Stone Angel - Hagar as a Product of her Environment Essay

This is my book report about, “The Amulet Book 1 The Stonekeeper” by Kazu Kibuishi. The main characters of the story are Emily, Navin, Miskit, Karen, and Silas. Emily is the 12-year-old daughter of Karen Hayes. Emily is the natural born leader who hasn’t been the same ever since she witnessed her father’s death. Navin is the youngest of the Hayes family. He loves video games, robots, and making Emily laugh. Miskit is known as the brains of the team and acts as Silas’s right-hand robot for many years. Karen is Emily’s mother. She is a single mother who wants what is best for her kids. She’s still going through some tough problems ever since her husband died. Silas is Emily’s great-grandfather and the previous owner of the amulet. The bad guy in the story is the Elf King’s son, Trellis. He sent the monster after Emily’s mother in order to get to Emily.

“The First Stone” is written by Don Aker and this book is based on two teenagers who have suffered very painful past. They both have lost one of their loved ones in their past. The main character is Reef’s whose parents and grandparents die when he was young. He was left to many foster homes because of his past. He got anger issues since his parents and grandparents died. He made very inappropriate decision that leads him to court and then to North Hills. Now he has to respect other and follows the rules in order to stay away from jail. I believe Reef could have changed his past. By his action, behavior and language but since he didn’t help himself, he now has to face his

For the first years, Hagar does not pay much attention to Milkman and he perceived her as “a distant creature” (113) while she views him as a “puppy” since she is the older of them (114). In the course of time, their relationship changes and Milkman realizes that he no longer feels attracted to her. From this moment forth, Hagar makes “Milkman the center of her life” by becoming the active since Milkman no longer chases her (Qasim and Asmat 193). Apparently Milkman loses interest when he seems to own her. Interestingly, this relationship is primarily depicted as a physical one. This directly results in the fact that Milkman’s interest is primarily of a sexual nature, but does not truly love or value her. So it is not surprising that, instead of recognizing true love, he describes Hagar as “the third beer. Not the first one, which the throat receives with almost tearful gratitude; nor the second, that confirms and extends the pleasure of the first. But the third, the one you drink because it’s there, because it can’t hurt, and because what difference

Besides the children of Macon Dead, there are other biblical allusions in the names of people. One of these is Hagar, Pilate's son and Milkman's cousin. Though the biblical Hagar is not well known, her character in the Bible reflects, in some ways, the character in Morrison's novel. In the bible, Hagar is Sarah's handmaiden. When she bares the son

• Medes settled in the northwest and came under the influence of the ancient centers in

Third, while Ruth is suffering from a lack of love from an early age Hagar’s relationship with her mother and grandmother is the exact opposite. There is no question that love is present in this relationship. The oversaturation of love that Hagar receives from Pilate and Reba motivates her disillusioned and childish behavior. This is shown when”she lay[s] in her little Goldilocks’-choice bed” and Pilate and Ruth call her as “My baby girl” and allow her to act childishly and rash even though she is a middle-aged woman. (510, 516). Because she has never been forced to mature and grow up she can’t process her rejection from Milkman because she has never had to face rejection before because her parents would drop everything and anything for her

She usually gets what she wants, but on the ship to go to America things change. Brother Khoi has to get rid of something very valuable to him, his dead baby chick. He gets very upset when he is forced to throw his baby chick in the sea. Ha watches, she sees how upset he is. She goes and gets her favorite doll. To show Brother Khoi how much she cares she throws her doll into the sea. “...I regret not having my doll as soon as the white bundle sinks into the sea” (86). This makes Ha empathetic. She knows what her brother is going through. She becomes more caring. Another way Ha is empathetic is when her teacher tells her she lost her son in the Vietnam war. Ha and her teacher are empathetic for each other because they know how it feels losing someone. “ I had not known of her son Tom or of his death as twenty-year-old soldier in the very place I was born” (200). In Ha’s trip and while she is in America, she becomes

Hagar desires nothing more than to get away from Marvin and Doris and prove to them she can be independent. Even as Hagar is on her deathbed, her resentment towards Doris for putting her in this situation comes out as Doris is passing her a cup of water, Hagar snaps,

As Hagar’s love for Milkman grows more and more obsessive, Morrison reveals the bitter consequences of life as a woman seeking intimacy in a strictly patriarchal world. In the beginning of the novel, Hagar is associated primarily with her female relatives, Reba and Pilate. Even then, well-fed Hagar declares, “Some of my days were hungry

One of the main reasons for the success of Rowling’s Harry Potter is the universality of the different story elements which - unconsciously, perhaps - subtly satisfies readers. By cleverly weaving the characteristic archetypes that famous psychotherapist Carl Gustav Jung mapped out in the year 1947, Rowling illustrates multiple fairytale tropes. In The Philosopher’s Stone, she incorporates one such element: the archetype of the ‘shadow’, whereby the narrative of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ is put to question—and an underlying discourse on the Taoist concept of yin and yang emerges. By this notion, the presence of Voldemort is necessary for the completion of Harry’s character as a whole. By advancing this, Rowling has helped raise a generation—to the

