*동* 스토어

*동*

개인

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

7개
전체 판매량

41개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

-
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 7개

What you pawn, I will redeem

“What You Pawn I Will Redeem” (2004) - Sherman AlexieThe author, Sherman Alexie born on the Spokane Indian Reservation, in Wellpinit, Washington, and he lives in Seattle, Washington now (2009). The short story has the same setting as the author’s life, so the story is probably based on the author’s own experience. By making the story’s setting similar to his real life, he implies that the story is not just a fiction, but faction. This kind of attempts is found easily in his other novels or stories.Alexie’s first young adult novel, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian, has the same setting (its protagonist has hydrocephalic and frequent seizure) as the auther’s youth. The author wrote an accident almost identically in this story. The accident happened when Alexie was young. A teacher gave him a used text book on which he found his mother’s name – it means the text book is used for at least 30 years, so represents Indian education’s poorness. He got shock from it, and went other high school far from his house. This accident is drawn almost exactly the same in his first young adult novel. I can infer that the author has complaints about Indian’s poor life.His official first novel, Reservation Blues, shows gloomy lives of Indian band members who have not the same amount of opportunity. In this novel, the author wants to tell injustice on Indians. The author’s next novel Indian Killer indicates Indian’s lost identity. In the novel, protagonist is adopted and grown by white people, and seeks for his true identity by killing white people.Considering novels and facts stated above, the author must want to talk about Indian’s real and sad life in the short story, “What you Pawn I Will Redeem” too. Plot is somewhat humorous and ridiculous, but there are some gloomy facts I caught.First, there are lots of homeless Indians. “Homeless Indians are everywhere in Seattle.” I can infer Indian’s poverty from it. The author lives in Seattle, so he must really see many Indians. Then I think about how Indians can be rescued from being homeless. I found three answers in the story. Rose of Sharon gave up living homeless and went Toppenish for “living with her sister on the reservation”. Junior “died of exposure in an alley”. Jackson Jackson is ‘luckily’ helped by others, the Big Boss of Real Change, Mary’s the lottery, Officer Willams, and finally, the pawnbroker. Nobody can escape from being homeless with their own effort.There is a dialogue between the pawnbroker and Jackson when the pawnbroker asked the origin of five dollars - “Did you work hard for this money?” “Yes”. Actually, the answer must be ‘No’. This lie makes me think about Indian’s lethargy. When they earned money luckily, they spent it without special plans. Jackson paid out fortunately earned money for lunch, lottery, and whiskey shots. They just live from hand to mouth. There’s no hope of escaping a homeless situation.The reason why the story has no tension rising and climax is to show normal life of Indians truly. Que Sera Sera, it is their creed of life. Describing their lives straightforwardly, the reader can know poorness of Indians. However, I don’t think author wanted to completely blame Indians themselves for this situation.Jackson needed to earn 999 dollars for his grandmother’s regalia, but he bought lunch or whiskey for strangers. This might be because he is just foolish. but the author wants to show he is naïve and kind. Indians are not that clever like white people, and good subjects to be manipulated, and the author has sympathy for them. The author indirectly criticizes white people’s mean doings of making use of Indians.Moreover, Real Change has object, to “empower the poor and the homeless”, but their projects are not that effective. Considering Jackson only sold five in one hour and earned 5 dollars, it cannot actually make the homeless have their home. I think Real Change symbolizes social aid organizations, and by this symbolism the author criticizes incompetent social system which cannot help Indians.

