Postmodernism Effect on Family

Postmodernism Effect on Family CONTEMPORARY PARENTING ESSAY Contemporary Parenting? The post-modern society has been created out of a backdrop of pluralism, democracy, religious freedom, consumerism, mobility, and a plethora of technological advancements. Participants in this post-modern era are able to see that there are many structured and unstructured beliefs, multiple concepts of reality, and an a wide construct of world views; a society that has lost its faith in absolute truth, where it is cool to have doubt as a constant companion and in which people have the right and necessity to choose what to believe (OHare and Anderson 1991). The decade of the 1970s, Shorter (1975) appears to have been the first to deconstruct the concept of family for a more liberal emerging post-modern family. Shorter to this end, cited three clearly conceptualised characteristics: adolescent indifference to the familys identity; instability in the lives of couples, accompanied by rapidly increasing divorce rates; and destruction of the nest notion of nuclear family life with the liberation of women. In that 70’s era, Shorter cited limited reconstructions in patterns of child socialization. The liberating movement for women in the deconstruction of mothers caring for young children in the home to the use of state subsidized paid child care providers, with the mother entering once again into the world of paid employment. ‘The Children’s plan: Building Better Futures’ offers clear and comprehensive explanations of ‘why’ such legislative procedures are necessary to engage parents in ensuring that children are, educated and protected in a 21st century Britain. This groundbreaking report concentrates on several aspects of children’s rights, in particular having listened to the needs of parents, in particular, the now common diversity of ‘family’ and ‘parenting’ that is no longer ‘cereal packet’, nuclear or indeed symmetrical in models, that was bespoken of previous generations (Abercrombie Warde 2000). What is apparent, is that ‘family and ‘parenting’ is not vastly different and extremely contemporary. Through the ‘Every Child Matters’ pilot programme, it has been proven by substantive research that: â€Å"Families are substantively, the bedrock of society and the place for nurturing happy, ca pable and resilient children: â€Å"In our consultation, parents made it clear that they would like better and more flexible information and support that reflects the lives they lead† DfCSF (p.5). There are five core principles of these directives to engage and protect children’s rights offers carefully planned concepts that will become the foundations for better children’s services that are enshrined in law to be protective. The specific principle that supports parents is simply: ‘Government does not bring up children – parents do – so’. This fundamental tenet is of importance in the decoding and reconstruction of the notion of parenting in which the new concept in deconstruction of the notion of ‘family’, in particular the heterosexual family unit, for a more liberalised notion of family that embraced, single-parent, surrogate-motherhood, and gay and lesbian families, and other less popular variants of the post-modern family; in some quarters, these have been viewed as the negative results of the changed noted above, or more fundamentally, as the breakdown products, of a pluralist society. Other conceptual factors can be noted as follows: Despondence with the societal norms of human progress that had embedded modern society, with the unifying benefits and regularity of the comforting moral fabric; affecting the notion of a lack of faith in the previously established order. The study by Edwards Gillies (2005), is mindful of core factors in parenting practices, albeit, lack of. ‘Resources in Parenting: Access to Capitals’ conducted to conceptualize an explicit policy focus for parenting, and the fundamental need for a meaningful gathering of cohesive norms and values about responsible parenting practice, as well as significant worries about the reality and creation of social capital. Moreover, they saw social change as the causal effect of weakened and broken support systems that, involved a greater failure in maintaining, parental/family and community reciprocal obligations, that saw a divergence of widespread uncertainty in new parents understanding their roles and responsibilities. But, the most stark consequences of poor parenting, amongst, younger single parents was a lack of professional instruction in learning/understanding the skills comprising good parenting practices. The deconstruction of economic foundations underlying social conformity, for example, the need for women to marry well to stand against hardship financially and to stratify their class status to the next generation, or the need to become mothers in wedlock for them to be benefactors of family estate, that would be their core foundation of livelihood. The fundamental re-construction of the electronic age, through access to computerised media, which both inspired and legitimise the post-modern new era family reconfiguring and in doing so the conceptualisation of modern parenting which at best can be seen as contemporary; that may involve single adults, same sex parents or indeed older grandparents taking on parental role in later life, where younger parents, who formed ‘comprised ‘contemporary parenting models’ are less able to cope with parenting in which they were subjugating responsibilities close friends and