The Good Earth Essays - The Good Earth, O-Lan, Wang Lung, Sons, Wang

The Good Earth In the critically acclaimed novel The Good Earth, Pearl S. Buck depicts a humble farmer and his obedient wife O-lan. The Nobel Prize winning classic, set in late eighteenth century China, begins with Wang Lung going to the "Great House of Hwang"(49) to collect the wife that was betrothed to him by his father. Wang Lung lived with his father, wife, and five children, one of whom is mentally retarded. Although Wang Lung supplied all the physical needs for his family and upheld all the family traditions, he showed a strong insensitivity through his extra marital affairs. The story continues to portray the trials and tribulations of their life in a time when a persons livelihood came from the earth. From the earth, Wang Lung receives wealth, food, and prosperity. The earth also brought him dispair through natural disasters, but the earth remained his sole source of innerpeace. Wang Lung was sometimes caring and sometimes insensitive, but he always followed tradition. Wang Lung was a caring and compassionate man with a strong sense of family and adaptation to simple life. For example, Wang Lung showed extreme respect and appreciation for his wife in a time when women were considered to be no more then slaves. In the early chapters of the novel when Wang Lung was poor, he gave O-lan four silver pieces so she may return to the House of Hwang in grand style. He also offered to pay five thousand silver pieces for her recovery after he discovered she had a "fire in her vitals"(170). He then spent the rest of her days by her death bed and bought her the best quality coffin. Furthermore, Wang Lung had a special relationship with his first daughter, Poor Fool, his mentally retarded offspring. Poor Fool did not speak and did nothing more Pagliei 2 then twiddle a piece of cloth in the sun. Although Wang Lung had servants and slaves, he personally took care of his daughter after O-lan died. He also yelled at his love Lotus when she called Poor Fool an idiot: Now I will not hear my children cursed, no and not by anyone...For he was most angry of all that Lotus dared to curse this child of his and call her idiot, and a load of fresh pain for the girl fell upon his heart, so that for a day and two days he would not go near Lotus, but he played with the children and he went into the town and he bought a circle of barley candy for his poor fool and he comforted himself with her baby pleasure in the sweet sticky stuff.(212) His affection for Poor Fool was genuine and he was comforted when she was happy; "Well, and that poor fool of mine brings me more comfort then all the others put together" (234). Another example of Wang Lung's caring is the time and love he put into his land. When his life was in shambles and nothing else made sense, he found innerpeace, tranquillity and understanding about the events in his life when he was out tending to his land. When he had extra money, he did not want pearls, concubines, or rubies, "If I had the gold and the silver and the jewels, I would buy land with it, good land, and I would bring forth harvests from the land" (124). Wang Lung's caring nature was the foundation for a stable family. Although it was rarely displayed, Wang Lung's heartlessness and sheer cruelty deeply scarred the most beloved members in his family. For instance, Wang Lung's Pagliei 3 infatuation with Lotus temporarily blinds his true love for O-lan. Instead of the caring husband O-lan grew to love he was mean and he assaulted her with insults about her lack of beauty and highlighted her extremely large features: He saw for the first time that her hair was rough and brown and unoiled and that her face was flat and coarse-skinned, and her features too large altogether and without any sort of beauty or light. Her eyebrows were scattered and her hairs too few, and her lips too wide and her hands and feet were large and spreading...I would

Definition and Examples of Semantic Narrowing

Definition and Examples of Semantic Narrowing Semantic narrowing is a type of semantic change  by which the meaning  of a word becomes less general or inclusive than its earlier meaning. Also known as specialization  or restriction. The opposite process is called broadening or semantic generalization. Such specialization is slow and need not be complete, notes linguist Tom McArthur. For example, the word fowl is now usually restricted to the farmyard hen, but it retains its old meaning of bird in expressions like the fowls of the air and wild fowl (Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1992). Examples and Observations Narrowing of meaning . . . happens when a word with a general meaning is by degrees applied to something much more specific. The word litter, for example, meant originally (before 1300) a bed, then gradually narrowed down to bedding, then to animals on a bedding of straw, and finally to things scattered about, odds and ends. . . . Other examples of specialization are deer, which originally had the general meaning animal, girl, which meant originally a young person, and meat, whose original meaning was food.