인문/어학| 2010.06.07| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(547)

Sherman Alexie, What you pawn I will

미리보기

닫기
The Necklace

“The Necklace” – Guy De MaupassantThis story is about a woman who fell in vanity. I think the author criticized only the woman, Mathilde, but also all of characters in this story. They just believed visible image representing beauty or luxury. Mathilde wanted to be SEEN beautiful, her husband agreed to her feeling, and guests of the party praised her who armed herself with the fake necklace. Most important thing is that Mrs. Forrestier, who was believed to be rich, used an imitation.At the finale of this story, we lose our ideal model of the rich – Mrs. Forrestier, whom Mathilde admired, and wanted to be. If she herself was really wealthy, she would not use costume jewelry. One might say she just it without special purpose of wearing and just for fun, but in this story she said “You should have brought it back sooner; I might have needed it.”All characters chased vain image, because their relationship was superficial. A person did not know others deeply, and could see only surface of others’ lives. Reversely, others didn’t know the person, and could see his or her external figure. This is why people were bound by symbol of images. How they appeared coldly decides who they are. Considering the ending, Mathilde lost her 10 years for nothing. What if she told Mrs. Forrestier frankly? Mathilde wasted big part of her life not to show her imprudence to Mrs. Forrestier. It is not only Mathilde’s fault, I think. What if Mrs. Forrestier wondered why Mathilde did not contact her for that long time and asked Mathilde? Mrs. Forrestier had no care for Mathilde, and made her waste her 10 years. I suppose this story is about the world out of true emotion, and full of seen illusion.Characters in this story are Mathilde, and her husband, and Mrs. Forrestier. They all pursue to only appear good. Setting is Paris, France, in 1884. Paris was, and is famous for stylish fashion. It is appropriate setting where characters seeking visible values. Plot is simple. Mathilde wasted her 10 years to recover the burrowed necklace lost but finally found that necklace was nothing but costume jewelry. It is process to her to know all she wanted was illusion. What is sad is, although she spent 10 years on learning that lesson, I think she still missed her fantasy so went a stroll along the Champs-Elysees, famous for a fashion street. Dialogue is well arranged. It is used when tension of the story mounts. Seen largely, it is used for 3 times – when Mathilde upset about her poor dress, when Mathild lost the necklace, and when Mathild met Mrs. Forrestier after 10 years. In all of these parts, tension goes high by using dialogue carrying emotion. Narrator has 3rd person view point. But narration is limited to tell only Mathilde’s mind. If Mathilde is narrator, it is more effective to express Mathilde’s feeling. However, the author wanted to criticize her behavior and thought, so the author set narrator as 3rd person and made readers think about Mathilde in distance. Thus, readers can have not only empathy for characters but objective view.In this story, it is visible irony that Mathilde lost her 10 years for imitation jewelry. No one’s 10 years has the same value with imitation. However, there is one more irony. She must have thought it was all find if she really had squandered her life for the loss of the real jewelry. Maybe Mathilde felt stable, and this was why she was glad when she encountered Mrs. Forrestier. She was satisfied with being Martyrs for the necklace. I think this is also irony - equating life with material. To gain material, people gain image. Even though in this process people lose their precious life, they think, it is ok. Combining these ironies finally leads to theme of this story. “People want image of material at any cost, but that is nothing.” From these, I can infer that a necklace of diamond (real) is symbolism of material representing people’s desire to appear beautiful or wealthy, and The Necklace (costume) is symbolism of criticism leveled against that kind of people.

인문/어학| 2010.06.07| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(464)