even less able friends, which in effect, makes some cla rity of Edwards Gillies (2005) study, in which the closeness of the extended family was seen to be diluted and in many case study examples, notional or non-existent. With the ability to bring the world closer together in a plethora of technological advancement, one might see the advent of contemporary support networks for parents, accessible, but, where it has reduced the separations effect that was imposed between people by physical distance, physical barriers, and social barriers, electronic communications and other media has created a ‘global village’ world that in the post-modern era, contrives to foster anonymous intimacy through internet talk, virtual advice columns, electronic mail, computer bulletin boards. In some part also providing provided advisory/counselling and other personal services available through a wealth of mediums, which are not necessitated through face-to-face contact or encounter. The focused anonymous and instant intimacy has encroached into the world of contemporary parenting in which instant advice for parents in crisis can come from a wealth of ‘do good ad-hoc advisors’ where in-experienced parents, moreover, single parents, are engaged in anonymous social support, networking, and telecommunications, in which no names are mentioned, and anonymity is the key concept in this technological age. Thereby, creating a virtual world in which the poorly skilled parent grasps at ‘ad hoc’ advise that is often misleading, creating a systemic growth in poor practice and engagement of child protection systems, that in recent periods have been seen to be lacking. Moreover, we are seeing in some recent cases (Clembie, Baby P etc), the professional engaged in ‘child care support structure’ are not parents, and often work to ‘textbook’ scenarios to aide real families, stringent target drivers and outcomes, which result in many cases of neglect, poor practices and care (Utting 2007). Therefore, with the demise of the ‘cereal packet’, nuclear and symmetrical family models, parenting in part is becoming another casualty of modern society, in which the state is engaging in providing incentives to stemming the tide of poor childcare practices through projects like: Every Child Matters, Sure Start and First Start, in the hope of engaging contemporary less able, less economically viable parents to be ‘good parents’ (Gillies 2005, Utting 2007 DfCSF 2007). Utting’s study in 2007 for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found many situations where contemporary parents were unable to cope of feel secure in asking for professional assistance, for fear of reprisals. Moreover, he found that those parents in most need were less likely to access support, for a plethora of reasons: trust, access, availability, venue, age of professional, prejudice and even poor recommendations. But, starkly, ‘fear’ of professionals taking over childcare was a predominant factor where single younger parents lived in significant levels of poverty. Gergen (1991) once described the post-modern family form as the saturated family, whose participants feel their lives scattering in intensified busyness. In addition to taking in an explosion of exposure to a world of deconstructed values, attitudes, opinions, lifestyles, and personalities, family members have become embedded in a world that has enshrined the conceptualisation of multiplicity of relationships. The technologies that now embed our social saturation (e.g. the car, telephone, television, and jet plane) have created deconstructed, and in part, dysfunctional concept of what is family, in a soup of consistent turmoil and a sense of fragmentation, chaos, and discontinuity. The concept of ‘family’ is no longer a ‘cereal packet’ picture of a cosy environment in which parenting is a gentle and professional time honoured art, with extended family involvement. We are now seeing the demise of the family as previously known, with more diversity in the parenting model, for a more fluid and protracted notion where children are raised in contemporary parenting models: singles, teenage, unmarried, same sex etc. Some such models are sound; in particular where the parents are engaged and proactive in ensuring strong values and child raising practices, this is seen in may aspects of single professional parent households. Gay/Lesbian adoptive parents are often slighted by fundamental groups as poor models, or indeed, dysfunctional models, but, on the contrary, many gay/lesbian parents are proving to be stricter and more disciplined raising children who are well rounded and more able to cope with a contemporary world (Gillies 2005 Utting 200 7). Nevertheless, in comparison in often teenage/less educated households, where poverty is a clear factor, remarkably it is not the ‘poverty’ that tends to be the rationale for poor parenting, it is the causal effects of: stress, depression, illness, low income and poor networks that impact of disturbing and disrupting good practices (Utting 2007). Utting’ found in his extensive study of academic case studies, that at best, most contemporary parenting models were sound, and where they were not, significant dysfunctional factors like alcohol and drug dependence by parents was a contributing factor, but, in the main, where parents were in diverse less affluent circumstances: poor housing, dysfunctional communities, health/care issues, nevertheless, desire the best for their children. With the diversity in childcare provision, where it in shared between the