(Sol Steinmetz, Semantic Antics: How and Why Words Change Meanings. Random House, 2008)Hound and IndigenousWe say that narrowing takes place when a word comes to refer to only part of the original meaning. The history of the word hound in English neatly illustrates this process. The word was originally pronounced hund in English, and it was the generic word for any kind of dog at all. This original meaning is retained, for example, in German, where the word Hund simply means dog. O ver the centuries, however, the meaning of hund in English has become restricted to just those dogs used to chase game in the hunt, such as beagles. . . .Words may come to be associated with particular contexts, which is another type of narrowing. One example of this is the word indigenous, which when applied to people means especially the inhabitants of a country which has been colonized, not original inhabitants more generally.(Terry Crowley and Claire Bowern, An Introduction to Historical Linguistics, 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2010) Meat and ArtIn Old English, mete referred to food in general (a sense which is retained in sweetmeat); today, it refers to only one kind of food (meat). Art originally had some very general meanings, mostly connected to skill; today, it refers just to certain kinds of skill, chiefly in relation to aesthetic skill - the arts.(David Crystal, How Language Works. Overlook, 2006)StarveModern English starve means to die of hunger (or often to be extremely hungry; and dialectally, to be very cold), while its Old English ancestor steorfan meant more generally to die.​(April M. S. McMahon, Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press, 1994)Sand[M]any Old English words acquired narrower, more specific meanings in ME as a direct result of loans from other languages. . . . OE sand had meant either sand or shore. When Low German shore was borrowed to refer to the land itself along a body of water, sand narrowed to mean only the granular particles of disintegrated rock that cov ered this land.(C.M. Millward and Mary Hayes, A Biography of the English Language, 3rd ed. Wadsworth, 2012) Wife, Vulgar, and NaughtyThe Old English version of the word wife  could be used to refer to any woman but has narrowed in its application nowadays to only married women. A different kind of narrowing  can lead to a negative meaning  [pejoration] for some words, such as vulgar (which used to mean simply ordinary) and naughty (which used to mean having nothing).None of these changes happened overnight. They were gradual and probably difficult to discern while they were in progress.(George Yule, The Study of Language, 4th ed. Cambridge University Press, 2010)Accident and FowlAccident means an unintended injurious or disastrous event. Its original meaning was just any event, especially one that was unforeseen. . . . Fowl in Old English referred to any bird. Subsequently, the meaning of this word was narrowed to a bird raised for food, or a wild bird hunted for sport.​(Francis Katamba, English Words: Structure, History, Usage. Routledge, 2004)

Microeconomics Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 3

Microeconomics - Assignment Example A good graphical representation of functional utility is shown below. Marginal rate of substitution represents the rate at which customers are ready to give up one commodity in order to exchange while ensuring a same level of utility. MRS varies with points along the indifference hence it is vital to keep locally in the definition. In addition, MRS of a commodity X is equivalent to the marginal utility of X over the marginal utility of Y. a. An increase in the price of a normal good: This had direct effect of changes in income on consumption choice. In this case, consumers buy more goods when their income rises as the prices remain fixed in the market. In this case, a change in the income of the buyer causes the demand curve to shift. This is evident through a negatively sloped demand curve to counter the space in the exhibit. Therefore, the increase in demand causes an increase in demand and a shift to the right of the demand curve for living space. b. A decrease in the price of an inferior good: In the market, a decrease in the prices of such goods leads to increase in the equilibrium quantity demanded. Therefore, the substitution effect would force the consumer to buy more of the good. c. An increase in the price of a Giffen good: In economics, an increase in the prices of Giffen good increases the quantity of the good that is demanded in the market. This results to an upward sloping demand curve due to interactions of the income and substitution effects. The income effect can be positive or negative when the price of these goods

