The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg Analysis

Rebecca Harding Davis wrote “Life in the Iron Mills” in the mid-nineteenth century in part to raise awareness about working conditions in industrial mills. With the goal of presenting the reality of the mills’ environment and the lives of the mill workers, Davis employs vivid and concrete descriptions of the mills, the workers’ homes, and the workers themselves. Yet her story’s realism is not objective; Davis has a reformer’s agenda, and her word-pictures are colored accordingly. One theme that receives a particularly negative shading in the story is big business and the money associated with it. Davis uses this negative portrayal of money to emphasize the damage that the single-minded pursuit of wealth works upon the humanity of those

Another theme evident in Chesnutt’s novel concerns the class system religiously adhered to in the post-Civil War south. As the plot develops, it becomes evident that each of the major characters is contrasted with a counterpart, clearly showing which class each belonged to. An example can be found when comparing Major Carteret and Captain McBane. Major Carteret boasts a proud heritage of original plantation owners in the state. Pryor to the war, his family was quite wealthy. Despite his lack of financial resources, his name alone earns him respect in the community. He is well educated and carries himself in a dignified manner. Conversely, Captain McBane is the son of an overseer. He was representative of the lower class whites who took advantage of opportunities involving questionable politics that earned them considerable money. Having attained considerable wealth, he expected to become one of the elite. He dressed the part of the

In “Debasing Exchange: Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth,” author Wai-Chee Dimock argues that the society portrayed in the novel, which is a reflection of 19th century upper class New York, revolves around the idea that the business ethics of the economic “marketplace” determines all aspects of the culture. More specifically, this causes all forms of social interactions to be viewed as “currency,” with the precise value of a certain act or relationship determined by whoever possesses the most power. As Dimock herself puts it, “as a controlling logic, a mode of human conduct and human association, the marketplace is everywhere and nowhere, ubiquitous and invisible” (375). While some might wonder whether the marketplace really is the ultimate guiding structure for this particular fictionalized society, Dimock contends nevertheless that this interpretation is a viable one, due to the marketplace’s “ability to reproduce itself,” and thus “assimilate everything… into its domain” (375). I myself find Dimock’s argument both interesting and useful in interpreting The House of Mirth because of the clarity with which she presents the often complicated, critical lens of Marxism.

As the wealthy increased their assets in the cities, at the same time, a large class was “impoverished city dwellers.” A huge contrast between the wealthy and the poor were forming and becoming more apparent from the beginning of the eighteenth century in the colonies. The data that was collected on the people who were submitted into poor houses clearly with little “doubt that the third quarter of the eighteenth century was an era of severe economic and social dislocation in the cities, and that by the end of the colonial period a large number of urban dwellers were without property, without opportunity, and except for public aid, without the means of obtaining the necessities.” This evidence of poverty in the colonies is one that Nash tries to point out to support his argument that there was a sharp contrast in the distribution of wealth, and that the masses were at this time more focused on the economy’s downfall of the period than defending for constitutional rights and liberties. Protest sparked as the result of the enormous poverty in the colonies. Frustrated with their living conditions the middle and lower classes protested violently in the cities. During this time of frustration with the economic conditions, “rank had no privileges, as even the lieutenant-governor was shot” in Massachusetts. The wealthy were attacked

You can judge a society by its treatment of the old, the weak, the helpless and the needy. Through the narrative conventions of foreshadowing and characterisation, John Steinbeck, in his novel Of Mice And Men, published in 1937, is able to effectively reveal the imperfections of America’s capitalist

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

Some characters in this novel are alienated by mainstream society because they do not fit society’s ideal image of a person. And they are all not accepted as human beings. Throughout John Steinbeck’s novel, Of Mice and Men, the social injustice of how people were treated during the Great Depression is explored through the characters Crooks, Curley’s wife, and Lennie, to show that society actually needs to become stronger than it really is.

In A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, written by Mark Twain, there exists a clear incongruence between nobility and the lower class. While knights and landlords live lavishly without a concern for acquiring basic necessities, peasants often struggle to feed themselves and their families. With so few individuals holding such a large portion of the wealth, a vast gap between the rich and the poor plagues society. For the most part, King Arthur remains completely oblivious to these issues that the lower class faces every day. He ineffectively governs, failing to consider the needs of all people. King Arthur’s interactions with the lower class and his inability to understand peasants’ lifestyles demonstrate the flaws of the monarchy system.