The Necklace, Guy De Maupassant

미리보기

닫기
The Most Dangerous Game

“The Most Dangerous Game” – Richard ConnellThe plot of this story mainly consists of conflict between Rainsford and General Zaroff. Zaroff was sick of hunting, because all of their motions can be predicted. That’s why he became to enjoy killing human. His hunting people just for intellectual game gave readers the shivers. But finally Zaroff almost lost to cleaver Rainsford His behavior. This story has some foreshadowing. The word “I think evil is a tangible thing” said by Whitney implies the real and wicked person, Zaroff. The sound of pistol shot, and weeds stained crimson make readers think brutal hunting.I think Zaroff’s feeling boring to kill animals and even people, has symbolisms. The relationship between hunters and huntees may mean rulers and subjects. Rulers rule over subjects, and belittle them. People have inner nature to govern others. Others can be animals such as dogs or cats. In my personal opinion, it is why people grow these pets and call them one of their families. However, people’s desire does not end in this level. They want to conquer other humans. Historically, there were many class societies and it represents their desire. Though one person is in high level of the class, his or her ambition is never insatiable. The person still wants to be upwardly mobile. I think this story symbolizes these phenomena. General Zaroff is a representative of the high class. He is handsome, has the face of an aristocrat, and lives noble life – from this I infer that author think outer figure could be a key to higher class. He looked down on reasonless animals, and “sailors, lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels” and called them “the scum of the earth”. He enjoyed, but got boring, so wanted more funny games. It is exactly like human’s desire.Hunters can’t understand miserable mind of huntees, like Rainsford. During the story, Rainsford started to realize these feeling. I suppose killing symbolizes conquering. Conquering someone can ravage humans like killing them. At this point, what author wanted to say can be interpreted as sympathy toward lower class. In addition, author implied the possibility that General Zaroff could be grown as a villain by writing “When I was only five years old he (father) gave me a little gun, …, When I shot some of his prize turkeys with it, he did not punish me.” Moreover, it is irony that being a soldier because of noblesse oblige contributed to Zaroff becoming a noble man, killing humans. This can be used for denying that people have natural desire of domination.However, in the end, Rainsford didn’t want to break this hunter-huntee structure saying “I am still a beast at bay.” I assume that he totally understood huntee’s misery, but still wanted to be a hunter. It is irony that the hunter, Rainsford became a huntee, and returned to hunter. Considering this, author may want to say more over than loser’s pain. I suppose the theme of this story is ‘though experiencing how cruel hierarchy system is, one still wants to go higher.’ This desire was imprinted in human mind.Characters in this story are Whitney, Ivan, General Zaroff, and Rainsford. Whitney warned Rainsford and wanted him to understand huntee’s position – consequently it went vain. Ivan is deaf and very tall, overwhelming readers and helping to make scary circumstance. Zaroff is a hunter enjoing human killing, and Rainsford is also a hunter and clever. Setting is Ship-Trap Island. It is an isolated island, so it gives Rainsford running away from Zaroff feeling despair. It is too far away from normal worlds in distance, but it is miniature of the world, I think. There is a civilized house – even electricity – and one can live comfortable and luxurious life or die as game. Dialogues are largely in three parts – conversation between Rainsford and Whitney, between Rainsford and Zaroff, and Rainford’s monologue. One between Rainsford and Whitney invokes weird feeling. One between Rainsford and Zaroff carries much information about Zaroff. If it was not described in dialogue, it would be short and simple. However, by author making conversation, though the story is lengthened, readers can feel thrilled by imagining Zaroff’s voice – talking cruel hunting calmly. Rainsford’s monologue gives reality and breakaway by appearing during long narration. Narrator has 3rd person view point, and can explain mainly Rainsford’s behavior and mind. However, in the last part, narrator explains Zaroff’s feeling and sudden advent of Rainsford gives shock to readers. If narrator is Rainsford himself, this effect cannot be achieved.

인문/어학| 2010.06.07| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(367)

