Hi, it´s nice that you have a look at my website. I would appreciate comments to my articles. I promise to reply as soon as possible.

 Psychological issues of today in Golding's "Lord of the Flies"

Golding describes in a brilliant way the problems of today regarding to philosophical, political and also psychological aspects. Especially the psychological aspect is very interesting to me because Golding shows the different sides of a person's character by introducing protagonists who represent only one side of a character. The main characters of "Lord of the Flies" are four boys called Piggy, Ralph, Simon and Jack. Each of them represents one side of a human's character.

Piggy is described as a fat boy who is not very popular since he differs quite a lot from the other boys. He has asthma and wears glasses, which usually many older people do. Always concerned and thinking about things Piggy realises the importance of a situation or action, for example, he is the one who realises that a boy is missing after the fire breaks out. Piggy stands for the wise and thinking part of a human being, maybe even the adult part.

Ralph is the chief of the boys. Although he is not as intelligent as Piggy he is very concerned about things, especially about other people. He wants things to be straight and ordered, therefore he cares about the "littluns", about being rescued and having a civilised life, at least as civilised as possible. The good and innocent side of a person is represented by Ralph, who just tries to make the best of the unusual situation.

Simon does not seem to play an important role at first sight. The other boys say he is weird and rather crazy, but actually he is the poetic and spiritual side of a man's character. He is often seeking for a quiet plays, where he can be alone thinking about different things. Simon is able to see the truth of certain things. When the boys are discussing their fear of the beast Simon makes the statement that there might be a beast but only inside of themselves. He says "What I mean is... maybe it's only us" (page 86). He realises the "essential Illness" (p.86) of mankind.

The final side of a person's character, the devil, is represented by Jack. He is not concerned about anything but killing and seeing a lot of blood. As soon as there is no punishment ( in this case by parents or generally grown-ups) anymore, the cruel and evil sides gain the control over his body and mind.

Maybe Golding wants to say that there is an evil part inside of all of us and that this part will control some of us if we are not punished by anyone. Every human being has these different sides in its character and depending on the intensity of each side everyone will develop a different behaviour in a certain situation. If there was not punishment enforces by police, politicians or anyone else in today's world we would change probably our behaviour. One side of our character would gain control over the other sides and seduce us to act in a special way. For instance, if we did not have rules to follow, such as "do not kill", and if police did not force us not to break these rules, maybe lots of people would start fighting and killing because they would know there would not be any consequences for them. But certainly there would also be people who would manage to live their lives like they used to do. In my opinion Golding describes a person that changes in a bad way. In the book the situation first seems to work out right, the boys follow the rules and try to live as normal as possible. But as the plot moves on the evil side (represented by Jack and his hunters) gains power, even so much that two of the boys, Piggy and Simon, are killed on purpose. This devilish behaviour could only be stopped by a naval officer. If you transformed this to the "real" world, the boys would stand for one person that is not punished by anyone and, therefore develops an evil behaviour and starts to kill. This person would not stop killing unless he would be forced to by police (the naval officer). I think Golding managed the description of the character of humans very well in this way.

The American Dream

In spite of many different dreams there is one common effect

Writing an essay on the topic "the American Dream" is very hard, because one can discuss many different aspects.

	"Where does it come from?"
	"How long does it exist?"
	"Is it individual or can you generalise it?"
	"Is it only an American Dream?"
	"Does it exits at all?"

To me the American Dream does exist, it is a dream, maybe even a belief, which holds one people together; it is the foundation of a nation made by lots of different people, who immigrated to America 500 years ago. Although the reason for this immigration may differ a lot, these people had one thing in common: The hope to be able to live in a way they could not do it in their countries, to have new possibilities and perhaps even to fulfill their dreams. The immigrants did not have a longstanding history they could look back at, they have not fought in the same war, they did not experience the same revolutions, governments or anything else. The only bond between them was that dream they all dreamt together. Therefore you cannot call the American Dream a European Dream for example, since Europe has never been a country without a history. From the beginning people lived in America experiencing the same things, going through the same events together, progress as well as suffering. We, as Europeans, did not come to an unknown country of virgin soil to live our dreams. We did not go anywhere without knowing what to expect. We did not immigrate for a dream. But those settlers did and in this way created the American Dream.

