A Compilation of Essays on People and Their Personalities

THOSE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR * AG Gardiner Points to Ponder NOTE: Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination We seldom know our neighbors. London city has its inhabitants and people are busy with their domestic chores. Thus people often cohabit as virtual strangers showing the least interest in knowing their neighbors. This trait as mentioned by A. G. Gardiner is being increasingly noticeable in modern towns and cities in all parts of the world.The ignorance to know people who live next door is a trait which is increasingly shared by city dwellers. The only sound is the noise generated by the fire irons and the piano which indicates that the other human being is occupying the premises. (Picture of people living in London in the 20th Century) The aloofness in relationship in city dwellers is not to be construed as pride or incivility. It is the peculiar London way of living. Each person guards his or her personal space and does not show any curiosity in knowing the other.Men have been described as lonely as oysters each living in their own shell. The life in villages are however different. People in the rural areas are inquisitive to know about their neighbors’ whereabouts and well being. Villagers do not exist as individuals but as a collective social unit. The case of people reveling (it means taking pleasure in something) has been described in great detail. The incident described is of people enjoying themselves by having a party. There are the inmates of the house we also have the guests and the merry making continues till late hours of the morning.According to Matida she had seen the revelers leave the house in a car at 4o’clock in the morning. Probably the din and bustle created by the neighbors’ was not seen in good light. The question raised is can we have fun and frolic at the cost of disturbing our neighborsâ⠂¬â„¢ peace? Is it something appropriate and sanctioned by the law or social conventions? The essayist A. G. Gardiner also brings out the differences between man and man. Each individual is different and very often we take the judgmental route in trying to ascribe reasons for human behavior.Why do our neighbors sleep so late or wake so early, There is inquisitiveness about dress and way of living. How can our neighbors’ enjoy more of holidays? Why do our neighbors not dress well or dress so shabbily? The habits of people the friends they associate with, the pets they keep often give credence to our worst fears about our neighbors. However, in most cases our fears do not have any founding are they are merely a figment of our imagination. People also have a tendency to believe the worst about their neighbors.There are misleading statements and rumor in the air giving inappropriate portrayal of our neighbors’ activities. However, when we happen to meet our neighborsâ€⠄¢ personally we find them to be different. There is nothing sinister (it means threatening) about them and our neighbors’ are human just like us. It is the game of judgment and misjudgment which lends the unfavorable opinion giving rise to prejudices and biases. However, the St John’s Wood case provides a different perspective. On the one hand there were two musicians living in a house imparting lessons to pupils on the piano.The venture of course was stared to earn a livelihood. The musical notes were construed as creation of noise and disturbance of peace by the neighbor. In retaliation the neighbor banged on tin cans to make things unpleasant for the musicians. In the first case it was effort made to earn an honest living and the musicians did not have the intention of being offensive. This leads to the need of being more sensitive to our neighbor’s needs. We have to learn to respect our neighbor’s sentiments According to the essayist a perfect neighb or is one whom we never hear except when he pokes the fire.HOW TO ESCAPE FROM INTELLECTUAL RUBBISH : Bertrand Russell NOTE: Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination According to Bertrand Russell if it is important to deduce matters; we must abide by the tenets of observation. The observation of matters and things must be undertaken by us and us alone. We must not believe others blindly. All evidence needs to be tested for its credibility and validity.Thinking that a person knows things whereas in reality to remain ignorant of men and matters comes in the way of our deduction and findings. Russell has given us the example of Aristotle in a jocular manner stating that the best way for him to account for human teeth is to count them. Similarly if one is interested in knowing about the life of ‘hedgehogs’, then the appropriate course of action w ould be to find our more details about the animal by way of personal observation which can lead to appropriate deductions. There are however issues on which we have our passionate convictions..In many such cases we remain oblivious of our personal bias. Thus we become angry or frustrated when we have to face an opinion contrary to our beliefs (Say for example if we meet an atheist and the opinion given by the atheist makes us angry) The writer has quoted if someone believes that two and two are five, or Iceland is on the equator we tend to feel more of pity than anger. Persecution is used in theology (it means cruel treatment that is meted out to someone because of their race, religion or political beliefs) that is because religion is based more on opinion rather than evidence.Take the example of arithmetic and theology in arithmetic you have to have the knowledge to do things the right way in order to get the right answers. The study of mathematics is thus more logical where answer s are deduced scientifically. Religion or theology is based more on opinions of what the prophet or sages have said and are not based on credible evidence. We the people living in different lands tend to suffer form national prejudice. By national prejudice we mean that we are given to believe that our nation is the best, there cannot be any better culture, religion, social structure, way of life and the like.However, when we travel and travel extensively and meet people of foreign lands we find things to be different. The appropriate way to know about others opinion is to read a different newspaper that advocates a different ideology (beliefs or ideas). You might think that the newspaper is mad and the people believing the ideas are mad. But then again the people believing in the doctrine and the philosophy advocated in the newspaper must be also considering you to be mad, for you to be holding a different point of view and a different set of opinion.Thus there are always the two s ides of the coin. The writer has also cautioned us that becoming aware of foreign customs does not always have a beneficial effect. Read the example of China (Page 54, 2nd paragraph) where the writer says the custom amongst Chinese women was to have small feet and among the Manchus for the men was to wear pigtails. There was the adoption of custom by the conquered and the victorious which in a way shows the trait associated with intermingling of culture. The writer speaks of having an argument with a person having a different bias.Probably having such a debate will help us to know the others perception and point of view more lucidly. Mahatma Gandhi for example believed that deplored railways and steamboats and machinery and all the benefits associated with the industrial revolution. This opinion will sound as contrary to development and especially to the western ears who take the advantage of western technology for granted. In such a case it is always good to test the arguments of t he opponent party before refuting it. This helps in understanding the others point of view most admirably.The writer says that if a person has an imaginary dialogue with himself justifying both sides of the arguments trying to debate the pros and cons of the situation then he would develop a better understanding of the situation. There are no rights and wrong r answers, the arguments are more based on opinions and not verified by facts and figures. For example there can be one argument that capital punishment is a crime and should be abolished and yet another set of argument that the evil doers of the heinous crime should be hanged.Both sides of arguments has a reason and it is indeed mentally challenging and invigorating to debate the pros and cons of the situation However, we must be wary of opinions, of opinions that flatter our self esteem. For example opinions like there is no question that men are superior, or one’s nation is superior, or our values are the best or our culture has no parallels such arguments are baseless and are filled with demerits on a large scale. The rational person will be able to apply reason as to the code of conduct and justifications to such abominable code of behavior.Apart form the false sense of esteem that is floated by people and nations there is the element of fear that holds us down. Fear often originates from inventing or assuming rumors of disaster