contemporary family and day care, new problems have arisen. While some children thrive on dual socialisation, others fail, unable to grasp either the environment or to the demands of daily transition from one environment to the other. The young child may be unable to form the necessary communication link between the two environments. Responsibilities now blurred and are seen to be divided between home and care centre; as a result, neither may be providing some crucial aspects of child development. For example, neither the care centre nor working parents may perceive themselves in charge of helping the child to develop the capacity to exercise self-control nor of teaching the child basic social comportment, such as table manners, greeting rituals, narration of daily events, and interview skills required for social orientation. This interesting conceptualisation has led the state to provide clarity and support th rough its extensive children’s legislation, regulation and project provision, in the hope that those parents who are able to retain employment are enabled to ensure safe and professional support for their children. Equally, those less enabled parents are encouraged through projects like ‘sure start’ to offer, guide and support learning in parenting skills, whilst improving education and learning that potentially will empower the parent to seek new skills and employment/advancement. The focus of parent education was development of the whole child. In contrast, parenting in the post-modern world is perceived as a learned technique with specific strategies for dealing with particular issues. The target has shifted from the whole child to developing the childs positive sense of self-esteem. In the modern era, parents made the effort to fit advice to the particular needs of the child; Elkind (1992) points out that the directive post-modern techniques may be easier for parents but the child may be deprived of customized treatment. Moreover, he strongly believes that the focus on the whole child should not be lost. Interestingly in this era of contemporary parenting, we are finding diversity at the core of parent development (Utting 2007). The family home, is found to be no longer a refuge of harmony, serenity, and understanding, as a once cosy modern era projected, has become in many post-modern constructs the site of confrontation between people of different ages and genders, who have personal ideologies and social constructs that are as diversely suspended as misplaced objects in an untidy drawer. Many self-help organizations, cash in on this deconstructed and dysfunctional family to bring ground rules, re-focus and construction in the often tense overload by holding workshops, reality television counselling in which the participants learn to take on their personal past history, social dysfunctions and deconstructions, to try to rebuild the sense of value and purpose that was once so clearly focused in the once modern era. The sense of loss for a society that was constructed with family values, rules, and concepts, has become the loss and bereavement counsellor’s (the professional child care worker) nightmare clients, a post-modern family in reality meltdown; a cast off society, has thrown away the foundational fabric for a less picturesque reality, that is here today and gone tomorrow. In conclusion, it is clear that the nuclear family was not at all perfection. The revolution that led to post-modern life corrected old imbalances in society through de-differentiation of parental and gender roles. Yet these radical social changes may have created new imbalances by increasing demands on children and adolescents. In so doing the concept and notion of the contemporary family, with all its flaws is here to stay. The noisy debate of the ‘back to basics’ lobby with its moralistic overtones in both political and religious circles, remains hollow in its effect, for a return to the foundational and constructed past of cereal packet family values, societal constructs of right and wrong, balance and harmony; in part a re-construction of the modern era, with a plethora of the post-modern era with foundational ground rules, constructs and concepts that knit together the very fabric of society. In part, having all the joys of the post-modern era with the sense of res trictive citizenship and responsibility of the modern, in which diversity and inclusion is purely ‘tokenism’. Furthermore, in part the post-modern deconstruction clears the slate for the fundamental regrouping or reconstruction of reality into new underlying constructs and new paradigms that reveal a model of family life that is contemporary, viable and refreshing. However, the stark consequential tenets of which must be the state providing cohesive available sound parenting skills for those that are struggling and support where necessary like safe child care provision for those who are not. Nevertheless, the academic debate will continue, on the validity of the contemporary parenting models revealing themselves in society. But what is abundantly clear in academic literature, published enquiry report and news media; where some professionals remain practically unskilled as actual parents and ‘textbook’ models are proactively used, where in the formative, ‘cereal packet’ concept of family/parenting, the professional health visitor, social worker etc were mainly middle aged former nurses who as mothers themselves, could draw upon their own learning, balanced with textbook learning to support new parents. Sadly in an era where