Work of clifford geertz in history

Work of clifford geertz in history What Does The Work Of Clifford Geertz Have To Offer Research Into History? With the publishing of his book, ‘The Interpretation of Cultures in 1973, Geertz has often been hailed as the ‘champion of symbolic anthropology. Geertz outlined culture as ‘a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life He believed the role of anthropologists was to try and understand the underlying symbols of the culture in question, a term he describes as ‘Thick Description. Geertz also conducted extensive work on religion, particularly on Islam, in both Southeast Asia and North Africa. His most famous use of thick description is portrayed in the essay ‘Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, and his theories still influence anthropology to this day. But how does the work of an anthropologist, concerned with analysing modern societies, apply to historians whose work concerns cultures from the past? In this essay I will examine how both anthropologists and historians attempt to examine humanity ‘in the mist, and how cultural historians in this endeavour have attempted to use an anthropological model to answer historical questions in order to do so. With the development of cultural history historians creation of the past as an ‘other, a place completely different from our own, they attempt to view history through an anthropological lens. But despite differences between historical and anthropological research there has been much interdisciplinary study between the two, with social and cultural historians attempting to use synchronic analysis as a way of viewing the past they are studying. History becomes a view of time and space all within a single plane that stays unmoving and none changing under the cultural historians gaze, just as the Bayeux tapestry shows the history and context of the Norman Conquest of England. Even with the rise of synchronic analysis, historians have not abandoned diachronic analysis as an analytical tool. Historians still feel they need to explain the context of the subjects they are studying in order for their research to be viewed as ‘complete. This has led to many criticisms of Geertzs work and how historians have applied his research to past societies. Geertzs detachment of culture and history has, in many cases, created more problems for the cultural historian than it has solved. Due to these difficulties, cultural historians have shied away from many larger historical debates in order to study features outside of the historical main-stream. They have focussed on small and, in some historians views, inconsequential histories, becoming bogged down in their own tedium. With this, social history has focussed on the development of social theory, rather than the society in questions development over time. With these views in mind, I have attempted to uses Geertzs analytical models with my own research: ‘Hearts and Minds: A Study on the impact of Christianity on paganism in the Byzantium Empire during the fourth century CE. Using examples drawn from my own work, I will attempt to see the merits of using an anthropological model while studying the religions of the past; those that were still evolving and those religions that were dying out. At this stage it is important to define the object which cultural historians have attempted to study with an anthropological view point; history itself. As a noun, ‘history can be defined as: 1) a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient. 2) a systematic account of any set of phenomena without particular reference to time: a history of the American eagle. The definition of history as ‘a continuous, systematic narrative and as ‘a systematic account of any set of phenomena without particular reference to time, or, as phrased by Michael Chanan ‘the formal analysis of a given system as it exists in the present moment (synchronic) and analysis across time, or historical explanation (diachronic) means the historian has to show their awareness of both in order to fully explore the topic they are researching. The historian Marc Bloch stated that the ‘good historian was like the giant in the fairy tale. He knows that wherever he catches the scent of human flesh, there his quarry lies. While C. Wright-Mills remarked about the anthropologist: ‘What social science is properly about is human variety, which consists of all the social world in which men have lived, are living and might live. ‘ Cultural historians have embraced Geertz, using his ideas and methods and applying them to historical models, such as Matthew Eric Engelke and Matt Tomlinsons ‘The limits of meaning: case studies in the anthropology of Christianity. Although historians are not as prone to theoretical disputes as much as anthropologists, it is also true that Geertz does not serve as a marker in generalised struggles among historians. According to Paula S. Fass, the limitations of social history in previous historiography led to the development and ‘subsequent dominance of cultural history in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite the move in focus away from political elites towards the examination of social groups and their ‘behavioural tendencies , cultural historians felt that social history had ‘ignored both the uniqueness of individual experience and the ways in which social life is created through politics and culture due to the dehumanization of such social groups by reducing them to quantifiable data. Social historians reliance on structural explanations and development of group categories began to ‘deaden history as an exploration of contingent experience. By the mid 1980s, cultural historians were adapting work done by social historians, such as Herbert Gutman and Eugene Genovese, and taking them further by exploring ‘the way agency was attributed to participation in predefined group activity. Cultural historians increasingly used the anthropological and ‘post-modern perspective of identity as an ever-changing construct, what anthropologists refer to as ‘liminal experiences and deconstructing identity entirely. Due to this, social historians research potentials have become ‘quite limited due to the constrictions of primary sources in the construction of ‘ordinary life, while, in the words of Fass: ‘Cultural historians, in contrast, put their faith in a fuller exploration of language and because, in their view, all culture is connected, all forms of articulation could be examined as exemplary. Geertzs ideas have become so attractive to historians due to the development of cultural history, with historians focussing on the past as a place structurally different from the modern world: ‘worlds where peoples motives, senses of honour, daily tasks, and political calculations are based on unfamiliar assumptions about human society and the cosmic order. Phillip Pulsiano and Elaine M. Treharne in ‘A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature, explore the religious aspects in Old English poetry in relation to Geertzs definition of religion itself. Both anthropology and history, according to Geertz, are both similar and different, both looking for the same type of answers but asking different questions. Historians focus on broad sweeping actions and movements , while anthropologists focus on small, well bounded communities wallowing in the detail of the obscure and unimportant (or, as Geertz phrases it in his typically artistic style: ‘History (it is said), is threatened by the history-from-below rather than focussing on the Movers-and-Shakers, such as Kings, Philosophers and Bishops). Anthropologists ‘present static pictures of immobile societies scattered across the remote corners of the inhabited world, while anthropologists accuse historians of ‘schematicism, of being out of touch with the immediacies and intricacies, ‘the feel as they like to put it, considering themselves to have it, of actual life. With this said, it has not been unusual for historians and anthropologists to conduct research in each others field; historical research such as Roger Chartiers ‘The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution, Carlo Ginzburgs ‘The Cheese and the Worms: the Cosmos of an Sixteenth Century Miller, and Natalie Zemon Davis ‘Society and culture in early modern France: eight essays to name but a few. Despite the attraction of Geertzs theory to social historians, the differences between historical research and ethnography can hinder the historians full utilisation of Geertzs ‘Thick Description model. Historians are restricted to the textual evidence written by a literate elite, with the culture and symbols of those who existed outside of the elites literacy focus lost in the minds of those who lived through it; a stark difference from the ability of anthropologists to observe the effects of culture and its symbols when studying cultures ‘in the field. Despite historians criticisms of anthropologists reliance on oral testimony, with its possible ‘invented tradition and frailties of memory, Geertzs ability to examine the religious development of Morocco and Indonesia almost first hand must be greatly envied by social and cultural historians. Despite the difference between history and anthropology, many historians (especially social historians like Michael MacDonald and Robert Darnton) have embraced Geertzs ideas. However, this raises another question; why would historians, whose work is essentially diachronic in nature, be interested in the synchronic analysis of an anthropologist? It is important at this time to look at the meaning of synchronic analysis. As William H. Sewell Jr. explains: ‘Although a synchronic description or analysis is often glossed over as a ‘snapshot that ‘freezes time or as a ‘slice of time, that is not quite right. Such a description is, rather, one in which time is suspended or abolished analytically so that things that actually occur in the flow of time are treated as part of a uniform moment or epoch in which they simply coexist To put it otherwise, in synchronic description acts of cultural signification, rather than being treated as a temporal sequence of statement and counterstatement or as linked by causal chains of antecedent and consequence, are seen as components of a mutually defined and mutually sustaining universe of unchanging meaning. The use of synchronic analysis on what Geertz called ‘cultural systems presented cultural historians with the ability to explore