Of course, the meaning of that dream has changed a lot through all the years. Formerly people might have come to own land and have a new beginning, but today other things have become important. Money, being popular and successful are just some ideas of the American Dream. Actually the American Dream is too individual to give a general definition of it. While some people only want to be happy and wealthy with their families, others want to be successful, richer than the richest man alive. Others again only want to be accepted by the community, want to be treated equally. So everybody has his or her own American Dream, which might be different to former times. But one thing has not changed at all: The fact that this dream still holds one nation together.

I think this kind of multiculture should not exist. In my opinion people who decide to emigrate to a country should have a certain basic knowledge of the national language, traditions and history. They should try to become a member of the new society and not demarcate from natives. Of course, they should still have contact to people of their own nationality, but that contact should not be the only one.

Should we watch people being executed?

Would you like everyone watching you die ?

Is Capital Punishment Good Crime Management?

Crime is a big problem in today’s world. The number of crimes has increased constantly during the last decades and it seems as if a solution just cannot be found. So, where is the real management for crime? How can we stop it?

Some politicians and also lots of other people think that one solution, a good solution, is capital punishment. They think if they sentence offenders to capital punishment, crime rates will not increase anymore, and in the long run they will drop. They think they have found a real management of crime.

As far as I can see, there are two ways of fighting the crime rates.

One is reacting, which means that we wait until a capital crime has been done and then we try to deter others by sentencing the offender to death. The other way, and in my opinion the better one, is a precautionary fight, which means that we try to prevent people from becoming offenders, so that crimes will not happen at all.

I think that at the very moment of murder, for example, the murderer will not really think about the consequences, he will not think about being sentenced to death. At this moment he only thinks about killing his victim. So we cannot prevent this deed, we only can try to make it up or to revenge it by putting the offender on death row. But if we cared about people who could become criminals, we would be able to prevent a good deal of crimes. Therefore the answer to the question where the key to real management for crime lies, is that we need to do lots of social work, we need to care for people, who are mentally ill and retarded, for kids who do not have an intact family life, who are beaten by their parents or who live in the streets on their own. We must care about people who are not accepted by society, people who need some mental support, so that they will not be tempted to become criminal. If we managed these problems, we might be able to decrease the crime rate and to manage crime.

Holden - a dreamer unable to accept responsibility

The protagonist of Salinger´s "The Catcher in the Rye" suffers from serious psychological problems

Holden Caulfield´s life does not seem to be the kind of life, that you would imagine an American teenager has. Already during the first chapters you get know that Holden’s previous life has been a complete failure. He was expelled from school several times, he seems to be a loner and obviously he is not able to take any responsibility for anything or anyone. While all his fellow students gather at a very important football game one evening, Holden stands nearby the game without anyone around him. Before that Holden lost the fencing equipment on a trip to New York. Although the fencing team got really mad at Holden, which is just understandable, he does not care about it and finds his fault even humorous. This reaction shows his inability to comprehend the consequences of his actions and to take over responsibility.

Looking at all of these facts you could say Holden’s appearance is adult like with his tall stature and greying hair, but that he is very immature inside, maybe even despaired.

"How do you know, what’s good for me?"

Stoppard´s play A Separate Peace deals with escapism

The question "How do you know, what`s good for me" is asked generally by lots of people. Whether it is a daughter asking her mother or a student asking his teacher does not matter, fact is that at some point most people make the experience that someone wants to decide about their business. Whether this interference is justified or not depends on the intimacy of the persons` relationship. Probably a mother knows her children well enough to decide if something is good for them or not.

In Maggies`s and Mr Brown`s case it is different, since we know that Maggie, representative of the hospital staff, has not known Mr Brown for a long time and that she is not informed about his life and way to live at all. Maybe Mr Brown had a fight with his family or something else so that he does not want to be in contact with
them. Maybe his family treated him badly, maybe it is not even his true family. Who knows? Obviously Maggie does not know anything about Mr Brown. Just because of the fact that she found out his name and his address, she presumes to be able to decide about him. In my opinion she did not have the right to go this way. Maybe she should have thought about how her reaction would have been in Mr Brown´ s place. Therefore Mr Brown`s question is truly justified.