the ‘back to basics lobby’ cry for formative values to be reinstated, we are still finding professionals, reasoning and supporting a ‘one textbook model fits all’ to some parenting techniques that are significantly failing struggling/dysfunctional parents and children. Notwithstanding this, the lesson s being currently learnt from recent child protection enquires (Clembie Baby P etc), serve as stark examples of how professionals who support parents need to fully understand the workings of our now contemporary parenting and family unit with all their diversity. Only in doing so, will contemporary parenting become a safely embedded model for a modern contemporary British society. REFERENCES ABERCROMBIE’ N, WARDE; , (2000) Contemporary British Society; Polity Press; Cambs. BLOOMFIELD; L. et al. (2005) ‘A qualitative study exploring the experiences and views of mothers, health visitors and family support centre workers on the challenges and difficulties of parenting’, in Health and Social Care in the Community 13(1): 46-55 BRINKENHOFF; D, et-al (1992) Essentials of Sociology Second Edition West St Pauls Minns ELKIND; D (1981) The Hurried Child. Reading Mass Addison-Wesley. ELDKIND; D. (1992) The Post-modern Family, A New Imbalance New York: Knopf. EDWARD; R, GILLIES; V, (2005) ‘Resources in Parenting: Access to Capitals Project Report’; Families Social Capital ESRC Research Group; South Bank University; London. GERGEN; K, J, (1991) The Saturated Family Networker September/October. GILLIES; V, (2005) ‘Meeting parents’ needs? Discourses of ‘support’ and ‘inclusion’ in family policy’,in Critical Social Policy, Vol. 25, No. 1, 70-90 (2005) HOLLINGSWORTH; L, (1999) ‘Promoting Same-Race Adoption for Children of Colour’ in EWALT; P, et-al (1999) Multicultural Issues in Social Work: Practice Research; NASW (pp: 406-422). OHARA; M, ANDERSON; W, (1991) Welcome to the Post-modern World Networker September/October. PATTERSON; J, et al. (2005) ‘Parents’ perceptions of the value of the Webster-Stratton Parenting Programme: a qualitative study of a general practice based initiative’, in Child Care, Health and Development 31(1): 53-64 SCOTT; S, (2005) ‘Do parenting programmes for severe child antisocial behaviour work over the longer term and for whom? One year follow-up of a multi-centre controlled trial’, in J. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 33(4): 403-421 SHORTER; E, (1975) The Making of the Modern Family New York Basic Books UTTING; D, (2007) Parenting and the different ways it can affect children’s lives: research evidence; Joseph Rowntree Foundation; York. URL http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ WELSH; E, et al. (2004) ‘Involved fathering and child well-being: Fathers’ involvement with secondary school age children’, published for the JRF by the National Children’s Bureau as part of the Parenting in Practice series

The Influence of Genre on Five Plays’ Approaches to Social Issues Essay

The Influence of Genre on Five Plays’ Approaches to Social Issues What could a naturalistic â€Å"problem play†, a tragedy, a historical drama, a comedy, and a piece of â€Å"epic alienation theatre† have in common? Works of drama are created to have some kind of â€Å"effect† on an audience, and while the effects each of these plays are markedly different, each play attempts to lead an audience to think or feel a certain way towards a social problem. â€Å"A Doll’s House† by Henrik Ibsen, Oedipus The King by Sophocles, Walsh by Sharon Pollock, Edible Woman by Dave Carley (adapted from the novel by Margaret Atwood), and The Good Woman of Setzuan by Bertolt Brecht are plays which contain characters involved in dramatizing social problems. By examining the relationships between the characters and their dramatic audiences, we gain insights into the genres of the plays. As in many naturalistic plays, the characters in â€Å"A Doll’s House† are â€Å"round† and worthy of analysis. A characteristic of naturalism is that, â€Å"while constrained by a material environment which might be difficult to change, [characters] still [have] the possibility of overcoming their condition† (Bloomsbury 1). Through her actions, the character Christine suggests to the audience that they too can overcome their conditions, by following her example. The particular social problem that Christine illuminates is the problem of acquiring human understanding. Through Christine’s character Ibsen gives evidence to suggest that achieving deeper understandings of the world outside the â€Å"doll’s house† is possible. In confiding to Krogstad, â€Å"I have learnt to act prudently. Life, and hard, bitter necessity have taught me that,† Christine is indicating to the audience that knowledge... ...h approach social problems varies along with their genres. In today’s world, in which social problem are ever so urgent, plays such as these are clearly becoming increasingly relevant. Works Cited Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher. Rpt. The Internet Classics Archive (1994). 19 Nov 2001 . Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre. Ed. and trans. John Willett. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992. Brecht, Bertolt.The Good Woman of Setzuan. Trans. Eric Bentley. MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1947. Ibsen, Henrik. Four Great Plays by Henrik Ibsen. Bantam Classic edition. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1981. Pollock, Sharon. Walsh. Revised edition. Burnaby, BC: Talonbooks, 1998. Simpson, David L. Comedy and Tragedy (1998). 18 Nov 2001 .

