Since you've specifically requested help, even though you
now have a good answer to your question, I'll go ahead and answer with some alternate
thoughts. Another aspect you might address is whether you think Jackson does or does not
represent human nature adequately.
It seems to me, that while Jackson
makes a point about blindly following blind tradition in which superstitious demands
supersede other considerations, she does not understand or represent human nature well
at all.
so it
could begin at ten o'clock in the morning and still be through in time to allow the
villagers to get home for noon dinner."Well, now." Mr. Summers said
soberly, "guess we better get started, get this over with, so's we can go back to work.
Anybody ain't here?"
We know
that civilizations have practiced human sacrifices from the beginning of time--but has
Jackson really captured the essence of the psychology behind it? Is there not
archaeological evidence that much deeper and prolonged ritual is involved and much more
severe tyranny governs the societies that practiced human
sacrifice?
You might look at some recent research on the
archaeological findings relating to the Mayan civilization and discuss whether Jackson
depicts a true or a stilted, artificial, and wholly inadequate picture of
humanity.
most of them were quiet, wetting their lips, not
looking around.
he stood a little apart from his family, not looking
down at his hand.
You might
then answer the question of whether Jackson's point is made null and void or only made
irritating by a an inadequate representation of humanity. A thesis might say something
like: While Jackson's theme of the falseness of adhering blindly to superstition may be
true, valid and correct, her representation of human nature may be less than adequate so
that her understanding of motive and psychology may make her point less than
applicable.
No comments:
Post a Comment