the past with a new analytical model. Robert Darnton, in his book ‘The Great Cat Massacre uses such analyses to explore episodes from eighteenth century France, especially in his essays ‘Peasants Tell tales: The Meaning of Mother Goose (an analysis of the cultural significance to French, German and Italian fairy tales) and ‘Workers Revolt: The Great Cat Massacre of the Rue Saint Severin (in which he explores the cultural context of the massacre of cats in Paris by printing apprentices during the late 1730s). The use of thick description allows historians to suspend time rather than be carried along with historical narrative, and in the process analyse the transformations of the past with greater accuracy and depth. Geertzs ideas of thick description have allowed historians like David Sabean to explore witchcraft in seventeenth century Germany. Despite criticisms by anthropologists of the diachronic approach taken by historians in the past, many historians are still attached to the ideas of history in transformation. Many American ‘new social historians and those within the French ‘Annales school try to define themselves against historical narrative and by those ‘attempting to manage or side-step conceptual problems by writing historical accounts , such as Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, as seen in his book ‘A History of the Jewish people. William H. Sewell Jr has best conveyed this view: ‘It [Geertzs theory] tells us, perhaps surprisingly, that adequately realized synchrony is more important to good historical analysis than adequately realized diachrony. In the eyes of professionals it is more important for a historian to know how to suspend time than to know how to recount its passage. This is shown in the work of historians such as Noriko Onodera, who examines the evolution and development of the Japanese language, and Stephen M. Feldman, with his analysis of the separation of the Church and State during the twentieth century. Although Geertzs theories have become popular with cultural historians, there have been many critics of not only his own work but how historians (especially those studying cultural aspects) have used Geertzs work in their own research. Although Geertzs work features events as they happen in real historical time, he uses a ‘literary device to make his work less formerly structured. This means that he uses the social and historical impact of the cultural model he is analysing as a writing style rather than a strict analytical tool. This is best demonstrated in Geertzs essay ‘Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. William Roseberry, in an analysis of Geertzs essay (in his book ‘Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology), argues that Geertz does not take into account the history of its development, and that we should think of the ‘material social process as a ‘production rather than as a ‘product'(stating that the issues on development are mentioned but never taken up by Geertz). Roseberrys view, one which I personally agree with, is that ‘[the cockfight] has gone through a process of creation that cannot be separated from Balinese history. Geertz detached culture and history by treating history as a text to be read and scrutinised rather than being an essential thread in the fabric of Balinese life. Maybe due to this separation, historians, despite their enthusiasm, have been in many cases less than successful in their attempts to marry history with ‘Thick Description. For example, Roger Becks attempt to apply Geertzs description and interpretation to the symbol system of Mithraician mysticism is hardly successful, and neither is his comparison with the symbol system of the Mexican Chamulas. With historys diachronic roots, anthropology as a whole has had difficulty in finding fertile ground with historians outside of cultural history. With focus on ‘eccentric bits of evidence (or, as I view it, ‘obsession with the mundane), cultural historians and anthropologists writing about history search for evidence around a central point of argument and ‘build a mountain around a molehill and that molehill can lie on the periphery of the subject. Rather than pushing back the frontiers of historical research by opening up and exploring new channels of investigation through analysis of symbols within societies in the past, cultural historians have become intent with finding ‘hidden histories rather than bringing new light to work at the focus of historical debate. Despite the development of social theory by anthropologists and the rise of cultural history and its application to history, almost none deal with the explanation of historical change, with the main problem created by most social theory being the accounting for social order or social structure rather than the development and history of those roots. With my own research I have focused on the impact of Christianity on paganism in the eastern half of the Roman Empire during the fourth century CE, analysing how Christianity infiltrated aspects of the educated elite, society, the state apparatus and its depiction through art and on coinage. My work also focussed on a number of other factors: The peasants in the eastern half of the Roman Empire were naturally conservative and were initially hostile to the Christian community that were mainly based in urban centres. Eastern Roman peasants clung to their local pagan deities as they took care of their ‘first-order concerns: healing, death and family as pagan spirits and deities took care of these concerns there was no initial need to abandon them in favour of Christianity. Bishops and preachers that attempted to convert the peasantry failed as they were distrusted by the peasantry because of their connections to local government. Bishops and preachers also addressed them in Greek or Latin and in complex rhetoric styles, alienating them from the peasantry who spoke in their ‘everyday local dialects. The destruction of pagan temples in the urban centres and the construction of Christian basilicas on top of them or in their vicinity changed the power balance within such centres against the pagan cults. Only the establishment of monasteries away from the urban centres deep in the countryside led to the slow conversion of the peasantry through the contacts they made with them through local trade and due to the conversion tactics that the monasteries employed. Due to the amount of written documentation available to us, initially it may seem that Geertzs theories on symbolic systems in reference to early Christian rites and formal rituals may make Christianity in the fourth century eastern Roman Empire accessible to us. Although the study of early Christianitys cultural anthropology through field work is obviously impossible, the archaeological record of pagan temple destruction and the construction of Christian basilicas with the reused stone cannot be described as ‘thick description as the reuse of the stone from the pagan temples is not a symbolic act in its own right, but a form of cheap and readymade building material. However, Geertz himself has used written accounts from the past as effectively as he used his own field work and that of other anthropologists. This, however, cannot be said about localised pagan rituals; ones performed in homes and fields in small, personal shrines. Eric Wolf suggested that these rituals were due to peasants ‘first-order concerns, such as protection of the family unit in this world and the next. The lack of documented evidence, even if written by a condescending Christian elite, makes symbolic analysis extremely difficult. If we focus on pagan ‘lost ceremonies then Geertzs theory appears to be a hopeless endeavour. That is because, despite the richness and detail as a complex of symbols, textual evidence rarely mentions local pagan rituals for what they are, and when it does many aspects of them are either exaggerated or incredibly distorted, therefore destroying their immediate ritual context. Even if the ritual context had survived through the textual, or through the archaeological, evidence that would allow us to subject it to symbolic interpretation, it cannot now be interpreted in the way we can interpret Christianity; we cannot trace the evolution of a religion which is now extinct. To conclude, the work of Clifford Geertz has a lot to offer research into history, as long as his work is used correctly. In my introduction I stated ‘how both anthropologists and historians attempt to examine humanity ‘in the mist, and how cultural historians attempt to use anthropological models to answer historical questions in order to do so. In this endeavour, cultural historians have been unsuccessful. Geertz, and other anthropologists, benefit from the ability to view culture closely (and as Geertzs brush with the Balinese police shows, perhaps a little too closely). Cultural historians, in contrast, have to rely on the words of those they are trying to move away from, the literate elite, in order to view the lives of those who had no written history of their own. Rather than viewing humanity ‘in the mist, cultural historians, for instance have attempted to determine a peasants accent by studying the peasants reflection in a muddy puddle. Historians reluctance to abandon diachronic analysis undermines the benefits of synchronic analysis, despite anthropologists attempts to conduct historical research. Cultural historians attempts to ‘suspend time removes them from the historical development that took place, therefore allowing them to be caught up in the difficulties that anthropologist themselves have faced. This problem is only exacerbated by the reliance on textual evidence. As shown with my attempt to use Geertzs theories in relation to my own research, I too had difficulties overcoming this problem. As I used a large amount of archaeological evidence when researching the power shift from pagan to Christian domination in eastern Roman urban centres it was nearly impossible to apply ‘thick description and investigate symbolic systems due to their lack of context. Again, the reliance on textual evidence written by a hostile group means that there are other historical methods which would be more beneficial when symbolic contexts and restricted written records are unavailable. At face value, I understand the appeal Geertzs theories would have for cultural historians trying to uncover the mindset, culture and experiences of those who lived in the past. However, the ability for anthropologists to study their subject at first hand, and therefore place more emphasis on first-hand accounts, leaves cultural historians at a crucial disadvantage. Geertzs theory changed the face of anthropological research, but I doubt it will do nothing but frustrate the historian by reminding them of what they are missing. Bibliography Books R. Beck, The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (Oxford New York, 2006) H. H. Ben-Sasson A History of the Jewish people (Cambridge, 1976) M. Bloch, ‘The Historians Craft (Manchester, 1954) P. Burke, The French historical Revolution: ‘The Annales School, 1929-89 (Stanford 1990) M. Chanan, Musica practica : the social practice of Western music from Gregorian chant to postmodernism (London, 1994) R. Chartier The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution (Durham, 1991) R. Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre (New York, 1984) N. Z. Davis Society and culture in early modern France: eight essays (Stanford, 1987) M.E. Engelke and M.Tomlinson (ed.) The limits of meaning: case studies in the anthropology of Christianity (New York, 2006) S. M. Feldman Please Dont Wish Me a Merry Christmas: Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (New York, 1997) C. Geertz Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia (Chicago, 1971) C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures'(New York, 1973) E. Genovese Roll, Jordon Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York, 1974) C. Ginzburg The Cheese and the Worms: the Cosmos of an Sixteenth Century Miller (Baltimore, 1980) H. Gutman Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1976) M. MacDonald, Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London(London 1991) N. Onodera, Japanese discourse markers: synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis (Amsterdam, 2004) P. Pulsiano and E. M. Treharne A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature (Oxford, 2001) W. Roseberry, Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology (New York, 1982) E. Wolf, Peasants (Englewood Cliffs, 1966) C. Wright-Mills, ‘The Sociological Imagination (London, 1959) Journals P. S. Fass ‘Cultural History/Social History: Some Reflections on a Continuing Dialogue, Journal of Social History, 37, 1(2003), pp. 39-46 C. Geertz, ‘History and Anthropology New Literary History, 21, (1990) p.321-335 W. H. Sewell Jr., ‘Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation, Representations, 59 (1997) p. 35-55 Internet Sources http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history (Dictionary Reference.Com, 2010) C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York, 1973) p.89 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history M. Chanan, Musica practica : the social practice of Western music from Gregorian chant to postmodernism (London, 1994) p.95 M. Bloch, The Historians Craft (Manchester, 1954) p.26 C, Wright-Mills, The Sociological Imagination (London, 1959) p.147 W. H. Sewell Jr. ‘Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation Representations,59 (1997) p.35-55, p.36 P. S. Fass ‘Cultural History/Social History: Some Reflections on a Continuing Dialogue Journal of Social History, 37, 1 (2003) p.39-46, p.39 Ibid. p.39 Ibid p.39 Ibid p.39 H. Gutman Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1976) and E. Genovese Roll, Jordon Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York, 1974) Fass, ‘Cultural History/Social History: Some Reflections on a Continuing Dialogue p.39 Ibid p.40 W. H. Sewell Jr., ‘Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation p.38 C. Geertz, ‘History and Anthropology New Literary History, 21, (1990) p.321-335, p322 Ibid p324 Ibid.p.322 Ibid p.321 Ibit p.321-322 Ibid. p.322 See C. Geertzs Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia (Chicago, 1971) M. MacDonald, Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London(London 1991) R. Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre (New York, 1984) W. H. Sewell Jr., ‘Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation p.40 See ‘Religion as a Cultural System in C. Geertz, The Interpretations of Culture (New York, 1973) D. W. Sabean, Power in the Blood: Popular culture village discourse in early modern Germany (Cambridge, 1984) See P. Burke, The French Historical Revolution: ‘The Annales School, 1929-89 (Stanford, 1990) C. Geertz, ‘History and Anthropology p.42 Ibid. p.41 N. Onodera, Japanese discourse markers: synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis(Amsterdam, 2004) p.23 S. M. Feldman Please Dont Wish Me a Merry Christmas: Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (New York, 1997) p.255 W. H. Sewell Jr ‘Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation p.37, c. Geertz The Interpretation of Cultures p.412 W. Roseberry, Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology (New York, 1982) p.1022, I bid p.1022 R. Beck, The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (Oxford New York, 2006) p.69, Ibid P77 Fass, ‘Cultural History/Social History: Some Reflections on a Continuing Dialogue p.43 Ibid p.43 C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture p.8 E. Wolf, Peasants (Englewood Cliffs, 1966) p.59

Romeo And Juliet 9 :: essays research papers

OVERVIEW ON ROMEO, JULIET, NURSE, MOTHER AND FATHER (JULIET’S) ROMEO: In the play ‘Romeo and Juliet’, we see many aspects of Romeo’s personality and character. There is a link between all of his personalities; they are all severely extreme personalities e.g.:  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At the start of the play, we see that he is a ‘wet drip’ he is depressed and miserable because of his infatuated love for Rosaline but it is unrequited love from Rosaline. This mood of his goes to the extreme- he does not go out during daytime only at night, he weeps, and he locks himself out from all light and talks of his misfortune.  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  After this, he is happy and joking around in the square, this creates a huge affect in change of nature in his personality. Romeo was the one who started off the joking with “Here’s goodly gear A sail, a sail'; This is not usually like Romeo, as all the joking and micky taking is left to Mercutio. You might expect on Romeo to be prying on everyone who walks past because of the messenger, but instead he is joking – this might be because he doesn’t want anyone else to know about the marriage OR that he is to excited. Shortly after this, he changes back to serious when he is talking to Nurse about the marriage.  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  He still is joyful towards the marriage scene and at the marriage scene he takes the extreme again - he acts like he has not seen Juliet for years, they can’t wait to get there hands on each other – kissing, Friar Laurence had to separate them. Once they are married, he visits Tybalt and Mercutio in the square; he is misunderstood by Tybalt when he says how he loves him. Mercutio reacts with laughing thinking that it is a wind-up and Tybalt is annoyed and wishes to fight, Romeo refuses and Mercutio steps in and fights – this leads to his death.  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Romeo becomes violent and aggressive in this scene; he wants Tybalt killed no matter the cost. Tybalt was shocked when he saw the blood on his sword which suggests that he did not mean to do it, and it was really in a way Romeo’s fault for coming in the way but he doesn’t realise this. When he and Tybalt fight he kills him (we cannot be sure if it was by mistake when Tybalt fell on the sword because Shakespeare does not say).

Gender and Sexuality Essay -- Sociology, Gender Roles, Stereotypes

Gender and sexuality can be comprehended through social science. Social science is â€Å"the study of human society and of individual relationships in and to society† (free dictionary, 2009). The study of social science deals with different aspects of society such as politics, economics, and the social aspects of society. Gender identity is closely interlinked with social science as it is based on an identity of an individual in the society. Sexuality is â€Å"the condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex† (free dictionary, 2009). There are different gender identities such as male, female, gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual that exists all around the world. There is inequality in gender identities and dominance of a male regardless of which sexuality they fall under. The males are superior over the females and gays superior over the lesbians, however it different depending on the place and circumstances. This paper will look at the gender roles and stereotypes, social policy, and homosexuality from a modern and a traditional society perspective. The three different areas will be compared by the two different societies to understand how much changes has occurred and whether or not anything has really changed. In general a traditional society is more conservative where as a modern society is fundamentally liberal. This is to say that a traditional society lists certain roles depending on the gender and there are stereotypes that are connected with the genders. One must obey the one that is dominant and make decisions. On the other hand, a modern society is lenient, It accepts the individual’s identity and sexuality. There is no inequality and everyone in the society is to be seen as individuals not a part of a family unit... ...dual changes are closely related to the media because the actors carry out the roles and thus the members of the society play out those roles in their daily life style. â€Å"Homosexuality exists in different societies and cultures and with some minor exceptions it is considered abnormal and disdained. It affects social order, invades personal privacy and rights, and leads to criminal behaviour. As a result, homosexuals are more likely to encounter and be penalized administratively and criminally† (Likosky, 1992, pp. 38) Also, the two societies view homosexuality different. Nevertheless modern society has not completely accepted the idea of homosexuality because in areas such as legal forms, the people with nonconventional sexual orientation are not shown. This demonstrates the inferiority of homosexuality and for which the government is responsible for such actions.

Is Holden Caulfield a Typical Teenager?