Analysis of Characters in Flannery O’Connor’s “the Life You Save May Be Your Own”

Laura Furdge Dr. McDaniels ENG 495 February 5, 2013 Analysis of Characters in Flannery O'Connor's â€Å"The Life You Save May Be Your Own† â€Å"The Life You Save May Be Your Own† is a short story written by the American author Flannery O'Connor. It is one of ten stories in her short story collection called A Good Man Is Hard to Find. In this Southern Gothic tale, we are introduced to a mother and her daughter as they sit on a porch in an impoverished country town. A man, Mr. Shiftlet, crosses their path and after a bit of conversation is offered a place to sleep and food to eat in exchange for fixing things around the house. He eventually is offered the daughter's hand in marriage, and accepts with the reward of getting a car. The two marry and the mother provides money for them to go on a weekend honeymoon. But, in an unexpected turn of events, at least 100 miles away from her home, Mr. Shiftlet leaves the girl sleeping and stranded at the counter of a breakfast restaurant. Feeling very guilty, he searches for a hitchhiker to pick up in an effort to right his wrong and finds a little boy that had just run away from home. Mr Shiftlet convinces the child to go back home to his mother and the story ends with him driving to Mobile. Flannery O'Connor does more than tell a humorous Gothic story with this piece of work; she uses the lives of Lucynell, Lucynell Jr, and Mr Shiftlet to illustrate the human condition and how we often put our morals to the side for our own selfish gain. Lucynell Crater is the retarded daughter of Mrs. Crater. She has a childlike mind and is unable to speak. She is a simple spirit and lacks comprehension of her surroundings. She ha[s] long pink-gold hair and eyes as blue as a peacock's neck†(O'Connor). She was almost thirty but could pass for 15 or 16 because of her innocence. She is almost entirely silent the whole story, yet she plays a major role in the events that take place throughout the story. Lucynell was a key player in this story because she was Mrs. Crater's only opportunity to get a son-in-law, and Mr. Shiftlets best opportunity to get a car. The story revolves around Mrs. Crater's attempts to get Mr. Shiftlet to want to marry Lucynell. She lies about Lucynell's age, brags on how she is able to do housework, and even makes sure that he knows she is innocent. All the while, Lucynell is totally oblivious to the things that are taking place around her. Lucynell is used as a symbol in this story; she is a representation of the rejected salvation for Mr. Shiftlet. Mr. Shiftlet (Shiftlet suggesting that he is a sketchy character or that he will eventually change) is immediately recognized as a â€Å"tramp† by Mrs. Crater as he walks up the road. His conversation leads the reader to believe that he is nothing but a con-man. O'Connor makes it apparent in Mr. Shiftlets speech that he knows exactly what to say in order to get what he wants. From the time he approached their porch, he was eying their car. He spoke as if he wanted to hang around because he wanted to be able to share their view of the sunset every morning, but it is apparent that he wants the car for himself in order to be free. Tom Shiftlet's inability to be truthful and honest about his intent creates a situation for him that could have been avoided. He hangs around the house, fixing things and even teaching Lucynell to speak. Because he is â€Å"a poor disabled friendless drifting man†(O'Connor) according to Mrs. Crater, and therefore there is no place in the world for such a man as he, it was assumed that he would marry her daughter, fulfilling her desperation for a son-in-law, and live out the rest of his life with the Craters. Because he went along with the assumption, he is in essence, forced to marry Lucynell and this leads to him abandoning her at the diner because he really did not want what he agreed to. Mrs. Lucynell Crater (the name Crater suggesting an empty space or hole, indicating that she is in want/need of something) is a toothless old widow. Her husband died 15 years ago, leaving her to take care of Lucynell and the farm by herself for the rest of her life. It makes sense that she would be so welcoming and trusting of a complete stranger. â€Å"O'Connor connects the Craters' lack of a man in the household to immobility and deterioration and Shiftlet presents a solution to both problems†(Arant). Though handicapped by the lack of one arm, Mrs. Crater