during war times or our fear of ghosts which have no practical founding. These fears pulls us down, and makes us think of things comforting like the heaven for ourselves and hell for our enemies. These thoughts are the figment of our imagination the fears can take various forms and may include fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown and such specific terrors.The way out for it would be to guard ourselves against fears by sheer effort of will power. This act will help us to think more logically and rationally. Fear happens to be the main source of superstit ion and a source of cruelty. To conquer fear marks the beginning of wisdom and helps us to champion the cause of truth and make our life more meaningful and a worthier one. How to overcome fear One way is to persuade ourselves that we are immune (protected) from disaster. The other way is by way of practicing courage. The later one is more difficult as it becomes impossible after a certain point. The former is the one which is more popular.Primitive magic served the purpose of securing safety either by injuring enemies, or by protecting oneself by talismans, spells and incantations. Such believes have survived over the ages and many people believe in mascots and sorcery which later was condemned by the church. Magic however has a simple way of avoiding terror and witches were burnt for centuries. However, newer beliefs did set in and there is the concept of Gods and heroes surrounded by good spirits Plato belief that the next world being governed by the state not because they were t rue but to make soldiers more willing to die in battle makes interesting reading.It is thus important for people to learn to be more rational and scientific in their outlook and believe in the power of observation. People are to avoid being dogmatic (it means rigid) and learn to appreciate others opinion. Then the source of opinion is to be found through logical reasoning and its authenticity is to be ascribed. ON MARRIAGE Ernest Baker NOTE: Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination Summary The family has been portrayed as being a single society.There were eminent people like Aristotle who viewed the family as a federal society. The family has been divided into three distinct groups. The first group comprises the husband and the wife the second group has in its ambit parents and children and the third group consists of the master of the house and his serv ants. Thus three different societies have been earmarked by the older writers. These writers did not recognize the family as a single society. Leibniz was wiser he believed the family system contained four societies and that is the family itself inclusive of the other three groups.The nuptial society or the consortium (a group of people who work in cooperation with each other) that is the husband and the wife exists in its pure and isolated stage only during the period of honeymoon. The period is compared with Adam and Eve’s life in the garden where the individuals have a blessed time. However, the times changes and priorities change with the birth of the child. This is compared with the loss of Eden. The man has just the memory of the honeymoon period and the woman gets busy in caring for the child. Marriage however enforces strict codes of discipline, demands and its own system of education.Marriage requires adjustment of personalities (that is the husband and the wife) who have diametrically opposite personalities. A common way of life is chalked out. Marriage thus is full of delight and difficulty, disagreement and reconciliation, differences and comprises. It becomes more like a way of give and take adjustment and adoptability being called into play. The author sarcastically says that marriage is the only kind of democracy where you find debate and compromise being increasingly used to settle differences. The institution of marriage is funny indeed.There are distinct differences in preferences and life styles of both men and women. Men for instance like warm room, with windows happily and firmly shut, a good fire and a pipe of tobacco. Women love the singing air, the open window and the sight of driving clouds. Man loves to think that he is dying when he is ill women do not entertain such thoughts and are more practical. Man is always on the look out for novelty and always wishes to hear or see something new. Women face the daily chores steadily. T he writer says that women do smile at men and find them to be annoying, exciting and annoying like obstinate playboys of the human world.It is again the women who bring in stability and good sense in the lives of men. Thus we find great differences in the thinking pattern of men and women. The writer says that men and women are yoked together in marriages for better or for worse. They however have respect for one another’s differences. The man and the woman remain different in their thoughts, action and deeds. The differences persist for ever. Marriages only seem perfect only when there is identity of interests or pursuits. However, there is sympathy and sharing in plenty. Marriages succeed when partners listen to each other and report events truthfully.Common interests do bring the partners together. Communication in marriages increases when things are done together. A wife who loves music tries to influence her husband into liking music and to attending concerts and musical shows. The writer says that novelty must be discovered by pursuing common interests like travelling. These acts appear to be substitutes for comradeship, and cooperation. Marriages thus at times become less passionate and remain more like an institution. Like the monk, the couple gains more form observation and experience.The writer says that rules for marriage like it persists in monastery would create more of happy marriages. Romance keeps the marriages alive. If we ascribe divine influence in marriages then we would not just accept marriages to be a ‘human contract’. Agreement of the husband and wife is essential to the existence of marriage. The institution of marriage is however created by the divine scheme wherein we say that all marriages are made in heaven. MENDING WALL (Summary) A stone wall separates the speaker’s property from his neighbor’s. In spring, the two meet to walk the wall and jointly make repairs.The speaker sees no reason for the wa ll to be kept—there are no cows to be contained, just apple and pine trees. He does not believe in walls for the sake of walls. The neighbor resorts to an old adage: â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. † The speaker remains unconvinced and mischievously presses the neighbor to look beyond the old-fashioned folly of such reasoning. His neighbor will not be swayed. The speaker envisions his neighbor as a holdover from a justifiably outmoded era, a living example of a dark-age mentality. But the neighbor simply repeats the adage.The image at the heart of â€Å"Mending Wall† is arresting: two men meeting on terms of civility and neighborliness to build a barrier between them. They do so out of tradition, out of habit. Yet the very earth conspires against them and makes their task Sisyphean. Sisyphus, you may recall, is the figure in Greek mythology condemned perpetually to push a boulder up a hill, only to have the boulder roll down again. These men push boulders back on top of the wall; yet just as inevitably, whether at the hand of hunters or sprites, or the frost and thaw of nature’s invisible hand, the boulders tumble down again.Still, the neighbors persist. The poem, thus, seems to meditate conventionally on three grand themes: barrier-building (segregation, in the broadest sense of the word), the doomed nature of this enterprise, and our persistence in this activity regardless. But, as we so often see when we look closely at Frost’s best poems, what begins in folksy straightforwardness ends in complex ambiguity. The speaker would have us believe that there are two types of people: those who stubbornly insist on building superfluous walls (with cliches as their justification) and those who would dispense with this practice—wall-builders and wall-breakers.But are these impulses so easily separable? And what does the poem really say about the necessity of boundaries? The speaker may scorn his neighbor’s obstin ate wall-building, may observe the activity with humorous detachment, but he himself goes to the wall at all times of the year to mend the damage done by hunters; it is the speaker who contacts the neighbor at wall-mending time to set the annual appointment. Which person, then, is the real wall-builder? The speaker says he sees no need for a wall here, but this implies that there may be a need for a wall elsewhere— â€Å"where there are cows,† for example.Yet the speaker must derive something, some use, some satisfaction, out of the exercise of wall-building, or why would he initiate it here? There is something in him that does love a wall, or at least the act of making a wall. This wall-building act seems ancient, for it is described in ritual terms. It involves â€Å"spells† to counteract the