Like Water for Chocolate, by Laura Esquivel, and The House of Bernarda Alba, by Federico Garcia Lorca Essay Example

Like Water for Chocolate, by Laura Esquivel, and The House of Bernarda Alba, by Federico Garcia Lorca Paper Like Water for Chocolate, by Laura Esquivel, is set in early 20th century Mexico, while The House of Bernarda Alba, by Federico Garcia Lorca, is set in 1930s Spain. Both works delineate the roles of women, as well as the barriers created because of their social and familial situations, which define their experiences. Mama Elena and Bernarda Alba are the symbolic matriarchs, and Rosaura and Angustias symbolize the zealous followers of the conservative family traditions, and Maria Josefa and Morning Light are the knowing elderly. However, in spite of their differences, all of the women experience some form of alienation: psychological, physical, or alienation from the wider community. In the works, figurative barriers created by keys, doors and locks underscore the important element of alienation, which is produced partially by the womens actual or intended perpetuation of conservative family traditions. Consequently, in both texts alienation is self-perpetuating, and finds its source within the family as much as outside it. Maria Josefa in The House of Bernarda Alba and the Morning Light in Like Water for Chocolate are symbols of wisdom. The attempted psychological alienation of Maria Josefa and Morning Light is amplified by the recurring motif of literal and figurative keys, locks, or walls although, ironically, none proves totally effective. In the opening scene of The House of Bernarda Alba, Poncia ensures that Maria Josefa is locked up tight with the crossbar up too, for Shes got the fingers of a lock-picker (Pg. 158). Maria Josefas incarceration prefigures what will happen to the young women in Bernardas house. She also mirrors the genuine feelings of the daughters. We will write a custom essay sample on Like Water for Chocolate, by Laura Esquivel, and The House of Bernarda Alba, by Federico Garcia Lorca specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Like Water for Chocolate, by Laura Esquivel, and The House of Bernarda Alba, by Federico Garcia Lorca specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Like Water for Chocolate, by Laura Esquivel, and The House of Bernarda Alba, by Federico Garcia Lorca specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer This is conveyed when Maria Josefa sardonically describes the daughters as single women, longing for marriage, turning their hearts into dust (Pg. 175). She proclaims the truth to the daughters that not a one of you is going to marry-not a one (Pg. 175), thus articulates the alienation from normal social relations that they will all suffer. The indirect allusion to doors and walls underscores the imprisonment, confinement and censorship in the house. Such barriers are however, somewhat permeable, as Maria Josefa is still able to communicate her thoughts both cryptically and offensively. In a less tangible sense, the allusion to doors and walls emphasizes the emotional alienation between characters in the house, for their feelings or thoughts are not able to be voiced nor shared. Maria Josefa, with her lock picker fingers, does escape but not for long. Her attempts signify how repressed emotions challenge door and walls. Josefas failure relates to the climax, as well as portends the tragedy of Adelas suicide in Act ?. In Act ? , Adela thinks Pepe, her only means of escape, is demolished. As a result, she commits the ultimate act of self-alienation- suicide, for without Pepe she can no longer achieve her dreams and desires. Antagonists in Like Water for Chocolate also alienate Morning Lights wisdom by figurative and literal barriers. Morning Lights Indian blood prohibits her from enjoying equality in Johns Yankee family. As a result, she and her wisdom are confined in this room at the back of the house which Johns grandfather has built (pg. 100). The walls of this room at the back of the house (pg. 100) reinforce the idea of emotional alienation of Morning Light from the others. These walls are an allusion to social barriers, for Morning Light is alienated because of stereotypical perceptions that Indians are subservient to Yankees. Ironically, the barriers fail to sequester the wisdom of Morning Light. She heals her father-in-law with her magic healing power. Her eccentric way of singing strange melodies, applying curing herbs, and her wreathing in the smoke of copal and incense she burned (pg. 102) finally receives appreciation; and the wisdom of a native Indian previously overlooked due to prejudice, is recognized for the first time. It is also interesting that other momentous events in Like Water For Chocolate tend to take place in rooms and compartments separated from the main body of the house, e. g. the shower, the kitchen, the room where Tita and Pedro consummate their love and