Corporate Finance Coursework Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Corporate Finance Coursework - Essay Example It is a given business and finance objective to maximize shareholder value. It appears that there are also non-financial objectives of business hence the debate on shareholder value and stakeholder society rages on. The application of corporate finance theory will therefore will dwell in determining how real is the debate in relation to investment decisions in China under the new draft of Chinese employment contract law? Tirole, Jean (1996) dissected corporate governance on a debate between shareholder value and stakeholder society. He mentioned that corporate governance could be framed in terms of â€Å"shareholder value† using the economists assertion that â€Å"prices reflect the scarcity of resources that management should aim at maximizing shareholder wealth.† On the other hand, he narrated that stakeholder society would approximate the non-economist view of what may appear as â€Å"oblivious to redistributional issues† narrow-minded- or â€Å"out of touch with social realities† as consequences of limiting corporate governance to shareholders’ value maximization. To support the stakeholder society concept, he cited a prevalent view in politics and public opinion that â€Å"corporations should serve a larger purpose and â€Å"be responsible† that is they should reach out to other stakeholders not only to shareholders† (Tirole, 1996) (Paraphrasing made). In discussing therefore â€Å"The Corporate Social Responsibility View†, Tirole (1996) discussed ways under which an â€Å"economist would rephrase the position of the proponents of the stakeholder society† as could recommending â€Å"that management and directors internalize the externalities that their decision impose on various groups.† He thus cited examples of such externalities and concomitant duties toward stakeholders, according to the proponents of the stakeholder society. One is the duties toward employees where he argued that â€Å"firms should refrain from laying off workers when they make

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne and the Holocaust Essay Example for Free

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne and the Holocaust Essay Author John Boyne published his infamous novel The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. John Boyne was born in Dublin, Ireland. Boyne attended Trinity College in Dublin where he first studied English Literature and then proceeded to the University of East Anglia in Norwich where he then studied creative writing. He began his published writing career in the year two-thousand with his first published book The Thief of Time. Though The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas separates itself from Boyne’s traditional style of writing by having being written for a younger audience, it was the book that took John Boyne’s career to the successful point it is now at. Using his father’s date of birth as the same for both Shmuel and Bruno, Boyne could further relate the two boys to a familiar story. Demonstrating the truly catastrophic events of the Holocaust in a fictional novel, Boyne captures the torment that two young boys face in a time where their innocence is taken away by one of the most evil acts of humanity. The Holocaust caused the lives of six million Jews to be lost, and the faith of the survivors. The Nazi Germans called this systematic mass killing â€Å"the final solution to the Jewish question. † In nineteen-thirty-three, Anti-Semitism reached its’ peak in Germany â€Å"†¦destruction, which was launched with torchlight parades and accented by speeches that proclaimed the death of Jewish intellectualism and the purification of German culture. Thus, writings by such Jewish intellectuals as Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud fueled the huge bonfires. Also engulfed in flames was the work of Heinrich Heine, a German poet of Jewish origin. A century earlier Heine had stated, Where books are burned, in the end people will be burned. †¦. his statement would become [true], specifically for the European Jews who found themselves under Nazi domination during the Third Reich. † (The Holocaust Chronicles 53) By July of nineteen-thirty-three, twenty-five thousand Jews amongst other â€Å"unfit† German citizens had been sent to concentration camps or jail. Democracy in Germany had disappeared under Adolf Hitler’s new command with the Nazi Party being the only legal political party. Hitler began a propaganda that the Jew was a threat to the German race, unequal, and inferior, that it must be eliminated in order to restore the power lost during and after the First World War Jewish businesses were boycotted, German citizens began discriminating Jews, physically harming them and humiliating them. Later, German Nazis demanded that all non-Aryan subjects shall retire, â€Å"†¦any person who had a Jewish parent or grandparent was non-Aryan. † (54) The Jews were then places in ghettos, where the living conditions were poor and a preview of their upcoming fate was shown. Forced to wear David’s star as an embroidered badge on their clothing to symbolize their faith, the Jews were publicly isolated for the German citizens to see and attack. This would’ve made many of the Jews feel ashamed and directed them to lose faith in the God they had previously loved and lived by, as that same faith in the religion was what caused their cruel misfortune. Religion is seen repeatedly in both