â€Å"elves,†and the neighbor appears a Stone-Age savage while he hoists and transports a boulder. Well, wall-building is ancient and enduring—the building of the first walls, both literal and figurative, marked the very foundation of society.Unless you are an absolute anarchist and do not mind livestock munching your lettuce, you probably recognize the need for literal boundaries. Figuratively, rules and laws are walls; justice is the process of wall-mending. The ritual of wall maintenance highlights the dual and complementary nature of human society: The rights of the individual (property boundaries, proper boundaries) are affirmed through the affirmation of other individuals’ rights. And it demonstrates another benefit of community; for this communal act, this civic â€Å"game,† offers a good excuse for the speaker to interact with his neighbor.Wall-building is social, both in the sense of â€Å"societal† and â€Å"sociable. † What seems an act of anti-social self-confinement can, thus, ironically, be interpreted as a great social gesture. Perhaps the speaker does believe that good fences make good neighb ors— for again, it is he who initiates the wall-mending. Of course, a little bit of mutual trust, communication, and goodwill would seem to achieve the same purpose between well-disposed neighbors—at least where there are no cows. And the poem says it twice: â€Å"something there is that does not love a wall. There is some intent and value in wall-breaking, and there is some powerful tendency toward this destruction. Can it be simply that wall-breaking creates the conditions that facilitate wall-building? Are the groundswells a call to community- building—nature’s nudge toward concerted action? Or are they benevolent forces urging the demolition of traditional, small-minded boundaries? The poem does not resolve this question, and the narrator, who speaks for the groundswells but acts as a fence-builder, remains a contradiction.Many of Frost’s poems can be reasonably interpreted as commenting on the creative process; â€Å"Mending Wall† is n o exception. On the basic level, we can find here a discussion of the construction-disruption duality of creativity. Creation is a positive act—a mending or a building. Even the most destructive-seeming creativity results in a change, the building of some new state of being: If you tear down an edifice, you create a new view for the folks living in the house across the way. Yet creation is also disruptive: If nothing else, it disrupts the status quo.Stated another way, disruption is creative: It is the impetus that leads directly, mysteriously (as with the groundswells), to creation. Does the stone wall embody this duality? In any case, there is something about â€Å"walking the line†Ã¢â‚¬â€and building it, mending it, balancing each stone with equal parts skill and spell—that evokes the mysterious and laborious act of making poetry. On a level more specific to the author, the question of boundaries and their worth is directly applicable to Frost’s poetr y.Barriers confine, but for some people they also encourage freedom and productivity by offering challenging frameworks within which to work. On principle, Frost did not write free verse. His creative process involved engaging poetic form (the rules, tradition, and boundaries—the walls—of the poetic world) and making it distinctly his own. By maintaining the tradition of formal poetry in unique ways, he was simultaneously a mender and breaker of walls Every year, two neighbors meet to repair the stone wall that divides their property.The narrator is skeptical of this tradition, unable to understand the need for a wall when there is no livestock to be contained on the property, only apples and pine trees. He does not believe that a wall should exist simply for the sake of existing. Moreover, he cannot help but notice that the natural world seems to dislike the wall as much as he does: mysterious gaps appear, boulders fall for no reason. The neighbor, on the other hand, asserts that the wall is crucial to maintaining their relationship, asserting, â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. Over the course of the mending, the narrator attempts to convince his neighbor otherwise and accuses him of being old-fashioned for maintaining the tradition so strictly. No matter what the narrator says, though, the neighbor stands his ground, repeating only: â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. † Analysis This poem is the first work in Frost's second book of poetry, â€Å"North of Boston,† which was published upon his return from England in 1915. While living in England with his family, Frost was exceptionally homesick for the farm in New Hampshire where he had lived with his wife from 1900 to 1909.Despite the eventual failure of the farm, Frost associated his time in New Hampshire with a peaceful, rural sensibility that he instilled in the majority of his subsequent poems. â€Å"Mending Wall† is autobiographical on an even more specific lev el: a French-Canadian named Napoleon Guay had been Frost’s neighbor in New Hampshire, and the two had often walked along their property line and repaired the wall that separated their land. Ironically, the most famous line of the poem (â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors†) was not invented by Frost himself, but was rather a phrase that Guay frequently declared to Frost during their walks.This particular adage was a popular colonial proverb in the middle of the 17th century, but variations of it also appeared in Norway (â€Å"There must be a fence between good neighbors†), Germany (â€Å"Between neighbor’s gardens a fence is good†), Japan (â€Å"Build a fence even between intimate friends†), and even India (â€Å"Love your neighbor, but do not throw down the dividing wall†). In terms of form, â€Å"Mending Wall† is not structured with stanzas; it is a simple forty-five lines of first-person narrative.Frost does maintain iambic stresses, but he is flexible with the form in order to maintain the conversational feel of the poem. He also shies away from any obvious rhyme patterns and instead relies upon the occasional internal rhyme and the use of assonance in certain ending terms (such as â€Å"wall,† â€Å"hill,† â€Å"balls,† â€Å"well†). In the poem itself, Frost creates two distinct characters who have different ideas about what exactly makes a person a good neighbor. The narrator deplores his neighbor’s preoccupation with repairing the wall; he views it as old-fashioned and even archaic.After all, he quips, his apples are not going to invade the property of his neighbor’s pinecones. Moreover, within a land of such of such freedom and discovery, the narrator asks, are such borders necessary to maintain relationships between people? Despite the narrator’s skeptical view of the wall, the neighbor maintains his seemingly â€Å"old-fashioned† mentalit y, responding to each of the narrator’s disgruntled questions and rationalizations with nothing more than the adage: â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. As the narrator points out, the very act of mending the wall seems to be in opposition to nature. Every year, stones are dislodged and gaps suddenly appear, all without explanation. Every year, the two neighbors fill the gaps and replace the fallen boulders, only to have parts of the wall fall over again in the coming months. It seems as if nature is attempting to destroy the barriers that man has created on the land, even as man continues to repair the barriers, simply out of habit and tradition.Ironically, while the narrator seems to begrudge the annual repairing of the wall, Frost subtley points out that the narrator is actually more active than the neighbor. It is the narrator who selects the day for mending and informs his neighbor across the property. Moreover, the narrator himself walks along the wall at other poin ts during the year in order to repair the damage that has been done by local hunters. Despite his skeptical attitude, it seems that the narrator is even more tied to the tradition of wall-mending than his neighbor.Perhaps his skeptical questions and quips can then be read as an attempt to justify his own behavior to himself. While he chooses to present himself as a modern man, far beyond old-fashioned traditions, the narrator is really no different from his neighbor: he too clings to the concept of property and division, of ownership and individuality. Ultimately, the presence of the wall between the properties does ensure a quality relationship between the two neighbors.By maintaining the division between the properties, the narrator and his neighbor are able to maintain their individuality and personal identity as farmers: one of apple trees, and one of pine trees. Moreover, the annual act of mending the wall also provides an opportunity for the two men to interact and communicate with each other, an event that might not otherwise occur in an isolated rural environment. The act of meeting to repair the wall allows the two men to develop their relationship and the overall community far more than if each maintained their isolation on separate properties.