believes Mr Shiftlet will be a great help around the house and decides to provide food and a place to sleep for him in exchange for his services. As the story progresses, Mrs. Crater's desperation for a son-in-law begins to show more clearly in her conversations with Mr. Shiftlet. She begins to use Lucynell as a bargaining tool as she offers him the car in exchange for marrying her daughter. She loses sight of the fact that Lucynell is not competent enough to enter into a marriage because her focus is gaining a son-in-law that could take care of the farm. This is a very immoral decision because her duty as a mother is first and most importantly to take care of and protect her child. Her decision to marry Lucynell off also speaks to the fact that she either does not understand the sacred nature of marriage or does not care at all about it. As stated earlier, Mrs. Crater is well aware of Mr. Shiftlets desire to obtain the vehicle that had been sitting up for years so she uses it to negotiate a marriage between him and Lucynell. Mr. Shiftlet and Mrs Crater agree that he would marry her and take her out on a weekend honeymoon. O'Connor makes it apparent that innocent Lucynell does not know what has taken place because she falls asleep on what ought to be the happiest day of her life. Lucynell was the saving grace for both Mr. Shiftlet and Mrs. Crater, but instead, just as the world rejects Christ's salvation, she was rejected and these two characters are damned to a life of loneliness and guilt. Lucynell was Mrs. Craters life before Mr. Shiftlet came along, and the fact that she was crying at the thought of Lucynell being gone for only two days proves that she is definitely going to suffer more if she never returns. As far as Mr. Shiftlet is concerned, Mrs. Crater trusted him with Lucynell, telling him â€Å"I wouldn't let no man have her but you because I seen you would do right. †(O'Connor) and he betrayed her trust. He abandoned his salvation, â€Å"he is on the run from grace; he longed for a car so that he could run faster and farther†(Rogers). He realizes that his actions were terrible and even after trying to redeem himself by picking up a hitchhiker he cries out to the Lord, â€Å"Break forth and wash the slime from this earth! † and the story ends with him attempting to outrun the approaching storm. A closer look at the characters in this story gives an accurate example of the human condition. The characters in most Southern Gothic stories are often decrepit, unsavory, poor and/or mentally ill. The authors use the extremities of the people in their stories to expose our internal mental condition as human beings. The purpose in doing so is to cause the reader to take a moment and examine their own lives. It makes one stop and think about how they may have acted in the situations presented in the stories and it gives them insight as to what could result from it. On the surface, the automobile and wedding in â€Å"The Life You Save May Be Your Own† seem to hold little to no importance. But from the beginning, it is clear that Mrs. Crater only wanted to keep Mr. Shiftlet around for the potential services that he could provide. He could have been her live-in carpenter as well as a husband for her daughter. At this point her daughter becomes an object instead of a human being. Even though Mr. Shiftlet pretends to be unconcerned with the money, he winds up asking about the car and even wants money for the wedding. Eventually, just like Mrs. Crater, he abandons Lucynell for the belief that a car would fulfill his needs. Through the approach of Mr. Shiftlet and Mrs. Crater in relation to their desire to gain the things they thought they needed in order to be happy, Flannery O'Connor reveals a world in which money or material things have become more important than people or even spiritual peace. Works CitedArant, Alison. â€Å"A Moral Intelligence†: Mental Disability and Eugenic Resistance in Welty's â€Å"Lily Daw and the Three Ladies† and O'Connor's â€Å"The Life You Save May Be Your Own. Southern Literary Journal 44. 2 (2012): 69-87. Academic Search Premier. Web 5 Feb 2013 Baym, Nina, Mary Loffelholz.â€Å"Flannery O'Connor's ‘The Life You Save May Be Your Own. † The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Vol. D. New York W. W. Norton ; Co. 2007. 2522-2529. Print.Rogers, Jonathan. â€Å"Flannery O'Connor Summer Reading Club, Week 2: ‘The Life You Save May Be Your Own'†. Jonathan-Rogers. com. 11 June 2012. WordPress. Web. 4 Feb 2013. .