Night by Elie Wiesel and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne. In Boyne’s work, the two main characters, Bruno and Shmuel, are two nine year old boys who are unfortunately wrapped up in the horrid events that took place during the years of the Holocaust. Bruno’s father is a high ranking officer working for the S. S during the period of the Nazi Party’s ruling in Germany. He doesn’t show clear understanding of what’s going on and what his father is doing, with help of constant deceit from his parents, his sister and instructor, Bruno still sees no difference between him and Shmuel, who is a Jewish prisoner of a concentration camp. Though there is no difference in the two boys, society, family and religion tells them otherwise, and yet their friendship is unbreakable. â€Å"We’re not supposed to be friends, you and me. We’re supposed to be enemies, did you know that? † (The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas 118) Having been disciplined by society to believe in a concept of inequality between the pure German race and the Jewish people, the friendship between Bruno and Shmuel becomes a significantly touching plot, not in the sense that it shouldn’t or couldn’t be, but in a way that demonstrates the innocence that adults tried to deprive from their children, and the loving bond that brings two boys who are meant enemies together, it makes them equal. Religion isn’t understood, hatred isn’t understood and evil acts are not understood; for once, the naive minds of innocence that cannot understand the plot Hitler formed are perfectly right by the similarity of not understanding their nonexistent â€Å"differences. † Both the real events of World War II and the fictional events within the novel feature a lot of deceit. Propaganda was used by the governments of every country involved in the war as well as within Germany against the Jews. This form of subtle manipulation was successful as it used citizens’ issues and fears to provide an excuse for the events occurring. Hitler used slogans and made powerful speeches throughout his dictatorship that convinced the Germans to believe that the Jewish people really were a threat that Germany had to repel. By blaming their economical issues on the Jews, the Germans had more of a reason to desire the exeunt of their race entirely. â€Å"’Propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea. ’ Adolf Hitler wrote these words in his book Mein Kampf, in which he first advocated the use of propaganda to spread the ideals of National Socialism among them racism, antisemitism,. ( http://www. ushmm. org ) The novel also shows a pattern of deceit, where Bruno is lied to by his parents when he asks what is behind the fence. Bruno also lies when he denies knowing Shmuel, an act of fear that resurfaces the idea that he is still a child with no desire to be punished. Deceit is a tendency that was believed to be necessary by the furor, Adolf Hitler, in order to proceed with the Final Solution while having his citizens and the rest of the world blind, as they believed his idea was only beneficial to Germany. Hitler and the Nazi Party would have not succeeded had they always been truthful to not only the people within their own borders, but the people outside of them too. It was necessary to deceit in order to succeed, or what he planned to be a success. In Bruno’s case, that same deceit provided him with the loyalty and love to Shmuel to be his friend until death. The accounted Jewish casualties that took place under the furor, Adolf Hitler and commander Heimrich Himmler are an approximate six million, completely exterminating the trace of each and every Jewish family in Germany, for even those who survived left immediately after the Russians set them free from the concentration camps in nineteen-forty-five. Survivors who have testimonies of their experience in the camps, the ghettos, and those who escaped still try to make sense of what happened in the twelve year long battle for survival. Emotionally, they have wounds that will never fully heal over. Mentally, they withhold memories that could only be imagined as the most vivid of nightmares to those of us who didn’t live through the terrorizing events. Spiritually, they are finally free to believe, if they can and most do. They speak of the Holocaust as a test from God, another reason to show their faith to the world. Eliezer Wiesel said in Night, â€Å"That I survived the Holocaust and went on to love beautiful girls, to talk, to write and to have toast and tea and live my life – that is what is abnormal. † Evidently, families were lost and lives were separated, an emotional devastation that one may never come to comprehend. In both of the works, family is demonstrated to be a significant factor. Elie, in Night, speaks fondly of the love for his father and the absolute loss of himself after the loss of his father. In The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, Bruno’s mother reveals a love for her family so deep that she becomes despaired with the facts of her husband’s work. Shmuel sacrifices himself, at the side of his best friend, Bruno, to find his father and endanger his own life to save one of a family members’. This was the case for each person who died and survived the Holocaust. â€Å"If we bear all this suffering and if there are still Jews left, when it is over, then Jews, instead of being doomed, will be held up as an example. † (Anne Frank)

Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself and Alice Fulton’s You Can’t Rhumboogie i

Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself and Alice Fulton’s You Can’t Rhumboogie in a Ball and Chain When I read poetry, I often tend to look first at its meaning and second at how it is written, or its form. The mistake I make when I do this is in assuming that the two are separate, when, in fact, often the meaning of poetry is supported or even defined by its form. I will discuss two poems that embody this close connection between meaning and form in their central use of imagery and repetition. One is a tribute to Janis Joplin, written in 1983 by Alice Fulton, entitled â€Å"You Can’t Rhumboogie in a Ball and Chain.† The second is a section from Walt Whitman’s 1,336-line masterpiece, â€Å"Song of Myself,† first published in 1855. The imagery in each poem differs in purpose and effect, and the rhythms, though created through repetition in both poems, are quite different as well. As I reach the end of each poem, however, I am left with a powerful human presence lingering in the words. In Fulton’s poem, that presence is the live-hard-and-die -young Janis Joplin; in Whitman’s poem, the presence created is an aspect of the poet himself. Alice Fulton’s modern sestina â€Å"You Can’t Rhumboogie in a Ball and Chain† finds unity in the repetition of similar images throughout the closed form poem. These images hold together to create a unique and disturbing picture of the young rock icon Janis Joplin. Addressed directly to Joplin, the poem strictly follows the sestina form: six six-line stanzas, followed by a three-line â€Å"envoy.† The distinct feature of the sestina is that the same six words conclude the lines of every stanza, simply changing order according to a set pattern from one stanza to the next. I imagine that to write a sestina, the poet... ...he poem around a single figure: Fulton puts Joplin at the center of her poem, while Whitman’s poetic world is drawn around and even within himself. Both capture raw details of human life and misery in their imagery. Both use repetition to define an irregular but recognizable rhythm. Yet the two poems beat out their rhythms in distinct and utterly different measures, leaving me with two powerful figures, created by the poems’ forms, which have their own purpose and form in the larger world beyond poetry. Works Cited Fulton, Alice. â€Å"You Can’t Rhumboogie in a Ball and Chain.† Approaching Poetry: Perspectives and Responses. Ed. Peter Schakel and Jack Ridl. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. 128-29. Whitman, Walt. â€Å"Song of Myself.† 1855 ed. Walt Whitman’s â€Å"Song of Myself.† Edwin Haviland Miller. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989. 9-11.

Servitude in Moliere’s Dom Juan

Throughout his lifetime, Moliere wrote many plays that depict the life of the French aristocrats. In these plays, he makes use of the character of the servant, whose presence is put in juxtaposition with their masters. The combination of the two characters usually causes social clash, thus providing the play a satirical tone. Particularly, in â€Å"Dom Juan ou le Festin de Pierre,† Moliere introduces an unforgettable servant character in the name of Sganarelle. Unlike the servants that appear in Moliere’s other plays, Sganarelle breaks the tradition of having servants take a minute role as he shares the position of his master in the lead role. This makes him the most important character among all servants Moliere ever created. The character of Sganarelle uniquely stands out among all servant characters in Moliere’s plays because of the large part he plays in â€Å"Dom Juan†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . By assigning one of the main roles to a servant, Moliere attempts to expound on the subject of slavery in a different view. Through Sganarelle, Moliere makes clear his message regarding social division and the flaws of the upper class. Analysis of this character can therefore give a better understanding of the play, and of Moliere’s intention for writing plays of the hypocrite. Moliere’s plays of the hypocrite employ a common pattern with the use of loyal servants to care for their masters and be their guide in times of confusion. However, â€Å"Dom Juan ou le Festin de Pierre† provides a more in-depth characterization as it highlights the importance of a servant character in the life of a master. Throughout the play, Sganarelle’s role in Dom Juan’s life is highly emphasized. In fact, its emphasis could make the audience perceive the two characters as one. In their exchange of dialogues, Sganarelle somewhat serves as an extension of his master’s character, for he often agrees with Dom Juan despite the other’s illogical reasoning. He does this in order to put an end to his master’s