The guilt of nurturing lust for power made Hagar run away from Sara. In this context, I observe, that the powerless concubine became all powerful-she ran away twice from Sara. Her reasons for doing so might be many, most notable being that Hagar was the biological mother of Ishmael, and further the tables turned when Sara asked Abraham to send Hagar away-there is a shift in the power roles. Hagar’s acts of running away from Sara twice helps me perceive Hagar taking over the role of an oppressor from her former role of one being oppressed. To explicate this, as a maid, Hagar was oppressed into forcible sexual relationship with Abram, the same oppressed concubine can be perceived as the oppressor who torments Sara because she is the birthing mother of Abraham’s son and hence looks down upon Sara.

"I wouldn't let him see me cry, I was so enraged. He used a foot ruler, and when I jerked my smarting palms back, he made me hold them out again. He looked at my dry eyes in a kind of fury, as though he'd failed unless he drew water from them." (Page 9) Hagar's father straps her hands with a ruler but even as a child, she will not let her tears be seen, she will not let him see that he is hurting her. Even when her brother Dan is near death, she will not comfort him, for it requires that she act as their mother, which to her is despicable. "But all I could think of was that meek woman I'd never seen, the woman Dan was said to resemble so much an from whom he'd inherited a frailty I could not help but detest, however much a part of me wanted to sympathize." Hagar cannot bear the thought of pretending to be someone as feeble and weak as their mother. Throughout her marriage, Hagar never lets Bram know that she enjoyed their lovemaking. "He never knew. I never let him know, it was all inner. (Page 81) When Hagar's husband Bram dies she does not shed a tear, not even when there is only her son to witness it. "But when we'd buried Bram and come home again and lighted lamps for the evening, it was John who cried, not I." (Page 184) Still, when her son John dies she does not weep, as if she had been born without tear ducts. "The night my son died I was

In the same fashion that the law binds the Biblical Hagar to Abram and Sarah, Hagar Shipley is bound by - as D. Blewett points out - the Currie code of values, the Shipley freedom, and the Manawakan elitist attitude, in addition to her own pride (Blewett 36). Hagar Shipley is a modernised version of the Biblical Hagar, in that, people can no longer be bound as slaves in western culture but are, quite often, bound by personal or social restraints, like Hagar is. Hagar's freedom is limited by the conflicting influences - internal versus external - in her own life. The Currie virtue keeps Hagar from expressing any outward form of emotion, which, ultimately, limits or ruins the majority of her relationships, including her marriage to Brampton Shipley. Initially attracted to the Shipley casualness and freedom, because it is the exact opposite to the Currie conformity, Hagar marries Bram, a poor farmer and social

Wenner explores the geographical ramifications of Highbury from a broader scope by appointing Emma Woodhouse as the central figure of the allegorical nation-state Highbury is meant to represent. She argues, despite Jane Austen’s seeming ignorance of the real-world events happening at the time the novel is set, that there exists an implicit acknowledgement of Austen’s political awareness in a time of English triumph and “nationalistic pride” (Wenner 56). The ethnocentric ideals of the characters are exposed in the way ‘outsiders’ pose threats, or rather “bring the plot complications” (58). Highbury, in the context of Emma, acts as the heart of the narrative, with foreign places floating in the periphery of the novel’s geographical centre. The

Collins characterizes the Brahmins in a positive manner, to the show the ruthless nature of Herncastle and ultimately the Victorians as a whole. Herncastle can be seen as the image of the white British Empire and are unmistakably depicted as ruthless individuals in The Moonstone. John Herncastle, the affluent English colonel who stole the moonstone, is portrayed as pure evil (Collins 49). Herncastle bequeathed the moonstone to Rachel Verinder, his niece, fully knowing that it was cursed, so he could exact revenge on his sister, who disowned him many years ago (Collins 45, 49-50). “While, Herncastle maliciously bequeathed the stone to Rachel, to punish the family that rejected him, “the Brahmins risk their immortal souls by masquerading as members of a lower caste (jugglers and musicians) in order to retrieve the gem, dedicating their lives to the service of their god” (Allingham 2 of 4). As the Brahmins secure and recapture the Moonstone, with no ravenousness, and as an obligation for their god. Collins endeavors to portray, the Brahmins as a saint with honorable characteristics, while Herncastle is delineated as a scoundrel with untrustworthy and shrewd characteristics. However, in a great scheme of things, Collins symbolizes Brahmins as India, while Herncastle as Britain and Collins’ depiction of Brahmins in a positive way, illustrates