In the novel, Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, Holden Caulfield is a 16 year old boy from New York City. He recently got the ax from his school, Pencey Prep, for failing four classes. He ends up roaming around the streets of New York City for three days, after leaving school early for Winter Break. Through Holden’s adventures, he becomes addicted to smoking, drinking and going out to night clubs. This conclusion leads me to think that he has the common issues that teens deal with daily. Although Holden secludes himself from the rest of the world, he is very much like a typical teenager when it comes to having problems in school. Holden reveals a strong hate for school. In chapter one, he states that â€Å"he didn’t know anyone at Pencey that was splendid and clear-thinking and all. Maybe two guys. If that many. † (pg. 6) Later, Holden gets kicked out from his school, Pencey Prep â€Å"on account of flunking four subjects and not applying† himself and all. (pg. 6) Holden is well known because teens can relate to him in so many things including issues in school. It seems that whenever Holden would get depressed he would turn to abusing alcohol, which is common among teens. In chapter 10, Holden was in a night club and he tried to order a scotch and soda, when the waiter asked for some verification of his age. (pg. 90-91) It seems that Salinger made this the only time alcohol wasn’t readily available in the novel. In chapter 12, Holden was at another night club, Ernie’s, when he tried again to order a scotch and soda, and was able to do so easily. He states that even if you were six years old you could get liquor at Ernie’s; nobody cared how old you were. (pg. 111) Again in chapter 20, Holden gets drunk at another night club. (pg. 194) The Catcher in the Rye demonstrates many life lessons, such as not abusing alcohol. In the novel, Holden Caulfield is like a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit anywhere in the puzzle, meaning he doesn’t fit in with the world. He has a really rough time fitting in at school because he thinks they are all phonies. In Chapter 1, Holden accidentally leaves â€Å"all the foils and equipment and stuff on the subway† so the whole team ostracizes him the whole way back on the train. (p. 6). In Chapter 6, Holden gets in a fist fight with his roommate Stradlater, because Holden continuously calls Stradlater a moron because Stradlater was criticizing what Holden wrote about for Stradlater’s paper that he asked Holden to write. (p. 54). Holden had a rough time fitting in both at school and in the world in general. The Catcher in the Rye illustrates a young boy struggling to try to fit in with everyone else and deal with life’s problems at the same time. From failing out of school to going to night clubs and getting drunk, this novel is told right from a teenager’s point of view. Salinger represents Holden as a character in his novel that holds many characteristic of a typical teenager, including alcohol abuse. To this day, Holden is well-known worldwide, by many people. He is known as the character that best describes teenagers and life problems.

How Have Western Views of Knowledge Changed over Time Essay

Throughout history, cultures have held disparate views on the nature of knowledge. Epistemology, the branch of philosophy that focuses on basic questions such as: â€Å"What is knowledge? How do we know what we know? †, lies at the heart of these views. In Western culture, the answers to these basic questions have changed markedly over time. Throughout history, this evolution in philosophy has been inextricably linked to science and religion. Much of Western thought has been heavily influenced by the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks. In particular, the epistemological views of the Ancient Greeks dominated Western thought for centuries. Of all the Greek philosophers, Plato was one of the most influential. In his most famous work The Republic, Plato used the Allegory of the Cave to describe the role of sensory perception in knowledge acquisition. In his analogy, Plato described a cave in which people were chained down in such a way that prevented them from looking anywhere but forward. Behind them was a fire and in front of them was a wall that reflected shadows from that fire. The prisoner’s captors manipulated these shadows to create forms and stories. The forms and stories that the prisoners saw were the only reality that they knew. Eventually the prisoners left the cave and found true reality outside. It was only then that the prisoners understood that what they had perceived until this moment was a false perception. The Allegory of the Cave served to illustrate Plato’s epistemological views. Today, we describe Plato’s philosophical views as rationalist. He argued against reliance on sensory experience because he believed that it failed to provide us with any guarantee that what we experience was, in fact, true. He believed that the information we get by relying on sensory experience is constantly changing and often unreliable. It can be evaluated only by appealing to higher principles that do not change. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato was comparing our sensory perception to the shadows on the wall of the cave. Plato saw us as the chained prisoners unable to know anything but this false reality. Only by leaving the cave and ascending to higher orders of thought are we able to know true reality. Implicit in this view was the belief that true knowledge cannot be found through empirical investigation. According to Plato, empirical knowledge was merely opinion. Only thought and abstract reasoning could produce true knowledge. The rationalist view of epistemology dominated much of Western thought for centuries. Eventually, progress in science during the Renaissance changed this. One of the first to change these dominant views was Andreas Vesalius. In 1543, Vesalius published De Humanis Corporis Fabrica (On the Workings of the Human Body), an elaborately illustrated atlas of human anatomy. While Vesalius’ published work had significant historical importance in the field of medicine, his most enduring legacy was his revolutionary challenge of the medical conventions of his day. For centuries, physicians had relied on reading texts from Galen for medical knowledge rather than participating in the direct dissection of human corpses. Vesalius promoted the practice of dissection and hands on experience. By overthrowing the Galenic tradition and relying on his own observations, Vesalius was advocating an empirical understanding of the human body. This shift from rationalism to empiricism became one of the defining characteristics of the Scientific Revolution. In direct contrast to rationalism, empiricism emphasized the acquisition of knowledge through direct observation and experiment. Empiricism not only encouraged but required reliance on our senses. This was in direct opposition to Plato’s epistemological view that had dominated for a millennium. This shift from Plato’s rationalism to scientific empiricism had significant ramifications for philosophy. While before this time there had always been collaboration between science and philosophy and religion, there had been no real distinction between them. Now, empirical knowledge served as a way of testing philosophical knowledge. This would ultimately lead to their incompatibility and their eventual separation. This separation is largely attributed to Galileo, one of the major figures during the Scientific Revolution. Even in his time, Galileo was a renown scientist and a philosopher. While he relied heavily on empirical methods in his studies of physics and astronomy, he also depended on rational thinking in his use of mathematics. It was through his combined use of empirical observations and rational thought that he confirmed the Copernican view that the sun was the center of the universe. However, the Copernican heliocentric worldview conflicted with the dominant geocentric view espoused by philosophers from the time of Aristotle. Making matters even more complicated was the fact that philosophers couched this dispute as a religious matter arguing that a heliocentric worldview went against the teachings of the Bible. As the geocentric view had been adopted by the church, the heliocentric worldview was branded as heresy. Galileo, certain of the physical truth of his heliocentric paradigm and at the same time devout in his religious beliefs, worked to reconcile this conflict by divorcing the church from â€Å"purely physical matters, where faith is not involved. By working to separate science, philosophy, and religion, Galileo was attempting to reestablish the compatibility of science and religion. Despite Galileo’s attempts, the conflict between scientific and religious worldviews is still evident today. The epistemological tradition of today has created a dominant worldview based on evidence. As during the time of Galileo, this worldview has at times conflicted with widely held religious beliefs. This divide, empiricism vs. faith, has become an increasingly prominent conflict in American politics. A recent announcement by GOP presidential candidate, Rick Perry highlights this divide. Rick Perry recently publicly declared his disbelief in the theory of evolution in favor of intelligent design. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the origin of life widely supported across numerous scientific disciplines. Though science and empiricism overwhelming supports the theory of evolution, it does not largely accepted by the populace. The controversial nature of evolution has emerged because, once again, a â€Å"purely physical matter† has been politicized as a religious matter. Rick Perry’s views on evolution illustrate a larger phenomenon in U. S. politics. That is, views regarding the evolution/intelligent design conflict tend to be politically divided. Intelligent design or faith based arguments are generally forwarded by conservative Republicans such as Rick Perry. Evidence based empirical arguments, such as evolution, are championed by liberal Democrats. Science has become political as conservatives are aligned with religion.