Compare the Ways in which John Steinbeck and Thomas Hardy Explore the Theme of Loneliness Essay

The two books have one clear element in common. The two authors, Steinbeck and Hardy, give us a great outlook on loneliness in its many forms. They communicate their ideas and thoughts to us in a very similar manner, despite being from very different times and walks of life. Of Mice and Men, is set and was written during the Great Depression of the United States of America in the early 1930’s, in the Salinas Valley of California, tells us the story of George Milton and Lennie Small. The two migrant workers, bound together by an unusual and sure friendship, are in pursuit together of the â€Å"Great† American Dream – their dream. They will have their own land, be their own masters and no longer have to answer to anyone, and finally live in peace. On the other hand we have The Withered Arm, set in the early 19th Century as one of Hardy’s Wessex Tales, where he lived all his life. Hardy tells us the tale of a young woman, Gertrude Lodge, as she begins her new life. However, things are not what they should have been as Gertrude is afflicted with an unknown blight, her happiness both threatened and later destroyed. She is not completely alone – her plight is intertwined with that of Rhoda Brook, who carries a great pain in her heart and a great power, or perhaps a curse, that not even she realises. The two texts are each set in the same rural environment as that of their authors, both bringing us the tale of so many people struggling through their lives as best they can. In Of Mice and Men we see that every man, and woman, has their own dreams, their own obsessions to pine away for, to imagine and envisage when they are so often so lonely – each has their own thoughts, their method, of escapism from the reality they live in. The Withered Arm, again, in a different manner shows characters angry, obsessed, with lives they could have had and the possibilities that they have lost or had taken away from them. Each are victims of circumstance, each yearn for lives that are no longer theirs, each for a chance now gone. In each difficulty we can see a parallel, and in both books we can see characters sharing the same basic challenges to overcome, and obstacles in their path. Both show us some of the many facets and characteristics of loneliness and trouble in this world – no matter how little they look for difficulty and dilemmas, people will always manage to find them, no matter how hard they strive against it. â€Å"The best laid schemes o’ mice and men Gang aft agley [Often go wrong] And leave us nought but pain For promised joy† Robert Burns As Of Mice and Men begins, we are shown the two migrant farm workers, George and Lennie, on their way to a new job, a new start, â€Å"bucking† barley at a Californian ranch; fleeing much undue upset in their last town, mostly thanks, despite his original intentions, to Lennie. It is late evening and they both spend the night by the Salinas River before continuing on to their new place of work the next morning. It is here that we first discover some of the main personality differences, and conflicts, between the two characters, and learn of their aspirations and their future. We immediately see much of their natures and that of their friendship as Lennie â€Å"flung himself down and drank from the surface of the green pool†¦snorting into the water like a horse.† Lennie dives headlong, dunking his head into the murky waters of the Salinas like an animal, all for a drink of water; George restrains him, attempting to keep him in line and to keep him safe. George and Lennie have struggled their way through life together, as an inseparable pair, not like all the other hopefuls out there, â€Å"Because I got you an’ you got me† – together they might just get somewhere. The way this particular phrase is repeated so much tells us a lot about their friendship and how they both so desperately need it to survive. â€Å"The first man was small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp, strong features†¦every part of him was defined.† We see George as the sharp and able leader who gives Lennie his direction, blunt and bitter when it comes to his frustrations. All too often feeling taunted by the world, his life, and the problems they each throw at him – no matter how hard he tries and how much he accounts for it. Despite his quick temper and scathing reprisals, he holds a great care and affection for his travel-partner and the companionship he brings him – much more than is at first apparent. George feels responsible for Lennie, he has been Lennie’s guardian ever since the passing-away of his Aunt Clara, and no matter how hard he tries he always, and always will, feel that Lennie’s troubles, Lennie’s mistakes and faults are his own and that which he must resolve and reconcile – however much they may cause him yet more problems of his own. George feels a great loneliness inside, believing in his heart himself to be as worthless as every other like him, and as a result of this he gains his purpose – to become somebody, and he knows that is something he and Lennie must do and can only do together. Without Lennie he would be nothing, no more than every other man like him – alone and without hope. â€Å"Behind him walked his opposite, a huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, with wide, sloping shoulders†¦he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws†¦his arms did not swing but hung loosely at his sides.† Lennie, we can already see if very different to George, a slow simpleton, likened to an animal on two counts now, expressing his simple personality and impulsive nature. It is thanks to the pair’s great bond and need that we see Lennie as such a vital character in the book, for George is not the only man to whom Lennie brings a purpose, it is around him that so much of the story unfolds and revolves about. Despite the simplicity in his manner and unsure path throughout the story, Lennie brings certainty to all those around him. They are drawn to the raw and basic companionship that his presence brings – he is both consort and confidant for all their thoughts and feelings. He neither understands nor takes in much of what they say but, rather than wasting their breath, it seems even more a boon unto them. Lennie is like a wandering sheep and it is George that gives him his direction and his purpose, and as he takes his lead from George, Lennie in turn gains his own shape and dream. Lennie’s simple, cumbersome shape walks always in George’s shadow, always behind him wherever he may go, no matter what. For Lennie life is as simple as he is – it is that which seems to create so many problems for them both, in turn presenting the answers to so many others, and it is this which gives Lennie such a lasting effect on all those around him. The two are together in the pursuit of their own dreams, each finding both a purpose and the means in the other. George dreams of his own land, his own life, and it is much the same for Lennie, on his own basic level. Lennie wishes to care for his own creatures, his rabbits. He loves to hear every word of them that he can get, and George loves to tell them to him – so obsessed and incensed are they with merely the thought of what lies ahead for them with the success of their great plan. This form of â€Å"dreaming† and hoping that many of the characters of this story holds shows how everyone of them wishes to escape from the present world that they live in, where society demands everything of them when they have nothing to hold as their own, and nothing to give. Together these two continue their journey, their unique bond always apparent as they cross upon the lives of many others, all showing the properties of loneliness and all for different reasons, giving us an outlook on how so many in this world are alone and isolated, and how what George and Lennie have is so valuable. â€Å"Ain’t many guys travel together†¦maybe everyone in the whole damn world is scared of each other.