The Most Dangerous G, Richard Connell

미리보기

닫기
The Lottery

“The Lottery” (1949) – Shirley JacksonThe story, “The Lottery”, sharply criticizes humans’ passiveness. There are some people who have solid belief. Those zealous people tend to act proactively to make others share their belief, and others just follow them. In this process, one system is settled because of a few people’s lead, and the system decides other’s belief or values. Thus, most of members in one system have similar thoughts. In that system, there could be a zealous person having another firm belief, but his or her faith is hard to spread because it is more difficult to persuade others in the system than in no system. So this is why the system, so called ‘society’, continues. This story tells that passiveness of subjects are so strong that even a strange system, the lottery, can settle stable.People in the story think the lottery as nuisance. They say “I wish they’d hurry”, “let’s finish quickly” and even the time of the lottery is set for villager’s convenience – after the lottery, they can go home for dinner. If this event was really holy and sacred, the process of the lottery would not lapse or be simplified. People do not keep respect for the lottery and even chat during it. Despite of all these, the lottery continues. It is because there are people who need the lottery.The lottery is mainly supported by a few people – especially, Old Man Warner, Mr. Summers and, Mr. Grave. Old Man Warner is just a zealot of the lottery. He supports the lottery with no logical reason, just calling other villages which quitted the lottery “Pack of crazy fools”. He denies those who do not follow the lottery too intensely, so it is hard for others even to tell their inner mind of complaints against the lottery. To maintain a system there needs only a few people crazy about the system.Mr. Summers and Mr. Grave are people who want lottery for their control over the village. Through hosting the lottery, they can gather the list of villagers and look into their family lives. It must be useful information, gained by fair means. Mr. Grave is the postmaster who can check letters going outside or coming inside, so he can know about villagers secretly. Mr. Summers “who had time and energy to devote to civic activities” lead the lottery event. He has a coal company so he is considered somewhat rich, and because “Mr. Summers was very good at all this”, villagers have good impression of him. The reason why Mr. Summers wants to change the lottery box might be to do trick on the box not for Mr. Summers himself to pick the slip of the black spot. These people make us of lottery for their power.On the contrary to this, other villagers have no special will. They fall in irony – supporting the lottery ritual by obeying the event result, and insisting not to change the original box, but feeling the lottery as a troublesome work. It is somewhat irony that Tessie who thinks the lottery is not that important – she forgot about it - does blame not the lottery itself, but unfairness of time to pick slips. Mr. Adams especially shows his irony. He said the story about other villages that quitted the lottery, and it implies that he slightly agrees to other villages’ decision. However, after hearing Old Man Warner’s strict denial, he folds his mind and throws stones to the victim, Tessie, “in front of the crowd of villagers”.Villagers’ belief is not concrete, so they are easy to be controlled. Because of idleness, people follow this strange tradition. Moreover, they pretend they support the lottery by following the lottery. If only one person complains the system, that person must be excluded from the village. Thus, everyone appears agreeing the lottery to stay stable. This passiveness makes victims every year.I think author wanted to say about irrationality of the societies. There can be problems like patriarchy, racism, polarization of wealth, etc, but these problems cannot be effectively solved due to people’s passiveness. Problems are being serious by rulers making use of this obedience. The lottery symbolizes victims of problematic system. By this symbolism, author instigates people’s action. Author shows slim chance of overthrow of this strange system by making Old Man Warner say “It’s not the way it used to be”. So there is still hope, and I think that’s what author thought.

인문/어학| 2010.06.07| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(642)

the lottery, Shirley Jackson, humans’ pass..

미리보기

닫기
The Baby

“The baby”This story made me to feel “How stupid parents they are!”. Which rule can just 14 months old baby fully understand and obey? Locking the baby in one room for 88 hours is a really peculiar and out of sense. What’s moreover is that finally parents gave up and enjoy with their baby by breaking and tearing – just they’ve banned! I can hardly catch what author wanted to express.What I can infer from this story finally is ‘don’t push the baby to learn something you want.’ Baby has her own characteristic – tearing books for fun or whatever. Nobody can actually change that habit. Just let it be, that’s the solution in this story. Then problems found in the baby will disappear as growing up thanks to her parents’ love. I want to use this story to criticize Korean education customs.Korean education goes hotter and hotter because of competition between parents. The point is, this competition is just between PARENTS. They want their sons or daughters to be elite, and superior to others. So they push their babies to learn too much faster, even though their babies can’t understand why they need to learn this. Just 4 years old baby should go english talking kindergarten, and a 6th grade student in elementary school should prepare university entrance exam. This kind of suppressive customs become more widespread. It will make turbulence in families. This situation really resembles the story, The Baby. What parents actually should do is just to enjoy around with them, this story said.

인문/어학| 2010.06.07| 1페이지| 1,000원| 조회(101)

The Baby, How stupid parents t

미리보기

닫기