An exploration of the theme of Deception, good or bad in ‘MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (William Shakespeare)’ and ‘THE ROVER (Aphra Behn)’

Deception, â€Å"the quality of being fraudulent†1 or†to cause to accept as true or valid what is false and invalid†2 is a major theme in both plays ‘Much Ado about Nothing' and ‘The Rover'. However there is a certain dichotomy for deception here as it is both malign and benign, intentionally good and intentionally bad. Another proof of this is that the two plays are comedies meaning some deceptions have got to be taken lightheartedly and blithely. These are shown in Benedick and Beatrice's gulling and Lucetta's gypping of Blunt aided by Sancho and Philippo. There are two main comic deceptions in Much Ado these are benign and harmless to the people they are directed against. When Claudio professes his love for Hero to Pedro who strangely, immediately offers his help to woo her for him, he at first sounds too eager to help his friend (as if he has something else in mind) but we soon learn his intentions are well meant. â€Å"I will assume thy part in some disguise, and tell fair Hero I am Claudio and in her bosom I'll unclasp my heart and take her hearing prisoner with the force †¦Ã¢â‚¬ 3 This of course acts as an introduction to the theme of deception and shows us, the audience how easy and tolerated deception is in the world of Messina .It shows how easy it is to control a person's life and manipulate anyone's feelings. This is reflected in the second example of the benevolent plans set by the characters; the gulling or tricking of the two, presumably past lovers, Benedick and Beatrice. This deception can be seen as a â€Å"white lie†4 .The two characters are tricked by a larger group of characters including the respectable and estimable Leonato whose involvement is one of the main reasons the gulling was successful: â€Å"I should think this is a gull but that white bearded fellow speaks it†5 This underlines that no character in Shakespeare's world or in Messina is above deception. A better example of this is the Friar's plan to deceive the prince and Claudio â€Å"Your daughter here the princes†¦, let her awhile be secretly kept in, and publish it that she is dead indeed†6 This shows that even a high-ranked holy/spiritual person could turn to deception. This is actually another example of deception with good intent. The Friar deceives the princes to change the nasty accusations for sorrow and make everyone pity her and remember all her civilities and people will see her loveliness as more precious after she has gone. Examples of deception in the rover include: Pedro's deception of his father's orders for Florida to marry don vincentio and instead finds her a better suitor, Antonio who turns out to be an even worse suitor for going behind Pedro's back to court Angelica, this causes them to fight and drives the two into a duel where Antonio yet again deceives Pedro by sending in Bellville to fight in his place. Bellville sees this as an opportunity to get Florinda, deceptively in Antonio's name â€Å"this minute let me make Florinda mine†7 and expectantly, Willmore blows Belville's cover and ruins their plan. The tricking of Beatrice and Benedick is shown in two of the most comic scenes in the whole play, these scenes are also the best examples of deception in the play and this goes to show that a lighthearted or benign deception is very possible in Messina. It underlines the fact that deceit can be useful and can bring two people together even if its â€Å"one of Hercules' labours†8. Beatrice and Benedick's scam can be used as a mirror for the gulling of blunt in ‘The Rover' but not in the sense that it brings two people together or in the sense that it ends happily but in the comic sense, it is the funniest scene in the play and so reflects that deception if taken lightheartedly can be benign or harmless. There are also examples of harmful deceptions which create the dark and ugly side of the world of Messina, the main catalyst for this is of course the Prince's half brother, Don John. One critic9 blames his evilness on jealousy and/or the bitter resentment of a society â€Å"that looks down on those like him who are conceived out of wedlock† I personally believe he is just a typical villain, â€Å"mere, unmixed evil†, an â€Å"ill-conditioned, base and tiresome scoundrel†10 created by Shakespeare for the audience to hate and fear. Don John's intentions are completely and utterly malefic. He tries to talk Claudio into thinking Don Pedro is wooing Hero for himself- â€Å"I heard him swear his affection† in the masked ball. The audience is not so sure whether this is true or not since Don Pedro was very eager to get Hero for Claudio earlier but we soon learn Don John was simply being the scoundrel he is. One thing that can be noted is Don John's deceptive tongue or his ability to persuade many or most of the other characters in the play easily. This is also true for Willmore in ‘The Rover'. He woos Angelica Bianca and gets her to sleep with him even though she was infuriated by him minutes earlier for taking down her picture; he turns it against her and rails at her for seducing him and all the other poor men who cannot afford her. He also leads her to deceive herself and Moretta's soliloquy in this scene illustrates the extent to which Angelica has â€Å"lost† herself and her career which is â€Å"the fate of most whores†11 in her opinion. There is a certain parallel or mirrored idea in the two plays. Balthasar's song12 is of course echoed throughout Much Ado, it is around deception it speaks, or the deceptive nature of men. This is mirrored through Wilmore's defensive comment after being accused of cheating on Angelica he said â€Å"For I never heard of a mortal man, that has not broke a thousand vows†13. In another sense deception can be used to show who is boss, or to show off someone's authority. For example the Prince of Aragon immediately marks his territory in Messina by grabbing the first opportunity he could, and that is through wooing Hero. By wooing Hero for Claudio he showed that he was the dominator or leader figure. Don Pedro also does that with Beatrice and Benedick and he succeeds in creating his â€Å"mountain of affection†14 and proof for this is that the pair are lovesick for one another. It is when Leonato falls under Pedro and Claudio's side against his own daughter' that we see the effects of the dominance Pedro gained from his earlier deceptions. Even though Leonato has seen Pedro's deceptive nature in action he still follows him: â€Å"Would the two princes lie, and Claudio lie, who loved her so, that speaking of her foulness, washed it with tears? Hence from her, let her die†15 The audience here would feel compassionate to Leonato. He is trapped and does not know who to believe but shortly falls on the Prince and Claudio's side since the idea of the Princes lying is inconceivable to him. Lying was considered a much more serious offence in that time than it is nowadays;†it was a diabolical trick because Satan told Eve lies in the Garden of Eden, causing her to sin.†16 This is another type of deception the play talks about, deceptive reputations. The prince, Claudio and Leonato are Shakespeare's idea of the perfect gentlemen but they all seem to make up their decisions and take drastic measures to regain their â€Å"honour† almost immediately without any real tangible proof of Hero's crime â€Å"I stand dishonoured, that have gone about to link my dear friend to a common stale.† 17 Another example of deception we encounter in the plays is deception between friends. Benedick in a sense deceives his friends in breaking the â€Å"patriarchal code of friendship†. This is quite shocking since he has known his friends longer than any of the people in Messina. Beatrice asks the messenger in a pun â€Å"a good soldier to a lady, but what is he to a lord?†18 .A Shakespearean audience would find this repugnant and not the appropriate behavior for a gentleman. Bonds between men, especially ones that were formed in war, were especially valuable and tight-knit in the Elizabethan era. This is also mirrored in ‘The Rover, the cavaliers, almost one by one sell Don Pedro out by marrying his sisters and Valeria(their cousin) .Even though they are old friends, the cavaliers deceive Pedro, their friend for a woman. Some critics have argued that â€Å"distrust of women is the basis of all male bonds†19 this is true in ‘The Rover'; Fredrick warns Bel lville of Florinda's intentions when she gave him the note with the instructions to meet her: â€Å"Have a care, sir, what you promise; this may be a trap laid by her brother to ruin you†20 The cavalier's initial distrust of women is as clear as Benedick's initial misogynistic view of them. When Lucetta is introduced to Blunt all the men knew she was out to trick him, â€Å"cheat him of all, then have him well-favourly banged, and turned out naked at midnight†. They, however do not warn Blunt but instead get a front row seat to watch the humiliation of their friend begin. There are many instances of self-deception in both plays actually. For example Benedick and Beatrice undergo a huge change in perspective after their gulling. Both fall helplessly in love with each other even though they were self-declared heretics of love. Beatrice says she will not love a man until â€Å"man be made from some other metal than earth†21 and Benedick claims he will die a bachelor and will not be â€Å"converted and see with (the) eyes (of love)† only if he met the perfect woman which, as he describes, is quite an impossible scenario. It is important to note Shakespeare's placement of this scene exactly before the one with the deception so we can contrast the two views, before and after the deception. The difference is crystal clear, Beatrice says â€Å"Benedick, love on. I will requite thee†22and that â€Å"(her) kindness shall incite (him) to bind (their) loves up in a holy band†23. Benedick says that he â€Å"will be horribly in love with her†24 and that when he said he would rather die a bachelor than fall in love (the scene before) he didn't think he would live until he was married. We notice the same with Wilmore from The Rover. His whole life got turned around in the last scene with Helena when she convinced him to marry her and putting his past perpetually-amorous life behind him. He forgets his old ways and he is no longer the sexed up â€Å"Father Captain†25 who tries to rape Florinda†¦twice and is continuously rejected by almost every female character in the play! His promise which is â€Å"the bargain is now made†26 is his everlasting goodbye to women and a welcome mat to the woman. He is completely self-deceived. Another similar example is Fredrick: at the beginning of the play we feel he has an unnatural distrust in women. He seems to warn every one of his friends about women, he even tries to get in on the action when Blunt tries to rape Florinda†¦a barbarous revenge. Claudio also deceives himself into believing he is in love with Hero when really he has not even met her. He falls in love with her because of his esteemed first impression of her and mainly because she looks like a pure, good virgin which was considered of great importance in Elizabethan England, a girls honour was entirely based on her chastity, if she loses that she would â€Å"lose all social standing† which is why the second thing he asks about her is â€Å"is she not a modest young lady?†.Don Pedro also deceives himself in thinking his brother, john the bastard has been washed clean and is now a clean and changed man. In reality he is the villain and the person behind ev ery harmful deception in the play. The two plays both exhibit deception in the most ambidextrous of ways. It is both malevolent and benevolent, in the sense that the plays end happily through all the obstacles that have been set throughout it.