prodding or mainly to show sign of respect. Nevertheless, this gesture does not affect the roundness of his character, but makes it all the more interesting. The two main characters in the play are placed in juxtaposition. Dom Juan embodies the upper class or the rich, while Sganarelle embodies the lower class or the common people. In putting them together, Moliere creates a balance between the good and evil, with Dom Juan as the evil character and Sganarelle as the good. In Sganarelle’s own words, he describes his master as â€Å"the greatest scoundrel that ever walked on earth, a madman, a dog, a devil, a Turk†¦a heretic who believes in neither Heaven nor saint, not God, nor bogeyman. (34-35). In Freudian psychology, we can refer to these two characters as the id and the ego, where Dom Juan is the id and Sganarelle is the ego. The two characters are contrasted in the play, with Sganarelle on the positive side opposite to that of his master. The contrast is mainly established with the way they behave and view things. Dom Juan is a typical Casanova whose life revolves around fooling his love interests. His main concern in lif e is to attract women and make them feel miserably in love. First, he woos them until they fall for him and agree for marriage but after that, he leaves them for the sake of another girl, much to the dismay of his servant. Sganarelle constantly warns Dom Juan of the retribution his acts may bring, but Dom Juan would often sway the argument to justify his actions, forcing Sganarelle to give up his point. Likewise, his stature prohibits the servant to condemn his master’s deeds. Though he is allowed to express his views, in the end he also allows his master to win, for he does not have a choice. He admits thus: †¦ I must be faithful to him however I feel. Fear makes me his accomplice. It stifles my feeling; and I often find applauding what I loathe with my very soul. † (35) As society declares, Sganarelle complies with his master’s orders. Due to fear of losing his job, he does what Dom Juan asks him to do, although it is against his will. He tells lies, swears things he does not mean, and covers up for his masterâ€⠄¢s shortcomings in the way the society expects a servant to behave. In complete contrast to his master’s character, Sganarelle is a man of faith. He embodies the common people who are weak and powerless yet are full of faith in God and religion. He exemplifies a believer whose only hope lies in God to save him from his unfortunate situation. With a strong faith, he declares that â€Å"one day the wrath of Heaven will strike him that’s for certain. † (35) His values are more in tact than that of his master; but he is not free to exercise his faith. Nevertheless, Dom Juan gives him the privilege to express himself, and when he does, he speaks his thoughts with some sarcasm: â€Å"Your heart is the greatest nomad that ever was. It likes to be always on the move. It hates to stay in one place for long together. † (36) Because he consents to the wrongdoings of Dom Juan, Sganarelle shares the sins of his master. This means that Sganarelle may be blamed for consenting to his master’s disloyalty to his love affairs. His awareness of this responsibility alone makes him feel uncomfortable; that is why he wishes God to punish his master in order to end up his spiritual agony. Similar to other servant characters in Moliere’s plays, Sganarelle serves as Dom Juan’s close companion. He follows his master wherever he goes, and obeys his will regardless of its consequences. He remains true to him despite the fact that he despises what the master does. The only good thing about Dom Juan is that he allows Sganarelle to speak his mind. In this sense, he shares similarity with the female servant Dorine in â€Å"Tartuffe,† (2000), who freely expresses her opinions on even the most sensitive matters regarding the family. However, unlike the female counterpart who speaks without reproach, Sganarelle is allowed to express his opinions only to a certain extent and upon summons by his master. Since it is very unlikely for Dom Juan to get confused by the deliberate decisions he makes, his effort to elicit opinion from Sganarelle is not because he needs advice on his affairs, but because it pleases him to argue with someone weaker such as his servant. He knows that Sganarelle will have no choice but to agree with him in the end, thus he takes advantage of his servant by winning every argument they have. Although Sganarelle looks weak in Dom Juan’s eyes, looking closely into his character, one may see the strength in him. Amid the struggles he bears in living with Dom Juan, he remains faithful to his faith. Even though he obeys his master, this does not eradicate his faith in God. In fact, it even makes it more intense. As Sganarelle struggles for freedom, his faith grows more each day, and the hope that he will soon be free from his master’s ill doings grows even more. He serves as the conscience that tells Dom Juan what is fair and just, appealing to him to repent and change his ways. In â€Å"Tartuffe† Dorine similarly plays the role of a conscience in Orgon’s life. When the