely vain can appreciate a man who is not of high birth such as Admiral Croft.

            However, Austen uses the characters of Anne and Captain Wentworth to satirize the time period’s discouragement of women marrying men of lower social status. Even though Anne loves Captain Wentworth, Lady Russell persuades Anne to not marry the man because he is not of high enough rank or fortune. Anne, obeying her elder, refuses to marry Wentworth because of his social status, but he two end the novel happily married. Austen uses the relationship to show how a marriage is not dependent on the social standing of the two that marry, but on the happiness the people have with one another. Mary Elliot marries Charles Musgrove for his respectable fortune, but their marriage is not the best, for the two do not compliment each other too well. The marriage of Anne and Wentworth is the opposite because it is a happy marriage, even though Lady Russell and Sir Walter do not approve of the match because of social class.

            Austen uses characters from the Navy, who are able to move up in social standing, to satirize the class system of England. She shows how relationships between some sailors and people of high social ranking can be good relationships. At the end of the novel, Anne acknowledges how the Navy can be “more distinguished in its domestic virtues than its national importance” (Austen 254). Jane is happy with her marriage despite the fact that Captain Wentworth is not of high birth, and so Austen ridicules the notion that class rank is a suitable way of life in England.

Work Cited

Austen, Jane. Persuasion. 1818. iBooks.

You Don't Have a Friend In Me

          When I finished reading “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” I was very disturbed. The short story is indeed grotesque with Arnold Friend, and the many references to religion. The teenage culture that Connie is a part of becomes its own religion, but a religion that lacks moral values and has its own demons.

            In a reaction to Oates’s work, Joyce M. Wegs writes, “In all of [Oates’s] fiction as in this story, she frequently employs a debased religious imagery to suggest the gods which modern society has substituted for conventional religion” (Wegs 100). The modern society in the short story is the teenage culture, which during the sixties became a time in which teenagers were freed from answering the questions “Where are you going?” or “Where have you been?”  In fact, when the father of Connie’s friend picked the two of them up from the mall, “he never bothered to ask what they had done” (Oates 1). The teens were free to go where they pleased; sometimes they actually shopped at the mall and saw a movie, but many times they went to drive in diner to flirt with guys and listen to loud music. The diner the girls go to Oates even compares to a church: “The music was always in the background, like music at a church service; it was something to depend upon” (Oates 2). The teenage culture that came about in the sixties replaces conventional religion in the short story because of Connie’s intense devotion to the culture. Oates even highlights the fact that the family does not even go to church anymore on Sundays, providing strong evidence that modern teenage culture replaces religion in the story. The loss of religion comes with its loss of moral values, but it also comes with new demons that haunt the adherents of the teenage culture.

            The most obvious demon of the story is Arnold Friend, who symbolizes Satan, and his power to corrupt the innocent. Satan is usually portrayed in some sort of disguise, and the same is true for the short story (Wegs 102). Arnold Friend, whose ironic name is “an old fiend” when the R’s are removed, is described as a middle-aged man in a disguise. Connie describes his hair as “crazy as a wig,” he wears heavy make up to hide his old age, and even stuffs his boots in order to appear taller (Oates 3). He changes his appearance in order to take on the values and appearance that the modern teenage culture adheres to, so that, like the devil, he may seduce her and take away her innocence.

            Indeed, “Where Are You Going? Where Have You Been?” is a truly grotesque story. It portrays the collapse of moral values and the appearance of a demon that will take advantage of those with the perverted values.

Works Cited

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.

Wegs, Joyce M. “’Don’t You Know Who I Am?’: The Grotesque in Oate’s ‘Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?’” Journal of Narrative Technique 5, 1995. Print.

I Never Thought I Would Write About Halo in AP Lang

          In most video games today, the traditional narrative story arc has been replaced by a story that continues indefinitely. In this post, I will attempt something that few people probably have tried: a sophisticated analysis of the video game series Halo in the context of Douglas Rushkoff’s Present Shock. Halo is a perfect example of a story arc that has diverged from the traditional story arc. There are two reasons for this divergence. First, while the story, or 'campaign,' of Halo does have a clear beginning, its middle and end are not as clear due to the fact the story has been extended into so many sequels that an end does not appear anywhere in sight. Second, the video games have a multiplayer part of the game. This multiplayer game has no story arc that is traditional in any sense. It is an accumulation of users who play the game together for several minutes until there is a winner of each game, and then each player goes on their separate ways, so there is never truly no victory for an individual player, or a team because the teams constantly change. The story of the multiplayer game of Halo is one without a beginning, middle, or end. It is truly a collapsed narrative.

            The story of Halo begins normally enough. It starts with an inciting incident, continues with a rising action, reaches a climax in which the suspense reaches its peak, and then declines with a rising action. However, the traditional arc of the story only applies to the first of the Halo games. As more sequels were created, the games began to abandon its traditional story arc in favor of a story that allowed for the creation of more Halo games. In other words, the makers began to make games with no means to an end.

The deconstruction of the story arc may create headaches for those who want one continuous story with a definite end, it is ideal for the makers of Halo because they make more money. Rushkoff explains the role dissatisfaction, the yearning for an end, plays in consumerism, “The consumer must never feel completely at home in his present, or he will stop striving toward a more fully satisfied future” (Rushkoff 167). In other words, the consumer, or a player of the Halo games, must never reach an end to the story arc, or else the makers of the game will stop selling games and stop making millions of dollars. Perhaps the first Halo game was not anticipated to be the success it was, so when the creators realized they could be making even more money if they could keep making sequels, they started to create stories that could continue without end. Today, there are 4 sequels to the original Halo game. The story has become so convoluted, so lacking of a definite end, that the creators had the main character somehow survive on a damaged spaceship for two years from one game to the next in order to keep the story from ending. Maybe it is time for the creators to start making stories that can end with dignity.

At least the story arc of the ‘campaign’ is not so deconstructed that characters do not literally come back to life in order to keep the player entertained. However, in Halo’s multiplayer game, respawning as it is called is necessary for players in present shock. The game is similar to an infinite game described by Rushkoff: “They do not have a knowable beginning or ending, and players attempt to keep the game going for the sake of game play” (Rushkoff 59). No one can win the multiplayer part of the Halo games. A player simply goes from each collection of players until the player is bored of the playing the game, and Halo keeps the game going by respawning the player when he is shot by another player. The respawning sacrifices a continuous story line, but it allows the player to keep playing the game to keep being entertained.

 In both examples of Halo abandoning the traditional story arc, the game has increased the enjoy ability of the game, for the player can keep buying the convoluted stories contained in each sequel, and keep playing the discontinuous multiplayer game. However, we sacrifice the ability to immerse ourselves in a traditional narrative.

Work Cited

Rushkoff, Douglas. Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now. New York: Penguin, 2013. Print.