Last Sacrifice Chapter Twenty

â€Å"YOU SHOULD SLEEP.' Sydney's soft voice nearly made me leap out of my skin, proving that even while in Lissa's mind, I could still stay alert. I tuned back to Sonya's dark living room. Aside from Sydney, everything was quiet and at peace. â€Å"You look like the walking dead,' she continued. â€Å"And I don't say that lightly.' â€Å"I've got to stay on watch,' I said. â€Å"I'll watch. You sleep.' â€Å"You're not trained like me,' I pointed out. â€Å"You might miss something.' â€Å"Even I wouldn't miss Strigoi beating down the door,' she replied. â€Å"Look, I know you guys are tough. You don't have to convince me. But I have a feeling things are going to get harder, and I don't want you passing out at some crucial moment. If you sleep now, you can relieve Dimitri later.' Only the mention of Dimitri made me give in. We would need to relieve each other eventually. So, reluctantly, I crawled into Sydney's bed on the floor, giving her all sorts of instructions that I think she rolled her eyes at. I fell asleep almost instantly and then woke up just as quickly when I heard the sound of a door closing. I immediately sat upright, expecting to see Strigoi busting down the door. Instead, I found sunlight creeping in through the windows and Sydney watching me with amusement. In the living room, Robert was sitting up on the couch, rubbing his eyes. Victor was gone. I turned to Sydney in alarm. â€Å"He's in the bathroom,' she said, anticipating my question. That was the sound I'd heard. I exhaled in relief and stood up, surprised at how even a few hours of sleep had energized me. If I only had food, I'd be ready for anything. Sonya didn't have any, of course, but I settled for a glass of water in the kitchen. As I stood there drinking, I noticed that the Dashkov brothers had made themselves at home: coats hanging on hooks, car keys on the counter. I quietly grabbed hold of the keys and called for Sydney. She came in, and I slipped her the keys, trying not to let them rattle. â€Å"Do you still know about cars?' I murmured. In one exquisite look, she told me that was a ridiculous and insulting question. â€Å"Okay. Can you go do a grocery run? We're going to need food. And maybe on your way out, you can, um, make sure their car has engine trouble or something? Anything that keeps it here. But not something obvious, like slashed tires.' She put the keys in her pocket. â€Å"Easy. Got any food requests?' I thought about it. â€Å"Something with sugar. And coffee for Dimitri.' â€Å"Coffee's a given,' she said. Victor stepped into the kitchen, his typically unconcerned expression making me think he hadn't heard me instructing Sydney to sabotage his car. â€Å"Sydney's getting groceries,' I said, hoping to distract him before he might notice the missing keys. â€Å"Need anything?' â€Å"A feeder would be nice, but barring that, Robert has an especial liking for Cheerios. The apple cinnamon kind.' He smiled at Sydney. â€Å"I never thought I'd see the day an Alchemist would be an errand girl. It's charming.' Sydney opened her mouth, no doubt to make some biting comment, and I quickly shook my head. â€Å"Just go,' I said. She went, and Victor soon returned to Robert's side. Convinced the brothers wouldn't be going anywhere in full daylight without a car, I decided it was time to check on Dimitri. To my surprise, Sonya was awake. She sat cross-legged on the bed with him, and the two spoke in hushed tones. Her hair was disheveled from both sleep and fighting, but otherwise, she showed no cuts or bruises from the battle. Dimitri had been the same after his transformation, escaping terrible burns. The power of a Strigoi restoration healed all injuries. Between my skinned legs and pseudo-concussion, I kind of wished someone had transformed me from a Strigoi. Sonya turned from Dimitri as I entered. A sequence of emotions passed across her face. Fear. Astonishment. Recognition. â€Å"Rose?' There was hesitancy in the word, like she wondered if I was a hallucination. I forced a smile. â€Å"It's good to see you again.' I chose not to add, â€Å"Now that you're not trying to suck the life out of me.' She averted her eyes down to her hands, studying her fingers like they were magical and wonderful. Of course, after being a monster, maybe having her â€Å"old hands' back really was wondrous. The day after his change, Dimitri hadn't seemed quite so fragile, but he'd certainly been in shock. That was also when he'd grown depressed. Was she? Or did she want to turn again, as Victor had suggested? I didn't know what to say. It was all so strange and awkward. â€Å"Sydney went for groceries,' I told Dimitri lamely. â€Å"She also stayed up so that I could sleep last night.' â€Å"I know,' he said with a small smile. â€Å"I got up once to check on you.' I felt myself flushing, somehow embarrassed that I'd been caught in weakness. â€Å"You can rest too,' I told him. â€Å"Get some breakfast, and then I'll keep an eye on everything. I have it on good authority that Victor's going to have car trouble. Also that Robert really likes Cheerios, so if you want some, you're out of luck. He doesn't seem like the sharing type.' Dimitri's smile grew. Sonya suddenly lifted her head. â€Å"There's another spirit user here,' she said, voice frantic. â€Å"I can feel it. I remember him.' She looked between Dimitri and me. â€Å"It's not safe. We're not safe. You shouldn't have us around.' â€Å"Everything's fine,' said Dimitri, voice so, so gentle. That tone was rare for him, but I'd heard it before. He'd used it on me in some of my most desperate moments. â€Å"Don't worry.' Sonya shook her head. â€Å"No. You don't understand. We †¦ we're capable of terrible things. To ourselves, to others. It's why I changed, to stop the madness. And it did, except †¦ it was worse. In its way. The things I did †¦' There it was, the same remorse Dimitri had felt. Half-afraid he'd start telling her there was no redemption for her either, I said, â€Å"It wasn't you. You were controlled by something else.' She buried her face in her hands. â€Å"But I chose it. Me. I made it happen.' â€Å"That was spirit,' I said. â€Å"It's hard to fight. Like you said, it can make you do terrible things. You weren't thinking clearly. Lissa battles with the same thing all the time.' â€Å"Vasilisa?' Sonya lifted her eyes and stared off into space. I think she was digging through memories. In fact, despite her ramblings now, I didn't believe she was quite as unstable as she'd been just before becoming Strigoi. We'd heard healings could lessen spirit's madness, and I think Robert's transformation had lightened some of the darkness within her for now. â€Å"Yes, of course. Vasilisa has it too.' She turned to me in a panic. â€Å"Did you help her? Did you get her out of there?' â€Å"I did,' I said, trying to emulate Dimitri's gentleness. Lissa and I fled St. Vladimir's for a while, partly because of warnings from Sonya. â€Å"We left and then came back and, uh, were able to stop what was hunting her.' I didn't think it was a good idea for Sonya to know that the thing–or rather, person–hunting Lissa was now sitting out in the living room. I took a step forward. â€Å"And you can help Lissa too. We need to know if–‘ â€Å"No,' said Dimitri. No gentleness now in the warning look he gave me. â€Å"Not yet.' â€Å"But–‘ â€Å"Not yet.' I shot him a glare in return but said no more. I was all for giving Sonya her recuperation time, but we didn't have forever. The clock was ticking, and we had to find out what Sonya knew. I felt like Dimitri would have been able to give us this information immediately after he'd been changed back. Of course, he hadn't been unstable beforehand, so he'd kind of had an edge. Still. We couldn't play house in Kentucky forever. â€Å"Can I see my flowers?' asked Sonya. â€Å"Can I go outside and see my flowers?' Dimitri and I exchanged glances. â€Å"Of course,' he said. We all moved toward the door, and that's when I had to ask. â€Å"Why did you grow flowers when you were †¦ like you were?' She paused. â€Å"I've always grown flowers.' â€Å"I know. I remember. They were gorgeous. The ones here are gorgeous too. Is that why †¦ I mean, did you just want a pretty garden, even as a Strigoi?' The question was unexpected and seemed to throw her off. I was about to give up on an answer when she finally said, â€Å"No. I never thought about pretty. They were †¦ I don't know. Something to do. I'd always grown flowers. I had to see if I still could. It was like †¦ a test of my skills, I guess.' I met Dimitri's eyes