passion. Apart from walls, doors are another example of figurative barriers that evoke emotional alienation of characters in the houses, in addition to imposing physical alienation on the characters. In Like Water For Chocolate, a door causes the dark room to be disembodied from the main house. The room, where Tita and Pedro consummate their love, is dark. This suggests their love is clandestine. It also suggests their love is likely to be suppressed by figurative barriers imposed by the wider community. As Pedro slipped silently into the room behind her and shut the door (pg. 144), he attains the private space required for Tita and his delight. The closing of the door completes the sense of enclosure, effectively alienating the passion of the protagonists from outsiders. In this instance, the alienation transforms into a positive and desirable one. Yet, if the protagonists are caught they will become social outcasts and suffer a different kind of self-imposed alienation, and Pedro has not got the courage to risk it. In direct contrast, the effect of the doors as social and psychological barriers is suggested when Rosaura is confined in her room. She is alienated from the truth and passion of Tita and Pedros affair, for she does not have the potential to light her own box of matches. She experiences things from a distance; she sees the ghostly light from the other room, she is in her bedroom, trying to put her daughter to sleep (pg. 44). Sadly, the bedroom is a lonely place for her, and she is not particularly a good mother. In House of Bernarda Alba, the doors and walls literally block people from witnessing Adela and Pepes illicit love affair. Ironically, these barriers do not prevent the antagonists from figuratively, perceiving the truth, just as doors cannot halt the passion from penetrating a house that is supposedly decent. The domination of Pepe over Adela is so profound that there is no actual resistance. Adela confirms Pepes control over her as she proclaims that no one but Pepe commands me! (pg. 209). Unfortunately Bernardas persists on perpetuating the family tradition, so that Adelas love for Pepe cannot continue. Adelas suicide is the ultimate act of self-alienation. Lorca and Esquivel have figurative barriers like keys and locks to underscore the alienation of characters from the wider community. The stallion in the House of Bernarda Alba is an allusion to the innate desires of the daughters, which are particularly expressed by Adela. The animal yearns to be untethered, but is unfortunatel y locked up by Bernarda, the key holder. Like the daughters, the stallion strives to escape the confined space that is in this case, the corral, in order to attain freedom. The stallions drive is conveyed as he kicks against the wall of the house (pg. 197). The sound is so pervasive and disturbing that Prudencia declares she quivered in her chest (pg. 197). Angustias engagement ring is a figurative barrier as well as key to understanding some of the plays emotions and meanings. Engagement rings are traditionally symbols of commitment, and represent the covenant of love. The passion within Angustias waits to be unlocked, and the love of Pepe, symbolized by the ring, is the key to it. But traditionally a ring signified tears(pg. 198). This foreshadows Angustias misery and distance from the happiness of a marriage, imposed by this figurative barrier. Figurative keys and locks inform Like Water for Chocolate. Titas ardent emotions, like matches, are held within a figurative matchbox. Pedros making love to her acts as the key, which unlocks and releases her passion. The unlocking of emotions is so potent that it creates a brightness that shines far beyond our normal vision. (pg. 19). A splendid tunnel then appears that shows us the way that we forgot when we were born and calls us to recover our lost divine origin. (pg. 220). The long-desired love between Tita and Pedro is finally consummated, as their ultimate act of self-alienation by death allows them to break off all barriers and constraints. Esquivel and Lorca have figurative barriers such as keys, doors and locks to highlight the psychological, physical alienation, as well as the alienation of the characters. Under conservative family traditions, desires and dreams of protagonists like Adela and Tita are difficult to attain. The actual or intended perpetuation of traditions by matriarchs like Bernarda Alba and Mama Elena exacerbates the suppression. The protagonists, Adela and Tita choose death as the ultimate act of self-alienation. However, the consequences of their deaths are different. Since the situation for Adela has become too much to bear, she retreats to self-destruction. Her search for fulfillment is therefore an ugly failure. In contrast, with death, Tita and Pedro are able to defy all constraints and consummate their love. As a result, their search for fulfillment is a success- they do open locks and penetrate barriers.