Quotes Showing Why Anakin Skywalker Turned Evil

If you are a Star Wars fan, you have probably read up everything about Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. Darth Vader is one of the most popular sci-fi villains. The transformation of pristinely good and golden Anakin Skywalker into the dark and dangerous Darth Vader is interesting. So what makes Anakin Skywalker, the most powerful Jedi, turn evil? Who Is Anakin Skywalker? Anakin Skywalker, the hero, once worshiped by the Jedi Order becomes a victim of his circumstance. His love for his wife Padme Amidala becomes his undoing. He turns to the dark side when he realizes that it was the only way he can save his beloved wife from dying. After a vicious battle with the Jedi led by his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin is left badly injured. He is saved by Palpatine, his Jedi mentor who is secretly a Sith Lord. Of course, Palpatines motives are to use Anakin against the Jedi Order, as he wants to manipulate Anakin Skywalkers strengths and weaknesses. The Rise of Darth Vader Lord Palpatine turns Anakin Skywalker into the dark and deadly Darth Vader for his selfish pursuits. Darth Vader rises like a phoenix with his mind filled with hatred for the Jedi. He becomes the oppressor and tyrant that fills the Jedi with trepidation. Darth Vader, the ruthless slayer of Jedi younglings, is a victim of political vendetta. He is an agent of evil with a heart of goodness. What Can You Learn From Anakin Skywalkers Character? Anakin Skywalkers complex personality makes him one of the most popular characters in sci-fi movies. The two faces of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader remind us that it is good and evil in every one of us. It is your choice to be what you want to be. You can blame your circumstances for your misdeeds. Or you can accept reality, and work hard to be good despite the negative energy around you. The choice is yours. Here is some soul-stirring Anakin Skywalker quotes that will put you in a reflective mood. For those who love Darth Vader, read some quotes from the evil Sith Lord himself. Anakin Skywalker Prequel Quotes Episode II - Attack of the ClonesYoure asking me to be rational. That is something I know I cannot do. Believe me, I wish I could just wish away my feelings, but I cant. Episode I - The Phantom MenaceMom, you said that the biggest problem in the universe is no one helps each other. Episode II - Attack of the ClonesAttachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion—which I would define as†¦unconditional love—is essential to a Jedis life. So, you might say that we are encouraged to love. Episode II - Attack of the ClonesWe will find out whos trying to kill you, Padmà ©. I promise you. Episode II - Attack of the ClonesSomeday I will be the most powerful Jedi ever. Episode II - Attack of the ClonesI killed them. I killed them all. Theyre dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. Theyre like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I HATE THEM! Episode II - Attack of the ClonesIts all Obi-Wans fault. Hes jealous. Hes holding me back. Episode II - Attack of the Clones[Anakin uses his Force levitation to slice a fruit for Padme] If Obi-Wan caught me doing that, he would be very grumpy. Episode III - Revenge of the SithIm going there to end this war. Wait for me until I return. Things will be different, I promise. Please wait for me. Episode II - Attack of the Clones[Anakin Skywalker, after Obi-Wan Kenobi cuts off Zam Wesells arm] Jedi business, go back to your drinks!