again. So. Beauty hadn't been part of her world. It was just like I'd told him. Strigoi were notoriously arrogant, and it seemed the flowers had simply been a show of prowess. Growing them had also been a familiar habit for her, and I recalled how Dimitri had read Western novels while Strigoi. Being Strigoi might cost someone their sense of goodness and morality, but old behaviors and hobbies remained. We took her out to the living room, interrupting a conversation between Victor and Robert. Sonya and Robert both froze, sizing each other up. Victor gave us one of his knowing smiles. â€Å"Up and around. Have we found out what we need yet?' Dimitri shot him a look similar to what I'd received when asking about interrogation. â€Å"Not yet.' Sonya dragged her gaze from Robert and moved quickly toward the patio door, pausing when she saw our shoddy patch job. â€Å"You broke my door,' she said. â€Å"Collateral damage,' I said. In my periphery, I think Dimitri rolled his eyes. Needing no guidance from us, Sonya opened the door and stepped outside. With a gasp, she came to a halt and stared upward. The sky was a perfect, cloudless blue, and the sun had crossed the horizon now, illuminating everything in gold. I went outside too, feeling the warmth of that light on my skin. Some of the night's coldness lingered, but we were in store for a hot day. Everyone else came out too, but Sonya was oblivious. She lifted her hands upward, as though maybe she could grab hold of the sun and wrap it in her arms. â€Å"It's so beautiful.' She finally looked away and met my eyes. â€Å"Isn't it? Have you ever seen anything so beautiful?' â€Å"Beautiful,' I reiterated. For some reason, I felt both happy and sad. She walked around her yard, examining every plant and flower. She touched the petals and inhaled their fragrance. â€Å"So different †¦' she kept saying to herself. â€Å"So different in the sun †¦' Several especially caught her attention. â€Å"These don't open at night! Do you see it? Do you see the colors? Can you smell that?' The questions didn't seem to be for anyone in particular. We watched, all of us kind of hypnotized. At last, she settled into the patio chair, happily gazing around, lost in sensory overload–in that beauty that had been denied to her as a Strigoi. When it became obvious she wasn't leaving for a while, I turned to Dimitri and repeated Sydney's advice about him taking a turn at sleeping while we waited for Sonya to recover. To my surprise, he actually agreed. â€Å"That's smart. Once Sonya's able to talk, we'll need to move.' He smiled. â€Å"Sydney's turning into a battle mastermind.' â€Å"Hey, she's not in charge here,' I teased. â€Å"She's just a soldier.' â€Å"Right.' He lightly brushed his fingers against my cheek. â€Å"Sorry, Captain.' â€Å"General,' I corrected, catching my breath at that brief touch. He gave Sonya a kind goodbye before disappearing into the house. She nodded, but I don't know if she really heard. Victor and Robert brought out two wooden kitchen chairs and set them in the shade. I chose a spot on the ground. Nobody spoke. It wasn't the weirdest thing I'd ever experienced, but it was certainly strange. Sydney returned later with the groceries, and I briefly abandoned the group to check in with her. Victor's keys were lying back on the counter, which I took as a good sign. Sydney unloaded an assortment of food and handed me a box of a dozen donuts. â€Å"Hope that's enough for you,' she remarked. I made a face at her presumption but took the donuts anyway. â€Å"Come on outside when you're done,' I told her. â€Å"It's like the barbecue of the damned. Except †¦ there's no grill.' She looked puzzled, but when she joined us later, she seemed to get what I'd been saying. Robert brought out a bowl of Cheerios, but neither Sydney nor Victor ate. I gave Sonya a donut, the first thing that took her attention from her yard. She held it in her hands, turning it over and over. â€Å"I don't know if I can. I don't know if I can eat it.' â€Å"Of course you can.' I recalled how Dimitri had regarded food uncertainly too. â€Å"It's chocolate-glazed. Good stuff.' She took a tentative, rabbit-sized bite. She chewed it a billion times and finally swallowed. She closed her eyes briefly and sighed. â€Å"Such sweetness.' Slowly, she continued taking more tiny bites. It took forever for her to get halfway through the donut, and at that point, she finally stopped. I'd polished off three donuts by then, and my impatience to accomplish something was growing. Part of it was still the irritability from spirit, and part of it was just my continual restlessness to help Lissa. â€Å"Sonya,' I said pleasantly, fully aware of how pissed off Dimitri was going to be at me defying his instructions. â€Å"We wanted to talk to you about something.' â€Å"Mm-hmm,' she said, gazing at bees hovering around some honeysuckle. â€Å"Is there a relative of yours †¦ someone who, uh, had a baby a while ago †¦ ?' â€Å"Sure,' she said. One of the bees flew from the honeysuckle to a rose, and she never looked away. â€Å"Lots.' â€Å"Articulate, Rosemarie,' remarked Victor. â€Å"Very articulate.' I bit my lip, knowing an outburst would upset Sonya. And probably Robert too. â€Å"This would be a secret baby,' I told her. â€Å"And you were the beneficiary on a bank account that took care of the baby †¦ an account paid for by Eric Dragomir.' Sonya's head whipped toward me, and there was no dreamy absentmindedness in her blue eyes now. A few seconds passed before she spoke. Her voice was cold and hard–not a Strigoi voice, but definitely a back off voice. â€Å"No. I don't know anything about that.' â€Å"She's lying,' said Robert. â€Å"I didn't need any powers to figure that out,' scoffed Sydney. I ignored both of them. â€Å"Sonya, we know you know, and it's really important we find this baby †¦ er, child. Person.' We'd made guesses on the age but weren't 100 percent sure. â€Å"You said you were worried about Lissa earlier. This will help her. She needs to know. She needs to know she has another family member.' Sonya turned her attention back to the bees, but I knew she was no longer watching them. â€Å"I don't know anything.' There was a trembling in her voice, and something told me that maybe I shouldn't push this after all. I couldn't tell if she was afraid or on the verge of rage. â€Å"Then why were you on the account?' This came from Victor. â€Å"I don't know anything,' she repeated. Her voice could have made icicles form on the ornamental trees. â€Å"Nothing.' â€Å"Stop lying,' snapped Victor. â€Å"You know something, and you're going to tell us.' â€Å"Hey!' I exclaimed. â€Å"Be quiet. You don't have interrogation rights here.' â€Å"You didn't seem to be doing a very good job.' â€Å"Just shut up, okay?' I looked back at Sonya, replacing my glare with a smile. â€Å"Please,' I begged. â€Å"Lissa's in trouble. This will help her. I thought you said before that you wanted to help her?' â€Å"I promised †¦' said Sonya. Her voice was so low, I could barely hear it. â€Å"Promised what?' I asked. Patience, patience. I had to remain calm. I couldn't risk a breakdown. She squeezed her eyes shut and raked her hands through her hair violently, almost like a child about to have a tantrum. â€Å"Promised not to tell. Promised not to tell anyone †¦' I had the urge to run over and shake her. Patience, patience, I repeated to myself. Don't upset her. â€Å"We wouldn't ask you to break your promise if it wasn't important. Maybe †¦ maybe you can get in touch with this person †¦' Who had she promised? Eric's mistress? â€Å"And see if it's okay to tell us?' â€Å"Oh for God's sake,' said Victor irritably. â€Å"This is ridiculous and getting us nowhere.' He glanced at his brother. â€Å"Robert?' Robert hadn't done much so far today, but at Victor's command, Robert leaned forward. â€Å"Sonya?' Still obviously distraught, she turned to look at him †¦ and her face went still. â€Å"Tell us what we need to know,' said Robert. His voice wasn't kind so much as smooth and lulling, with a faintly sinister touch. â€Å"Tell us who and where this child is. Tell us who the mother is.' This time, I did jump to my feet. Robert was using compulsion on her to get the answers. Sonya's eyes stayed locked on him, but her body began to shake. Her lips parted, though no sound came out. A tangle of thoughts swirled in my mind. Compulsion would get us what we needed to know, but something told me, it wasn't right– Sonya stopped me from any more pondering. She shot up almost as quickly as I had. She was still staring at Robert, but