Totalitarionism essays

Totalitarionism essays Over the years there have been many leaders. Three of the most known are Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler. These three were dictators and had a totalitarian government. This essay will discuss their rise to power, public sentiment, and accomplishments. Also it will discuss their crimes and what kind of legacy they left. The three men came to power in almost the same way. Mussolini started a Fascist party and took power. Stalin was part of a Communist committee that ran the country after Lenin died. He used his friends in the committee to get him to power. After he became dictator he had all the people who got him to power killed. Hitler started the Nazi party, which is a Fascist group. With his influence he was voted to power. He too had the people who voted him to power killed. That was known as the Night of Long Knives. The public felt the same for Stalin and Hitler but Mussolini was different. Mussolini was a great public speaker. Whenever he spoke the crowds would cheer. In the beginning Mussolini was liked by the people but in the end the public ended up killing him and hanging him. The people loved Stalin. His people considered him a great man. They wept for him when he died of an aneurysm. The public followed Hitlers ideas and praised him. In the end he killed himself. Each of these leaders made different accomplishments for their country. Mussolini gave the people what they wanted to hear. He did not do a lot of good though. Stalin nationalized the industry and made it spread throughout the world. He ended the civil war. Hitler did a very good thing for his country. He got his country out of the great depression. This was a great accomplishment. He also strengthened the army. As with their accomplishments these leaders had committed many crimes. Mussolini had people killed and censored all of the news so it would not incrimina ...

Probability Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Probability - Term Paper Example Statistics use assumption on population distribution to estimate population values based on sample values (Kemp & Kemp 257-66). Probability distributions functions or simply distribution functions are used (Soong 39-41). The distribution function associates a variable value with a probability (Soong 39). This can take the form Fx(x) =P(Xx) where the lowercase x refers to a specific value of a variable. Probability distribution functions have shapes represented by the mathematical equations. The areas under the curves or distribution functions are associated with probabilities. In business statistics, some of the distribution functions that are often used are the Z-statistics, t-statistics, chi-square distribution, and the F-statistics (Kemp & Kemp 47-297). There is also an option to use what statisticians call as the non-parametric statistics (Kemp & Kemp 298-315). The choice of what distribution functions to use are determined by convention or typical practice and theory. For example, in estimating the population mean, it is assumed that the sample mean converge to the population mean through repetition of sampling procedures or if the population is large. Thus, in estimating the mean, statistics usually makes the assumption based on a normal distribution. Although several distribution functions are used in statistics, in this work we focus our sights on three: the z-statistics, the t-statistics, and the chi-square statistics. Figure 1 captures a standard normal distribution function. The standard normal distribution associates a value of a variable with probability. For example, the probability that the value of the variable is between a very low number and high number can be represented by 100%. In the language of statistics, this take s the form P (-< x < +) = 1 or 100%. In other words, this means that in a

Physics of Formula One Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4500 words - 1

Physics of Formula One - Essay Example Enzo Ferrari the legend behind the name Ferrari had a passion for car racing which motivated him to come out with the brand name which is today a household name in the field of F1 races. It was in 1945 that the work started on designing and building the very first Ferrari, a project which was being prepared around 12-cylinder2 – a first in the history which went on to provide a direction to the car in general and car racing in particular. Ferrari was the first car to use 1.5 litre unit in a V12 configuration. Since then the company has not looked back. Ferrari, the car was the brain child of its founder Enzo Ferrari. The journey begins with the foundation of Scuderia, sort of a club, on 16th November 1929, exclusively for participating in motor-racing competitions. Enzo Ferrari an integral part of Alpha Romeo for many decades, parted ways in 1929. When Ferrari left the club, he was not allowed to have his name on any of the cars or clubs for the next four years. But his resolve and patience saw him through in his ventures and he started with an 8-cylinder, 1500 cc sports spider, named as 815. It was only in 1946 that the name Ferrari comes into being for cars. The company has not looked back since then. Thereafter came its association with Michael Schumacher in 1996, which further helped in establishing the brand equity called ‘Ferrari’. The F1 racing is now an integral part of Ferrari. In fact F1 racing has now become a big industry in itself. Such developments have started driving other car manufacturers as well int o the race and serious manufacturers like BMW have also started experimenting with the sporty driving. Though it may sound boring to people watching the racing on the tracks, its television clippings have started commanding huge premium. This potential was foreseen by Mr. Ecclestone of ‘Formula One Administration’, who produces the electronic feed being watched by over 40 billion viewers (The

Affluent Society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Affluent Society - Essay Example The paper will also review the most important benefits and drawbacks of sub-urbanization and affluence for Americans in the 1950s. The suburban consumers in the 1950s gained much affluence due to the economic prosperity of the US during the period. There was an increase in luxury expenditure and increase in consumer values due to increased enlightening of the suburban population. Prior to the period of 1950s consumer values did not have much dominance in the United States of America. Affluence was not of much meaning before this period. It was during this period that the people of the United States of America gained confidence in the affluence. Material conformity was brought about by mass marketing and consumerism despite that fact that the US market was consisting of people with different characteristics and abilities. Conformity seemed to be the norm in social aspects such as religion and gender roles. The 1950s is commonly referred to as the decade of economic boom. This is a decade that came immediately after the end of the World War II. Therefore, Americans were so eager on spending their money on things that they could not access during the period of war. There wasthe growth of the industries that existed even before the war began. Good examples of such industries are automobiles and steels. There was also growth of new industries such as plastic, electronics, and computers. This is a clear indication that there was an increase in the availability of employment opportunities in the US. There was a resulting increase in workers’ wages and benefits1. This implies that the people of the United States of America were in a better position to spend money on things that were previously termed as luxuries. A research carried out by the Corning Glass company in the 1950s used American women to evaluate the possible performance of their coffee in the market. The research showed just shows the extent to which the specification of customers mattered