† The pressure of the â€Å"American Dream† and the demands of that society’s doctrines and social structure to achieve are imposed upon everyone and anyone and this is why it becomes such a great feature and driving force behind so much of the loneliness of this book. Every common man goes to America to succeed and achieve something, but society inflicts quite the opposite upon them – projecting, forcing upon them, an image of how people should think and most certainly be resulting in loneliness and isolation, a dissatisfaction of themselves and those around them and the ongoing fear of amounting to absolutely nothing. It is ironic that this very society which sets out to have everyone achieve and succeed does quite the opposite, causing so many problems along the way. The nature of the â€Å"American Dream† that so many in this story hold in their minds is that very thing which isolates every one of them from each other, and dooms them to failure. Upon arriving at the ranch, they are met by an old man named Candy and his now old and scrawny dog. It is Candy who explains to them the ways of the ranch, first showing them around and then, as the story progresses, introducing the personalities of the other ranch hands to them. We learn much about Candy himself and who he is, seeing in the second chapter Candy caught listening in on George and Lennie’s words together, as George attempts to keep Lennie in check and keep him safe. Candy was listening simply to feel as a part of their conversation, to feel involved in something, for Candy craves conversation in any form, so alone does he feel. It can be seen that now for so much of his life Candy has been separated from the other men, isolated from all others. Since Candy lost his hand in an accident upon the farm he has been unable to work with the others, condemned to the menial tasks and solitary life during the day, and now thanks to his advancing years he is even more isolated. His only companion throughout all this time has been his pet dog, a source of consternation for the other men as it nears the end of its days, its presence being an eyesore to them all and odour a cause of much dismay. The animal had been his companion since its birth, and now old and suffering from rheumatism, the men convince Candy to allow them to put it out of its misery for him. As Candy grudgingly agrees, against a great sadness, he loses his oldest and closest friend, and again he feels truly alone. Having no one, he attaches himself to Lennie and George and to the dream they both share and makes himself a part of it, willing to offer all he has, his life’s work and savings, for it to be so. However, as that dream is again jeopardised, perhaps fatally, he still wishes to carry on and fulfil the dream – for it is all he has left. It this desperation of Candy’s to make his new dream, their dream, become so, that yet another man becomes tied up in the illusion and the hope that it brings. Crooks is a fellow worker upon the ranch, a stable buck, working to repair saddles, tools and to look after the horses, unable to do other work since he was crippled, kicked in the back by one of the horses he was working with. We have never heard much of Crooks, only chance phrases from the other men, snatches of comments in the middle of a conversation; he is not often talked about, and never talked to – Crooks is a Negro. We do not see him for the majority of the book for he is never with the other men, always separated from everyone, simply because of the discrimination, the ignorance and the prejudices of that time. As the only Negro in the area, he is completely alone, without anyone but himself for so much of his life, but it was not always so. Crooks used to have someone – he used to live with his family, they owned a farm, he was with his brothers, his parents – his family, and he was counted as someone; now he isn’t even counted. The â€Å"American Dream† tells us of equality, of everyone having a chance to attain their dreams, to have something to hold, be proud of and call their own – in America everyone and anyone can have just this and be somebody unless, of course, if they are black. â€Å"This is just a nigger talkin’†¦so it don’t mean nothing, see?† This contradiction and hypocrisy intermittent throughout the dream is that which causes Crooks to be just who he is – alone and isolated, helpless and unable to anything about it. When Lennie wanders into Crooks’ living area simply looking for company as the other men are all away in the town, Crooks shows outrage and indignation that a white man would presume it his right to simply walk into his room without leave. However, Lennie’s innocence wins through, despite Crooks’ irritation, â€Å"Crooks scowled, but Lennie’s disarming smile defeated him.† As Crooks begins to talk to Lennie, and discover the nature of his relationship with George, we see his jealousy that another man could have someone so easy to talk to, such a simple and easy friendship. Such is his bitterness and jealousy over the pair’s companionship that Crooks goes on to taunt and tease Lennie with the possibility that George is injured and is no longer going to be there. He tells Lennie that he too is alone and must look after himself and continue life knowing he had someone, had something, and lost it as Crooks did. Crooks wants Lennie to feel what his pain is every day, every hour, and make someone else feel how he does – and, in doing so, make himself feel less alone. â€Å"A guy goes nuts if he ain’t got nobody†¦a guy gets lonely and he gets sick†. As Lennie’s anger flares up, we see that perhaps Crooks isn’t so malicious after all, for he placates Lennie – he wants him to stay, despite him being a white man, one who took his life away from him, an enemy. So alone is he that any company will do, black or white – it doesn’t matter any more; and so â€Å"It was difficult for Crooks to conceal his pleasure with anger,† as Candy joins Lennie. He only has himself and what little company that he can find; he has been separated from others, alone for so long, simply because of the colour of his skin, so isolated thanks to an ignorant and naive prejudice, so much for a dream – when Crooks came to America he found an ongoing nightmare. There should be equality, and this is what America shouted aloud to the world – everyone in America has a dream to live out, and everyone who comes to America has a chance. However, this is not the case for Crooks – despite what people claimed, despite what the â€Å"American Dream† told them, he has nothing but material possessions, and to him they re nothing. Reading books is his only source of company, but â€Å"Books ain’t no good. A guy needs somebody – to be near him.† When Crooks first learns of their dream, not quite as they intended for it was their dream and nobody else’s’, he scoffs for has heard this kind of a story all before – he has seen hundreds of other hopefuls come through the ranch and continue on into nothing. He tells them this mockingly, and also to end their hopes for they too are going nowhere. However, as Candy justifies their hopes in defence, he subsides for he sees the possibilities himself, gets caught up in the trio’s aspirations and dreams, as Candy did, and pleads to be taken along, to join them – simply to be somewhere with others who might accept him for who he is and not for what. Crooks begins to open up, he finally believes himself to be an equal and to be counted, and he has been given back both his hope and a real chance. However, things are not to be as they hoped as the wife of Curley, the boss’ son, enters. As always the men are wary and bid her leave and in response her bitter temper rises. Crooks stands up to her, thinking outside his place in his newfound happiness, and she drills into him, makes him again realise just who he is, how little all he says and thinks is valued and how much power she holds over him. For a moment Crooks had become a man again and believed in his own freedom, but Curley’s wife put an end to that, to his open thought and his belief in all his hopes of being his own man again. â€Å"Crooks stared hopelessly at her, sat down†¦and drew into himself†¦Crooks had reduced himself to nothing, no personality, no ego†¦Everything that might be hurt drawn in†¦into the indomitable pride of the Negro.† Crooks the Negro presumed to think himself on the same level as Curley’s wife, to cap all the isolation and rejection from every other person on the ranch. So enraged is she that we see the malicious and bitter side of her nature born out of the oppression, the distress and torment of countless similar situations where no one ever listens, where she is always alone. She gives him no quarter as her scathing, bitter anger lashes into him. This conflict amongst and between the oppressed and repressed – first between Candy and Crooks, Crooks believing their dream to be as hopeless as all the rest, so demoralised has he become thanks to the life that American society has put him through, and then between Crooks and Curley’s wife, simply leads them in a circle, and right back to square one. Both are without freedom and hold little control over their own rights, and still they are brought into conflict by the ways in which society portrays the world and treats each of them, one putting the other’s hopes and liberty again into doubt, painting a wholly despondent and bleak future -all the more separated from each other, all the more isolated and alone. Curley’s wife always appears as a woman up to no good, spoken of hurriedly in whispered conversations. She is always out looking for trouble with the other men, always holding apparent bad intentions as she flaunts herself in a vain attempt to attract them to her, willing to do anything for companionship, and as a