Today, it is more evident than ever that there are deep divisions within modern society along the lines of race, class and gender. These divides are highlighted by recent protests, riots and movements. These issues are relevant in modern society as well as in two famous stories. Both F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men use character development to make commentary toward these points. Fitzgerald’s novel covers the tumultuous journey of Nick Carraway through the swanky social elite of the 1920’s. Steinbeck’s text covers the opposite end of the spectrum, detailing the experiences of George and Lennie, ranchers during the great depression. While also providing a riveting and captivating plot, these seemingly antithetical tales both develop their respective characters to be normal, everyday people who face difficult problems because of their class.

From the ideas shared in the novel, it is evident that the writer defines his ideal society in the form of an antithesis of existing society. The author takes the initiative of informing the American population - using the novel’s romantic medium - on matters concerning individualism, which is notable in an argument by Andrew Carnegie who claims

Accurately established by many historians, the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America were regarded as corrupt “robber barons”. In a society in which there was a severe imbalance in the dynamics of the economy, these selfish individuals viewed this as an opportunity to advance in their financial status. Thus, they acquired fortunes for themselves while purposely overseeing the struggles of the people around them. Presented in Document A, “as liveried carriage appear; so do barefooted children”, proved to be a true description of life during the 19th century. In hopes of rebuilding America, the capitalists’ hunger for wealth only widened the gap between the rich and poor.

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn all explore the effects of wealth and class on society. On closer inspection, a common strand seems to form between these three classic novels. The idea that wealth (and the social class that comes with it) determines a person is refuted via the use of deep characterization. In the end, it seems, wealth and class don’t determine a person’s moral integrity and value, but rather how they interact those two things. Ultimately, Twain makes a case for the lower-classes, that even the poor (and enslaved) can be truly good, setting a better example than the wealthy. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, shows that rich aren’t entirely superficial, rather, that they can be great men. Bronte’s Jane Eyre is a bit more of an oddball than the other two novels, focusing instead on a protagonist that leaps from riches (under the supervision of a cruel aunt), to rags, then back to riches once again. Still, this common strand holds true between the three books: no class, poor or rich, is entirely exempt from moral bankruptcy. A poor person like Pap Finn can be morally corrupt, while a rich man like Jay Gatsby can be good. All character-based judgments in these books lay solely on the person they are judging, blind of the class and wealth that surrounds them.

Social class systems in the nineteenth century were comprised of the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the underclass. The different social classes can be “distinguished by inequalities in such areas as power, authority, wealth, working and living conditions, life-styles, life-span, education, religion, and culture” (Cody). The poor, also known as peasants, were usually mistreated and segregated from the wealthy, or those of higher class. During his time, Charles Dickens “seen as a champion of “the poor” by some of the poor themselves” (“What was”). It is said that one of his greatest achievements “was to bring the problem of poverty to the attention of his readers through introducing varieties of poor persons into almost all of his novels, and showing the “deserving” majority of the poor, bravely struggling against the forces arrayed against them” (“What was”). This is clearly evident in A Tale of Two Cities. During the nineteenth century Victorian era, social class systems were a common excuse for the division and mistreatment of many individuals, as evidenced in Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

Mr. Butler represents capitalistic society taking advantage of the common people: Mr. Haskins and his family. After Mr. Haskins had worked towards purchasing the farm from Mr. Butler, he is met with resistance in the form of an unexpected price increase, to which he rebuts, “But you’ve done nothing to make it so. You hain’t added a cent. I put it all there myself, expectin’ to buy” (Garland 761). Garland, as if to emphasize the element of naturalism, writes, “Butler laughed” and has Butler respond to Mr. Haskins, “The law will sing another tune” (Garland 761).

According the social norms of the people of Munnsville, The Ward Brothers are illiterate and they live a life of simplicity. After the death of William, law enforcers make Delbert to sign some forms that he does not understand because of his illiteracy. This can be seen as a contrast in the social order between the rural setting and the modern urban setting. This notion is