Nt Was There Consensus In Post War British Politics Politics Essay

Nt Was There Consensus In Post War British Politics Politics Essay In the context of politics, the term consensus can be defined as a broad agreement exists between parties on important areas of policy  [1]  . Despite first being used as early as the 1950s, the word consensus came to prominence in 1975 when Paul Addison used it to describe the perceived similarities in the goals and policies of the alternating Labour and Conservative governments in the post-war period. The end of World War II was arguably a catalyst for the implementation of ideas  [2]  which had been building for decades prior to the outbreak of war. However, the supposed consensus which existed began to disintegrate in the late 1970s. Commentators, including Brian Harrison, have pinned its demise to 1975 and the appointment of Margaret Thatcher as Conservative party leader due to her struggle (against) those who pursued consensus  [3]  . Crucially, the notion of consensus has not been met with universal acceptance; historians, including Pimlott, have suggested it was a myth, proposing that consensus is a mirage; an illusion that rapidly fades the closer one gets to it  [4]  . In spite of this however, it will be argued that there was indeed agreement between the major parties on fundamental issues. However, the parties often differed in terms of attitude and approach, thus suggesting that consensus is too strong a word to describe this period. Concurring with Hennessy that post-war settlement  [5]  is perhaps a more appropriate description, this essay will take a thematic approach, assessing the degree of consensus in regard to three key areas: economic policy; social policy; and finally foreign and defence policy. Perhaps the most significant area in which to measure the extent of political consensus is through the assessment of economic policy in the post-war period. Public ownership is an area in which, ideologically at least, Labour and the Conservatives should have had divergent views. However, during the late 1940s, coal, gas, electricity, iron and steel were all nationalised and, by the early 1950s, 20 per cent of industry and commerce was state-controlled  [6]  . Crucially, it was a Labour government responsible for the nationalisation statues in the 1940s while the Conservatives remained opposed to such measures, pledging to reverse the statutes and return industry to the private sector. Whilst such plans were never realised, it would be too simplistic to make the assumption that this meant a consensus had been reached. Rather, a convincing case can be made to suggest that a compromise, as opposed to agreement, was reached, with the Conservatives accepting public ownership unwillin gly  [7]  because they sought to avoid causing further disruption. However unwilling the Conservatives may have been, it is clear that, at least until the early 1970s, public ownership remained a point of consensus between the two main parties; the only significant change in this field occurred in 1964 with the renationalisation of iron and steel by Wilsons Labour government. Moreover, strategy towards employment is arguably another key aspect of post-war economic policy which initially points towards a consensus between the two main parties. Following the mass unemployment which characterised the inter-war period, the Second World War virtually eradicated this problem. Understandably, both Labour and the Conservatives sought to maintain this at the end of the war, as outlined in the White Paper on Employment in 1944 which stated that the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment  [8]  would be a key priority for post-war governments. The belief in Keynesianism and commitment to full employment was maintained for three decades, with unemployment averaging less than 3 per cent between 1945 and 1970  [9]  . Whilst at first this appears to be a clear indicator of consensus, a strong case can be made to suggest that both parties were motivated by pragmatism, believing that full employment was good politics  [10]  as it kept morale high and people in work, thus increasing their likelihood of re-election. Furthermore, it is clear that the Conservatives were arguably reluctant partners in the commitment to full employment. Whilst Labour declared its support for introducing measures in the private sector to help achieve full employment, the Conservatives showed a greater degree of reticence. Throughout the 1950s, the Conservatives pledged only to maintain  [11]  present policy, with Kavanagh suggesting this was merely an attempt to live down their reputation as the party of unemployment in the 1930s  [12]  . Subtly, this suggests that the only real source of consensus was in the rhetoric of both parties who both claimed to be advocates of Keynesian economics despite, however, speaking it with different accents and differing emphasis  [13]  . What is more, a third significant aspect of economic policy which, on the surface, suggests a strong degree of consensus in the post-war period concerns trade unions. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, trade unions retained their important role in politics for another thirty years after the Labour defeat in 1951 because, as Peter Dorey asserts, both parties accepted the desirability of working with, rather than against  [14]  trade unions. Demonstrating the extent of the consensus, in the late 1940s, the Conservative party asserted its acceptance of, and commitment to  [15]  trade unionism. A convincing case can be made to suggest that both parties had converging views on trade unions because they appreciated the symbiotic relationship between government and the unions. The avoidance of the 1953 railway strike is a prime example of this; the strike was prevented following close negotiations between the government and National Union of Railwaymen, demonstrating what could be achie ved by close co-operation between the two  [16]  . However, it is important to assess the nature of the perceived consensus. Significantly, trade unions have been described by the likes of the historian Matthias Matthijs as Labours paymasters  [17]  due to the large proportion of party funding they provided. In contrast, the Conservatives were independent from the trade unions and were, thus, more critical of trade unionism, seeking to reform the way in which unions functioned. Therefore, it is clear that, despite sharing the same fundamental belief in the importance of trade unions, both parties had differing attitudes and approaches as a result of their conflicting interests. A further key area, which is essential to discuss in order to assess the extent to which there was a consensus in post-war British politics, is social policy, with particular reference to the National Health Service, welfare, and education. A strong argument can be made to support the assertion that there was indeed a great deal of consensus between the two main parties regarding