result getting quite the opposite. George had always recognised her danger, but Lennie is blind to every bit of it. However, we begin to see that she isn’t up to such wickedness as we are first led to believe, and her bitter tongue is simply born of a life of loneliness. The men always shy away from her fearing blackmail from a work mate or Curley’s wrath if they were to dare the stigma and go against the rules of society, and become friendly with another man’s wife. This fear of the bosses’ authority and their abuse of it is yet another barrier that stands between ever establishing some true ideals of equality. She has been alone and isolated by everyone for so long, not even her husband listens to her, simply telling her what he wants to say and never waiting for a response. Lennie, never vigilant nor wary for he has no reason to be, is the first person that hasn’t looked at her with fear in his eyes, for he is different; she has tried everything and seems doomed to failure – everyone is repulsed, everyone resists her, everyone bar Lennie, and she latches onto him because of this. One day she catches him on his own and without George always looking over his shoulder. He is like an open book to her, and instantly accepts her for exactly what she is. She delights in finally finding someone who is such a perfect companion, who no longer draws back away from her in fear, but talks to her as he would anyone else. Despite what is first apparent, she simply wants to be with someone who listens. We learn that she once had a life, once had a chance and could have been somebody, been somewhere and just perhaps have got somewhere in life, but had it taken away from her through no fault of her own, but the unjust and unreasonable actions of another – her own mother. To escape that, to escape a dead end and lonely life where one that should be so close to her takes her chances and dreams away from her, she married Curley and inadvertently runs into something much worse. She had a dream, found a chance and lost it thanks to a situation entirely out of her control, and things only go down hill from there. She is alone unable to do anything to escape the life that she now leads, no one is willing to talk to her, she is confined to the ranch and no longer has any chance of happiness, or simply of finding a friend. Yet again, a pursuer of the â€Å"American Dream† finds quite the opposite. She revels in Lennie’s companionship, temporarily feeling as if she were no longer alone in the world as Crooks did, and so tells him things that she has told no other, opening herself to him and finding that he accepts all that she says without doubt or uncertainty. However, as she learns of Lennie’s love for the touch and feel of soft things, she lets him closer without restraint or forethought, lets him touch and hold her hair. As she draws away in worry that her hair (and subsequently her looks) are being dishevelled, the one thing she believes herself to truly hold is mishandled, and so she pulls away, expressing her distress. Lennie panics and does the only thing that his simple mind can think of – resist, and so he grips hold of her tighter, unwilling to let go, he is confused and frightened and understands nought of what is happening. He fears that if George were to find out that he had made someone unhappy and done wrong by them he would abandon and discard him, fearing disapproval if his actions were ever discovered; and so he clamps his hand over her mouth, hoping that none would hear the noise. He grips even tighter as she struggles all the more desperately in the pain that his awesome strength is causing her, and he jerks and shakes her body in response, in an attempt to silence her. In this he succeeds, but to an extent that he never intended – he unwittingly breaks her neck. Yet again Lennie has caused great harm without ever realising it possible, and this time the outcome is greatly worse. She was always alone, always without somebody, even those closest to her appear to have wished against her happiness; John Steinbeck signifies this to us by never naming Curley’s wife – she was never important to the person, and the people, that she should have been. As soon as she finds someone that was conceivably different, perhaps wasn’t like all the others, she takes it all too far too soon, without thinking of the consequences. As a result she loses everything. The story ends in the pursuit of Lennie, George goes after him with the other men for he cannot let them get to him first and it is here that we are reminded of Candy’s words upon his own companion, his pet dog, â€Å"I ought to of shot that dog myself, George. I shouldn’t have let no stranger shoot my dog.† George finally catches up with Lennie at their meeting point where they stayed that first night before making their way onto the ranch. Lennie has been plagued by images and hallucinations from his past and his imagination, so distraught has he become over doing something so wrong and upsetting George in such a huge way, without ever intending to he managed to take away every hope the two had of achieving their dream all thanks to the pressure put upon him to do right by everyone, make no mistakes and allow none to hear of the rest, which leads to him causing more problems than ever before. George has Lennie imagine their dream once more, for that was always how Lennie was happiest – imagining his future, escaping from the present. It is in this moment that George puts the gun to the back of Lennie’s head, and, fighting off his shaking hand, pulls down upon the trigger. He never wanted to, but he had to – this was the only possible choice George could have made for the ultimately innocent Lennie, nothing he could do would have been easier, or better, for Lennie. George in doing so loses his one and only companion, every hope he ever had of being somebody and every hope of those around him that became a part of their dream – all in that instant every hope was lost. Such is the despair that Candy finds it difficult to let go, he wants to continue the dream and to finish it, despite all which has happened, but he knows that is never possible now. Lennie was the one that held everything, everyone, together and gave them all hope and a chance, and now he was gone. The Withered Arm tells us a story of the ordeal of Rhoda Brook, her son, Farmer Lodge and his newly married wife, Gertrude, as Thomas Hardy chooses to constantly switch your attention, not concentrating on single character’s loneliness and hardships, but that of four. We first meet Rhoda Brook working in the cow sheds, a milkmaid, and we instantly recognise how emotionally isolated and detached from others she is. As the other characters about her chat among themselves she chooses to remain apart, and uninvolved, from them all. We see how alone and different from the other simple farm hands she is, â€Å"He hasn’t spoken to her for years,† whilst they talk about her and the notorious love affair she had with the Farmer Lodge – and his recent marriage to a young lady not from nearby, but the city. She is one apart from the rest, not like them, and no longer does she care or worry over their words and thoughts of her. She remains impassive throughout the conversation and the others comments about her, â€Å"She knew she had slyly been called a witch.† Her physical loneliness and separation, probably much out of choice, is also elaborated upon as â€Å"She milked slightly apart from the rest,† as well as through the description of where she has chosen to live, â€Å"their course lay apart from the rest†. The truth about Rhoda and Farmer Lodge’s affair, now many years in the past, is widely known in the area. Long ago they were together and for unexplained reasons she was abandoned – perhaps upon the realisation of Rhoda’s pregnancy. The very thing meant to bring a couple closer together and bring with it happiness and companionship may have brought completely the opposite for Rhoda. However, Farmer Lodge has developed very materialistic views, adhering and conforming to those of the society he lives in. Rhoda was below his class, below him, and he could never have been seen in a permanent relationship with her because of that – society would never have accepted him. Another possible reason is that of Rhoda’s advancing years and waning beauty – her age is closer to that of Lodge’s and so his materialism again pushes him away from her as he chooses to marry a young and still beautiful girl not long out of her teen.This is what he feels he must have – the best. With the arrival of Gertrude Lodge the final brick is laid in the wall standing between Rhoda and her happiness, between her and Lodge and both of them and their son. We recognise instantly that Gertrude is neither country-born nor country-bred, and knows little of her new life and what lies ahead. From the beginning she is almost completely alone – she is a young