But on the other hand you need to consider Mr Brown`s behaviour, which is certainly not what we call normal. He gives lots of reasons to think that he is not able to decide for himself anymore. Staying in hospital for quite a long time without being sick, not leaving your room, not giving your address or any information about yourself is not a normal behaviour in our society. Moreover Mr Brown has a bag with plenty of pounds with him, which is really suspicious. In these circumstances it is just understandable that Maggie might think Mr Brown is not able to make a clear decision. And if you are not sure about someone`s state of mind, calling his family will probably be the only right thing you can do. But maybe Maggie should have talked to Mr Brown about this step earlier, so that there would have been a chance to find a solution with which both could live.

Pinter´s A Slight Ache confronts us with Edward´s ego

Everyone should take a look at his other ego to improve his character

Every person has a neutral ego at his birth. This ego develops while one is growing up, influenced by education and environment. In this way everyone gets his own character, which is dominated by one side of his ego. Following this thesis you come to the conclusion that your character and consequently your whole behaviour is lead by this ego, but that other parts of it lie in your subconsciousness.

Edward’s life is also dominated by one side of his ego, which might not be the better one. He is rude to Flora, instead of listening to her when she talks about her flowers or the beautiful day, he is much more interested in a wasp flying into the jam jar. During the summer Edward does not seem to go out or meet some other people. In all he is not the husband that someone, especially Flora, is wishing for. But suddenly there is a change in Edward’s life: he pays attention to a matchseller standing at his back gate. Since the man never sells anything or does not even make an approach to, he looks very suspicious to Edward and therefore he invites him to his house. As the matchseller enters, Edward tries to have a conversation with him, which develops into a monologue, because the man does not give any answer. When Flora starts talking to him, she gets really private and even desires him, but she cannot get a reaction, either. In the end Edward collapses and the matchseller takes over his place at Flora`s side.
In my opinion the matchseller is not a person interrupting Edward’s life, he is more the other side
of his ego, which was not allowed to surface yet. The matchseller had already been standing at Edward’s back gate for a long time, but did not get any attention from him. But then from one second to another he is recognised, suddenly he plays an important role in his life. I think at this point Edward realised for the first time, that there is another ego, an ego which seems to be friendlier, which is the explanation for Flora`s intimate feelings for him, for the desire to have sex with him. The thesis that the matchseller and Edward are one person would also explain the many common interests and same behaviour they have. And in the end Flora does not leave the room with the matchseller, but she leaves with the new Edward, a younger and fresher one, like he says himself. From now on the old ego will stand outside at the back gate, while Flora and Edward can begin a different life together, hopefully a more positive one.
Maybe the author wanted to show that at some point in your life you should take a look at your other ego to improve your character. But where do you find your matchseller?

Agatha Christie: Nice crimes for everyone

Was Hammett´s sleuth a former cop ?

The detective of Dashiell Hammett’s "The Main Death" is a professional investigator, who gets hired for some reason - in this case unmasking Main’s murderer and bringing back Mr Gungen’s money. Therefore, he is also paid for his job, which makes him differ a lot from the "old-fashioned" detectives such as Sherlock Holmes. He seems to cooperate with the police and might even have been a cop himself in the past, since he uses police slang, for instance, "I want the low-down in the Main doing" (meaning he wants to know the main facts of the Main case), and he also seems to know the police office quite well, for he describes it in a familiar way.
Instead of asking many questions he investigates by listening, observing and having a really good knowledge of human behaviour and body language. He knows, for example, that Mrs Main is involved in the case and even further that she tries to hide her husband’s suicide because of the insurance. In addition to that the detective must be very trustworthy. Mr Gungen tells him about his illegal businesses with stolen goods without fearing to be betrayed by him. Mrs Gungen, too, talks about her secret things, in her case the affair with Mr Main, and indeed the detective does not say a word about it to her husband. Even when he is asked by Mr Gungen to find out whether there was an affair or not, he answers that he was only hired to solve the case, but not to find out about private matters. This reaction shows again his professional behaviour.
All these characteristics make this detective much more authentic and sympathetic, since he has more features one can identify with than classical detectives have. When you read a Sherlock Holmes story you are always a step behind him and you feel that he is more intelligent than you. You only have the status of an assistant who will never find that special clue which will solve the problem. But because Hammett’s detective is so real - he gets paid for his job, he follows people, he lies in order to achieve his goals, etc.- he might always be a step further, but you hardly recognise that.