the welfare state. By the fall of the Labour government in 1951, the foundations were arguably complete but, crucially, if the newly-elected Conservative government had reversed Labours plans, the NHS and welfare state would not have come into existence. The very fact that the Conservatives chose to continue with Labours plans implies a mutual appreciation and acceptance of the key principles  [18]  which underpinned welfare provision. In fact, every government, regardless of party, committed to maintaining and improving  [19]  the welfare state, except for the Heath government between 1970 and 1972. Moreover, following the publication of the Beveridge Report in 1942, it is plausible to suggest that the NHS and welfare state represented more than simply a consensus on policy; instead, the report arguably profoundly influenced both parties and subtly suggests a consensus in their beliefs and principles. This assertion is supported by the likes of Rodney Lowe, who argues that there was now an understanding that government could assume a positive  [20]  role in improving the lives of its citizens. However, despite evidence of a strong, universal commitment to the welfare state between 1945 and 1974, there is evidence of greater divergence between the two parties over time, particularly with regards to the provision of social services and education. Crucially, in the 1960s, elements within the Conservative party began to doubt  [21]  the concept of universal welfare provision, believing instead that selectivity would both reduce welfare spending whilst also targetting those who needed help most. These divisions continued to grow throughout the 1960s and early 1970s as right-wing Conservatives began claim(ing) that high levels of welfare spending were (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) undermining the economy  [22]  . Similarly, with regard to education, on the surface at least, this appeared to be a source of consensus; the Education Act of 1944 was conceived by the Conservatives but enacted by Labour, suggesting a common vision for secondary education in Britain. However, as noted by N ick Ellison, there was conflict between the two parties regarding comprehensive and private education. The division on this issue highlights the fundamental ideological differences which existed between Labour and the Conservatives; Labours egalitarian perspective contrasted markedly with Conservative education policy  [23]  . Significantly, this illustrates the limitations of consensus, suggesting that party ideology was not compromised in the name of consensus. Finally, a third broad area which requires discussion in order to determine the extent to which there was a consensus in post-war British politics is foreign and defence policy, with particular reference to Europe, decolonisation and the British Commonwealth. The debate surrounding European integration can be seen, on the surface at least, as evidence of consensus in the post-war period. Throughout the 1950s, both parties remained opposed  [24]  to various ventures, including the formation of the Coal and Steel community in 1950 and, later in 1954, the establishment of a European Defence Community. However, by the 1960s, both parties simultaneously came to accept that joining the European Economic Community was the best way to protect British interests  [25]  . Crucially, the issue of European integration highlights an important feature of the consensus; whilst governments of both parties shared the same views on European integration, this was not necessarily representative o f the opinions of party members, thus stressing the elitist nature of consensus politics and its divorce from party opinion  [26]  . Furthermore, the policy of decolonisation, achieved through the granting of independence to colonies and the subsequent transition to a Commonwealth, marked a clear departure from the policies pursued by Britain prior to the Second World War. Despite the drastic change in direction, both parties appear, in rhetoric at least, to have shared a common vision for the British Empire in the post-war era. This is highlighted in their 1950 election manifestos in which both Labour and the Conservatives outlined their commitment to the Commonwealth and decolonisation. The similarity in the language used is striking; Labour outlined its desire to strengthen  [27]  the association between nations while the Conservatives pledged to and promote and support  [28]  the Commonwealth. On the one hand, this can be perceived as highlighting the true extent to which both parties shared a united vision for post-war foreign policy. However, manifesto rhetoric does not always truly represent the vie ws of the party. Anthony Seldon concurs with this, claiming that Labour was enthusiastic  [29]  while the Conservatives were more reluctant  [30]  about the prospect of decolonisation. However, there are several aspects where there is generally less debate regarding the extent of consensus between the main parties. For instance, both Labour and the Conservatives recognised the value of maintaining a nuclear deterrent and were also of the same view regarding the importance of both Britains membership to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the maintenance of close links with the USA  [31]  . Thus, it is clear that, whilst there were key elements of consensus in post-war foreign and domestic policy, there are also several examples of disagreement. Overall, in assessing economic, social and foreign policy between 1945 and 1974, this essay has highlighted numerous points upon which Labour and the Conservative party have shared a common vision for post-war Britain. However, there are also many examples of disagreement and divergence between the main parties. Fundamentally, it is clear that both parties shared broadly similar goals and policies but differed in terms of their attitude and approach to achieving their shared vision. The key issue is one of semantics, however. Historians have differing definitions of consensus, making it all the more difficult to assess the extent to which there was a consensus in this period. If Addisons definition of consensus as a historically unusual degree of agreement over a wide range of economic and social policies  [32]  is accepted, then it is impossible to deny the strength of consensus in the post-war period. Crucially, as Seldon notes, the use of the word consensus can be unhelpful as it is ambiguous, with some historians referring to a consensus over policy  [33]  while others advocate the existence of a deeper, more profound commitment to a set of common beliefs and values  [34]  . However, despite the ambiguity of the word, the extent to which the two main parties agreed on fundamental issues during this thirty year period was arguably unparalleled. In spite of the disagreements which occurred, there were no major shifts in policy and the existence of a broad consensus, amongst the governing elite at least, is undeniable.