lady, highborn, and not long out of her teens, lady-like and beautiful, and there are none like her that she can communicate with. Gertrude worries much over others’ opinions of her, as she desires so much to be readily accepted into her new community. However, things are not to be all she could hope for, as she soon realises how alone she is to be as society separates her from the majority of those around her, thanks to the strict taboos on cross-class relationships and of a lady socialising with those of the lower class. When Rhoda learns of Gertrude’s arrival she has her son discover ever detail and feature of the girl, sizing her up and comparing herself to Gertrude in her jealousy, for she believes that it should be she, not Gertrude, that Farmer Lodge should have married and is bitterly angry that he refuses to acknowledge their son and even what they both had between each other as anything but insignificant and irrelevant. The son that Rhoda and Lodge both had together is yet another great example of the loneliness that this story portrays as his mother’s loneliness and emotional feelings merely add to that of his own. Hardy chooses to give him no name, as did Steinbeck with Curley’s wife, emphasising how unimportant and worthless he is in the eyes of those that he should mean so much to. His father rejects him outright – barely ever acknowledging his presence, â€Å"He took no outward notice of the boy whatsoever,† and when he does it is only as an inferior and one of no consequence as the boy is described as â€Å"Just one of the neighbourhood.† Even his own mother, with whom he has lived for all his years, is unconcerned with him, so obsessed and incensed with her own dilemma that she simply uses him as ammunition, and justification, of her right over others to Lodge. He is used as a spy upon Gertrude and Lodge by his mother, if not that then he is always at work upon one household duty or another, and despite all that he does none of it seems to satisfy his mother. He is barely ever given any affection at all, seemingly only useful for errands and chores that Rhoda cannot bring herself to do. Despite her anger over Farmer Lodge’s total lack of acceptance of their son, she too does much the same, and never realises the frustrations that he hides underneath as a result of this all, â€Å"His mother not observing that he was cutting a notch with his pocket knife into the beech-backed chair.† The son has no father figure to follow, but certainly not a good example, and his mother tries to set him one no better – she doesn’t even make the effort. Rhoda develops an obsession with Gertrude whom she has neither met nor even seen. Such is her fixation that one night she is visited in a troubled dream by an image, the distorted and repulsive impression of Gertrude that Rhoda has built up in her mind through her bitter jealousy. â€Å"The figure thrust forward its left hand mockingly, so as to make the wedding ring it wore glitter in Rhoda’s eyes.† This thing that Rhoda believes Gertrude to be taunts her, thrusting the proof of her marriage to Farmer Lodge before her very eyes – the thing that Rhoda herself so covets and desires for herself. As the creature draws closer, Rhoda grips its arm in fright and hurls it to the floor. One day Gertrude visits Rhoda in her small house upon the hill, and Rhoda sees her for what she really is. Gertrude, in her loneliness in Lodge’s great manor house, comes to Rhoda for companionship, and in her she finds a friend. At first Rhoda is unresponsive, but slowly she begins to come round, to see through all the lies she has told herself all too often in her resentment at being alone. However, all is not to be so perfectly resolved, as we learn of Gertrude’s arm – the strange marks, like as that of fingers’, upon the flesh and over time they gradually worsen and deteriorate. â€Å"It looks almost like finger marks†¦as if some witch, or the devil himself, had taken a hold of me there, and blasted the flesh.† Gertrude’s other sorrow becomes apparent as she too has realised the faith that the farmer puts into face value and beauty – for she believes that he will begin to love her less if the arm does not heal as it should. As a result, over time, Gertrude begins to preoccupy herself and obsess about her arm as Rhoda did over Farmer Lodge and it continues to worsen. No one understands its nature, no one knows of a cure and Gertrude, stricken with worry and concern, turns again to Rhoda, following perhaps a maid’s, or a worker’s, advice, and the irony in this is how many would believe Rhoda to be the guilty party, the witch, cursing upon Gertrude and that she of all people would know her adversary best. Rhoda meanwhile says nothing upon the matter of the arm, merely inquiring upon it, hoping that it might recover. For Rhoda neither understands what effect she has had upon Gertrude, nor knows how she caused it – much of the time she vainly tells herself that it is nothing but a coincidence. All the same, Rhoda apprehensively leads Gertrude across the hills and fields one day to Conjuror Trendle, a man renowned for powers that other people believe in more than he. â€Å"He affected not to believe largely in his own powers and when warts that had been shown him for the cure miraculously disappear†¦he would say lightly, ‘Oh I only drink a glass of grog upon ’em†¦perhaps its all chance’, and immediately turn the subject.† Trendle lives many miles apart from other men, separated by their views and taboos of that society upon witchcraft and anything related. He has been cast away by their prejudices all because he has a talent that they neither possess nor understand, and they fear him for this. He merely uses what he has to help people as best he can, getting nothing but fear and aversion in return, and this he does for Gertrude too. Despite the rumours and whispers that people speak behind his back, he does what he knows to be best all the same – rejecting the constraints of society for his own freedom, and in turn having much of it taken away. He shows to Gertrude the image of an enemy, the only one capable of causing such a blight, and Rhoda’s fears are to be realised as, despite Gertrude never telling her who the image she saw was, she never spoke to Rhoda again, never mentioned the arm and never called around her house, simply looking for a companion, again – for now her unsee n assailant had a face, that of Rhoda. Over a very short period their friendship began to break down very quickly, almost instantly as realisation had dawned upon Gertrude, and so she never saw anything of Rhoda, or her son, again for many years and eventually the two both slipped out of the community and were never seen again – they were forced out by the fears of others, by Rhoda’s desires of things that were no longer hers to covet and by the entire community, for none really cared. Gertrude was now truly alone and without a single companion- her husband no longer even looked at her, such was his revulsion of the withering of her arm and displeasure at the fact that she had not even managed to produce him an heir in all their time together. Gertrude’s beauty was waning as the full anguish of the arm and being so alone in the world assailed her. She became obsessed with the arm and the search for cures, attempting every crackpot remedy that she could find in her maddened struggle – but none ever worked or had any effect. Driven into desperation by her husband’s and society’s demands for young ladies to be beautiful and perfect always, for Gertrude fears the rejection of her husband as Rhoda was rejected many years ago. In many ways this despair and incensed search for a cure drove even larger a void between Gertrude and her husband, for in the end it was both she and the arm driving him away, so obsessed did she become – much thanks to the pressures and expectations of the world around her. Again she goes to visit Trendle in the vain hope that perhaps he will be able to cure her at last, however, this time she makes the journey alone – showing just how much more lonely and separated from others she has become. Upon arriving she sees Trendle, now an old man and barely able to even leave his house – he has lost even that little bit of freedom that life had allowed him and has absolutely no one but himself to rely on, and no one to be there when he dies. In his last days, Trendle tells her simply what had to be done – he was too old to help now, she would have to cope alone with this task as always, but he could point her in the right direction. She agrees to all that he tells her, whatever it may be, such is her desire to again be beautiful for her husband again and to allow her to again conform to the views of those around her – much the opposite choice to that of Conjuror Trendle. Gertrude must touch the body of an executed man just cut down from a hanging – not dead for more than an instant so as to turn