master decides for his daughter to marry the hypocrite, Dorine tries to stop him, saying thus: â€Å"†¦he who weds his child against her will Owes heaven account for it, if she do ill. Think then what perils wait on your design. † (Act 2 S. 2) To a large extent, the similarity between Sganarelle and Dorine is their religious wisdom. Unlike other people who cannot distinguish between truth and hypocrisy, both of them see what lies beneath people’s acts of goodwill. In â€Å"Dom Juan.. † other people are fooled by Dom Juan’s appearance and his kind words except for Sganarelle who knows his master like the palm of his hand. (36) Dorine, on the other, sees the real intention of Tartuffe towards Orgon’s daughter, Mariane. She judges that his regular attendance at church is a sign of hypocrisy. Though Orgon refuses to believe her, she still insists on making him listen to her views because of her concern over Mariane’s future. Another servant character who speaks her mind freely is Nicole in â€Å"Middle-Class Gentleman† (2001). In this play, Nicole plays the servant in Monsieur Jourdain’s home. Finding fault in her master’s rather awkward and delayed interest in the ways of the rich (such as dancing, fencing, poetic speech, etc. ), she openly comments and laughs at Jourdain, much to his disappointment. However unlike Sganarelle or Dorine, Nicole finds support from her master’s wife, who despises her husband’s social climbing. This puts Nicole in a better position to be more outspoken of her opinions. In addition, compared to the other servants, Nicole contributes greatly to the comic elements in the play. Although the audience can find some humor in Sganarelle, it is only in the end that he could truly make the audience laugh while he cries over his lost wages. In contrast, Nicole’s appearance throughout the play is well-noted in her colourful dialogues that employ sarcasm and irony. Like Nicole, Dubois in â€Å"Le Misanthrope† (2000) also helps induce laughter from the audience with his farcical mistakes. The servants in Moliere’s plays serve different purposes. They take the role of a loyal companion, a critique, an advisor, and sometimes a fool. All these characteristics can be found in Sganarelle, making him an interesting servant in Moliere’s plays. This exposition triggers the question, Why did Moliere use a servant character instead of a friend whose status may be similar to that of Dom Juan? Indeed, assigning the role to a friend will make a different story, but one cannot help wonder about this issue. On the one hand, a best friend could likewise serve as a loyal companion and advisor, similar to the role played by Sganarelle. On the other hand, the role of the servant creates a more interesting story. First, it illustrates the conflict between the values of the rich and the poor. Compared to a friend, the servant who comes from a different background has a different set of values acquired from his own social orientation. Sganarelle’s social status affords him views about God and salvation, which are in conflict with his master. Just imagine, if the two characters come from the same background, they will probably connive to disillusion every girl they meet, thus limiting the conflict in the plot. Second, Sganarelle’s social status restricts him to speak his views blatantly. Hence, this causes more conflict towards himself than to his master. With a friend as the critique, the conflict will be between the two main characters, and this could make the plot very ordinary. However with a servant as the critique, the conflict resides only with the servant due to some limitations he has in expressing his thoughts. In the end, he builds a different conflict apart form his master’s, that is, how he could escape his master to avoid all the troubles. Third, with the servant character, the master falls into a pit that serves as his tragic flaw. Without its comic elements, the play would have been a complete tragedy, since Dom Juan maintains pride as his tragic flaw. He refuses to change his ways, believing that he is too powerful to have a need for God. Despite reminders from his servant, he continues with his evil ways, because as expected, he will never listen to a mere servant. As such, the servant character contributes to the master’s tragic flaw, which later leads him to his end. Considering this, one can sense a social commentary Moliere wants to impart through the play. By using the character of a servant, the playwright presents the reality that sometimes those in the lower class who lack proper education and possessions have better religious wisdom and piety than the rich. Through the role of the servant, the juxtaposition between the rich and the poor becomes more visible and effective. Finally, the use of the servant in the play gives it a humorous tone. Specifically, Sganarelle’s lousy effort to cover up for his master’s faults, together with his inner monologues, makes the play interesting and funny. At the end, those who watch it will find themselves pondering on the message of the play at the same time laughing at Sganarelle crying, â€Å"My wages! My wages! My wages! † (47)