Beloved by Morrison Essay -- Morrison Beloved Book Review

Beloved by Morrison Beloved is the tale of an escaped slave, Sethe, who is trying to achieve true freedom. Unfortunately, though she is no longer in servitude to a master, she is chained to her "hainted" past. Morrison effectively depicts the shattered lives of Sethe, her family, fellow former slaves, and the community through a unique writing style. The narrative does not follow a traditional, linear plot line. The reader discovers the story of Sethe through fragments from the past and present that Morrison reveals and intertwines in a variety of ways. The novel is like a puzzle of many pieces that the reader must put together to form a full picture. Through this style, which serves as a metaphor for the broken lives of her characters, Morrison successfully conveys the horrors of slavery and the power of a community. One of Morrison's techniques is to relate the story of Beloved from several different points of view. Most of the book is told from third-person omniscient, with the viewpoint character constantly changing. For example, in chapter three the perspective switches even during a flashback. At first, the story is told from Sethe's viewpoint. "Down in the grass, like the snake she believed she was, Sethe opened her mouth, and instead of fangs and a split tongue, out shot the truth" (39). Then the narrative changes to the perspective of Amy Denver, who helps Sethe escape when she is pregnant. "The girl moved her eyes slowly, examining the greenery around her. ‘Thought there'd be huckleberries. Look like it. That's why I come up in here. Didn't expect to find no nigger woman'" (39). Every character in the book, dead included, tells part of the story. In chapter sixteen, the point of view switches to... ...nt. He has sex with Beloved and when he reaches the "inside part he was saying, ‘Red heart. Red heart,' over and over again" (138). Morrison weaves together the story of characters whose shared past is so devastating they cannot live in the present. By using a writing style as fragmented and troubled as the lives of her characters, Morrison actively involves the reader in piecing together the horrors of slavery. Beloved at times was difficult to read because of the emotional impact of its passages. The character of Ella best describes the struggle of their lives when she says, "The future was sunset; the past something to leave behind. And if it didn't stay behind, well, you might have to stomp it out. Slave life; freed life-every day was a test and a trial. Nothing could be counted on in a world where even when you were a solution you were a problem" (302).