no longer in that transfixed, hypnotized way. She'd broken the compulsion, and now †¦ now she was pissed. The features that had been scared and fragile earlier were filled with fury. I had no magical senses, but after being with Lissa, I knew raging spirit when I saw it. Sonya was a bomb, about to explode. â€Å"How dare you †¦' she hissed. â€Å"How dare you try to compel me?' Plants and vines near Robert suddenly sprang to life, growing to impossible heights. They reached out, tangled themselves around his chair's legs, and pulled. The chair toppled over, Robert along with it. Victor moved to help his brother, but Robert was already taking matters into his own hands. Recovering remarkably fast, he narrowed his eyes at Sonya, and she went flying backward, slamming against the wooden fence. Air users could do that trick sometimes, but this wasn't air blowing her back. This was spirit's telekinetic abilities. He apparently possessed them outside of dreams too. Lovely. I'd seen spirit users battle it out before, when Avery Lazar and Lissa had gone one on one. That hadn't been pretty, particularly since more than this exterior psychic phenomena had occurred. Avery had actually dug into Lissa's mind–and mine. I didn't know Robert or Sonya's full skill set, but this couldn't end well. â€Å"Dimitri!' I yelled, springing toward Sonya. I didn't exactly know what I was going to do, but tackling her seemed like a sound plan. From what I'd observed, a lot of spirit involved eye contact with the target. And sure enough, when I managed to wrestle her to the ground, she struggled half- heartedly but mostly fought to keep her gaze on Robert. He screamed in sudden alarm, looking down at his own body in terror. Sonya was planting visions into his head. His expression hardened. He had to know it was an illusion, and a few moments later, he looked up, having broken her spell like she'd broken his earlier compulsion. Dimitri came tearing out the door at that point, just as Robert used his mind to fling one of the chairs toward Sonya. Of course, I was on top of her, so the chair hit me in the back. Dimitri picked up pretty quickly what was going on and ran toward Robert, attempting the same tactic as me. Victor, possibly thinking his brother was in physical danger, tried to pry Dimitri away, which was futile. More vines began to reach toward Robert, and I realized constraining Sonya wasn't all that useful. â€Å"Get him inside!' I yelled to Dimitri. â€Å"Get him away from her!' Dimitri had already guessed that and began dragging Robert toward the door. Even with Victor interfering, Dimitri's strength was enough to get Robert out of there and back into the house. As soon as her target was gone, all the energy seemed to fade out of Sonya. She made no more efforts to fight me and collapsed to the ground. I was relieved, having feared she'd turn on me once Robert was gone. Tentatively, still on guard, I helped Sonya sit up. She leaned against me, weak as a rag doll, and cried into my shoulder. Another breakdown. After that, it was a matter of damage control. In order to keep the spirit users apart, Dimitri had taken Robert to the bedroom and left Victor with him. Robert seemed as worn out as Sonya, and Dimitri deemed the brothers safe enough to leave alone. Sonya collapsed on the couch, and after both Dimitri and I had tried to calm her down, we stepped away while Sydney held the Moroi woman's hand. I briefly recapped what had happened. Dimitri's face grew more and more incredulous as I did. â€Å"I told you it wasn't time!' he exclaimed. â€Å"What were you thinking? She's too weak!' â€Å"You call that weak? And hey, I was doing fine! It wasn't until Victor and Robert got involved that things went to hell.' Dimitri took a step toward me, anger radiating off him. â€Å"They should never have gotten involved. This is you, acting irrational again, jumping in foolishly with no thought of the consequences.' Outrage shot through me in return. â€Å"Hey, I was trying to make progress here. If being rational is sitting around and doing therapy, then I'm happy to jump over the edge. I'm not afraid to get in the game.' â€Å"You have no idea what you're saying,' he growled. We were standing closer now, hardly any space left between us as we engaged in our battle of wills. â€Å"This may have set us back.' â€Å"This set us forward. We found out she knows about Eric Dragomir. The problem is she promised not to tell anyone about this baby.' â€Å"Yes, I promised,' piped up Sonya. Dimitri and I turned as one, realizing our argument was fully visible and audible to Sonya and Sydney. â€Å"I promised.' Her voice was very small and weak, pleading with us. Sydney squeezed her hand. â€Å"We know. It's okay. It's okay to keep promises. I understand.' Sonya looked at her gratefully. â€Å"Thank you. Thank you.' â€Å"But,' said Sydney carefully, â€Å"I heard that you care about Lissa Dragomir.' â€Å"I can't,' interrupted Sonya, turning fearful again. â€Å"I know, I know. But what if there was a way to help her without breaking your promise?' Sonya stared at Sydney. Dimitri glanced at me questioningly. I shrugged and then stared at Sydney too. If someone had asked who could stage the best intervention with a crazy woman who'd formerly been an undead monster, Sydney Sage would have been my last guess. Sonya frowned, all attention on Sydney. â€Å"W-what do you mean?' â€Å"Well †¦ what did you promise exactly? Not to tell anyone that Eric Dragomir had a mistress and baby?' Sonya nodded. â€Å"And not to tell who they were?' Sonya nodded again. Sydney gave Sonya the warmest, friendliest smile I'd ever seen on the Alchemist. â€Å"Did you promise not to tell anyone where they are?' Sonya nodded, and Sydney's smile faltered a little. Then, her eyes lit up. â€Å"Did you promise not to lead anyone to where they are?' Sonya hesitated, no doubt turning every word over in her mind. Slowly, she shook her head. â€Å"No.' â€Å"So †¦ you could lead us to them. But not tell us where they actually are. You wouldn't be breaking the promise that way.' It was the most convoluted, ridiculous piece of logic I'd heard in a while. It was something I would have come up with. â€Å"Maybe †¦' said Sonya, still uncertain. â€Å"You wouldn't break the promise,' Sydney repeated. â€Å"And it would really, really help Lissa.' I stepped forward. â€Å"It would help Mikhail too.' Sonya's mouth dropped open at the mention of her former lover. â€Å"Mikhail? You know him?' â€Å"He's my friend. He's Lissa's friend too.' I almost said that if we found the missing Dragomir, we could then take Sonya to Mikhail. Recalling Dimitri's feelings of unworthiness, I decided to avoid that tactic just now. I didn't know how Sonya would react to a reunion with her beloved. â€Å"And he wants to help Lissa. But he can't. None of us can. We don't have enough information.' â€Å"Mikhail †¦' Sonya looked down at her hands again, small tears running down her cheeks. â€Å"You won't break your promise.' Sydney was so compelling she could have been a spirit user. â€Å"Just lead us. It's what Mikhail and Lissa would want. It's the right thing to do.' I don't know which argument convinced Sonya the most. It could have been the part about Mikhail. Or it could have been the idea of doing â€Å"the right thing.' Maybe, like Dimitri, Sonya wanted redemption for her Strigoi crimes and saw this as a chance. Looking up, she swallowed and met my eyes. â€Å"I'll lead you there,' she whispered. â€Å"We're going on another road trip,' Sydney declared. â€Å"Get ready.' Dimitri and I were still standing right next to each other, the anger between us beginning to diffuse. Sydney looked proud and continued trying her best to soothe Sonya. Dimitri looked down at me with a small smile that shifted slightly when he seemed to become aware of just how close we were. I couldn't say for sure, though. His face gave little away. As for me, I was very aware of our proximity and felt intoxicated by his body and scent. Damn. Why did fighting with him always increase my attraction to him? His smile returned as he tilted his head toward Sydney. â€Å"You were wrong. She really is the new general in town.' I smiled back, hoping he wasn't aware of my body's reaction to us standing so close. â€Å"Maybe. But, it's okay. You can still be colonel.' He arched an eyebrow. â€Å"Oh? Did you demote yourself? Colonel's right below general. What's that make you?' I reached into my pocket and triumphantly flashed the CR-V keys I'd swiped when we'd come back inside. â€Å"The driver,' I said.