the blood of Gertrude and cure the withering of the arm. Finally, after many weeks wait the chance arrives and Gertrude’s prayers, driven to wishing upon the death of a fellow man, are answered and she strikes up a deal with the old, isolated hangman, separated from others by the nature of his trade, who was not wholly unused to requests of her sort. The condemned that is to become Gertrude’s saviour is a young man, charged of arson – the burning down of an old warehouse. The young man was apparently simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, but an example had to be made to satisfy the people. On the allotted night, Gertrude goes to the hangman as planned, and he then leads her to the open casket and she pulls back the covering and touches the figure beneath. To her horror she sees it to be Rhoda’s own son – the son of Farmer Lodge. Gertrude backs off in dismay and turns to discover both Rhoda and Lodge standing behind her. Rhoda shouts in anger and pushes Gertrude away from them both, for even now she still stands between the Farmer Lodge and their son once again – as always Gertrude comes between Rhoda and Lodge, always in the way of Rhoda’s hopes, desires and always keeping her completely alone. Gertrude screams in fear and falls to the floor, for the shock and extreme stress, together with the draining nature of the arm finally get the best of her, for she has died. Her blood had been turned, but all too far. Here the story concludes, as Rhoda moves farther away and separates herself from the local community entirely yet again, totally alone thanks to her own bitterness. Even after her son is lost still nobody goes to pay their respects or offer their company – she becomes even more alone than ever, all thanks to her own negligence. Farmer Lodge is also alone now, perhaps as he deserved, for his uncaring and selfish ways led to the grief of many and his dishonesty to the death of his wife for he broke his marriage vows that he made before God – â€Å"In sickness and in health.† His wife is dead and his son is lost forever and with him any chance of ever having an heir to all his estate. In his despair Lodge sells all his farm and land and moves away – only now do we realise how truly alone he has become, and all thanks to him, his materialism and conforming to what society dictates as to how he should live his life. He offers Rhoda an annual income, as an attempt at a final reconciliation but she never accepts it and none see her again. He loses everything and is doomed to die alone, leaving us later to discover that he has left all that is his to a reformatory for boys, showing how he did have thoughts and feelings regarding his son, but never had the strength to show them which is perhaps his greatest sin. Both Lodge and Rhoda isolated themselves from others and both are now even lonelier as a result of this. Gertrude’s vanity may have played a part in her own undoing, represented by the extremes to which she was willing to go as she even wished for the death of a fellow man, guilty or innocent alike, but it was Lodge, and those around her, that drove her to such desperation and in the end she dies alone, above all emotionally, as her husband stands apart from her with Rhoda. The young son meanwhile, brought to his end by Gertrude’s desperate wishing is always portrayed in Hardy’s novel as the innocent throughout, trapped between his two parents never being truly loved or cared for – always alone and always innocent. Towards the end we assume that perhaps he has got involved in a youth gang. This leads to his later arrest at the crime scene showing that no father figure and role model at all would have perhaps been better than that of a bad and unloving one who rejects him outright, he may have been innocent but he never had anyone who would stand up for him. This rejection by his father and ignorant negligence on his mother’s part leads to his tragic death, similar to that of Candy’s wife – who also remains unnamed as they are never important to those that they should be, leaving both of them completely alone and hopeless. The unfortunate tragedy that we see at the end of each novel is but one of the many similarities between these two novels. As we begin, each story features two central characters, George and Lennie, Rhoda and Gertrude, around which the story unfolds. As they live their lives we are introduced to many others, each with their own individual problems and dilemmas besetting them. These unlikely friendships between our central characters ultimately end in a tragedy, first with one unknowingly causing great problems for the other and finally one must put the other out of their misery, and at the same time condemn themselves to loneliness and hopelessness yet again. In Of Mice and Men we see at the root of everyones’ problems the desperation to achieve and become somebody – to find the American Dream. The society in which they have lived tells them that they are nothing without achievement, and they all agree for much of their sadness originates from this feeling of worthlessness. In George and Lennie’s case it drives them onwards, in search of their dream, but the others do not have the friendship that they each possess and have no hope of getting anywhere. Candy is old, crippled, with no hope of being able to work for something anymore and no hope of ever actually finding a companion as everyone deserts him each day. Crooks has nobody, he lost everything thanks to American society and the fact that the dream doesn’t work if you are black, he is hopeless for all time. Curley’s wife, a seemingly dangerous character of this story is isolated for just that. She has nobody bar her husband, who neither loves her nor listens, separated from others by both him and other peoples’ fear of the stigma that would ensure should they become her friend. She had her one chance at achieving something taken away from her many years ago. For Lennie the necessity to conform and do right by people is too much for him – he can never understand and in the end this leads to his death. His fear of disapproval forces him to take a life without ever intending to. It is upon George’s shoulders to end the story, for there is only one possibility – he must end all his hopes, condemn himself to being alone with his guilt, every chance that they had together and those around them found upon their arrival for he must take Lennie’s life to save him from misery. This pressure from American society and the unbending rules on what people should and shouldn’t be causes so much dissatisfaction and unrest, leaving everyone feeling hopeless and alone, that they have been brought up to believe. They thought they had a chance, and they found nothing. The Withered Arm, on the other hand, is set in a world of tradition, of British society and its harsh social structure. In everyone’s mind there is desperation to conform to the rules and agree that unless you are upper class, or in the case of the women – married, you are no one. Rhoda isolates herself from all others in her desperation to become someone, Farmer Lodge’s wife, and be counted and in doing so sentences herself to a life of loneliness, and starts much more for many others. For Gertrude there is a desperation to be what the materialistic views of those around her tell her to be, and in her search for this she ends up isolating her self even more than before. The young son, who nobody ever really looks to care for, there is isolation of a different kind and through no fault of his own. His parents never truly acknowledge him as their son and this ultimately ends in his tragic death. For Farmer Lodge, it is his materialistic conformism that causes many problems, and he isolates himself from all others in this story until the end, where it is he and Rhoda left and doomed to each be utterly alone for their sins.

Cbt Case Study

CBT – Case Study Identifying Information For the purposes of the case study the client will be called Jane. Jane is a 22 year old single white British female who lives with her parents in a house outside the city. She is heterosexual and has had a boyfriend for seven years. She feels unable to discuss her issues with her boyfriend. Her parents both have mental health issues and Jane does not feel able to talk to her mother about her problems. She has an older brother she has a good relationship who lives with his girlfriend, a four hour drive away.Jane is educated to degree level, having studied Criminology and is currently working part-time for her father managing his client accounts for a business he runs from home. A typical day involves organising all receipts and creating spreadsheets for each client’s accounts. Jane states she would like to get a full time job and be normal like her friends. Jane has a small circle of friends from university who she states have al l gone onto full time employment. Jane also has a puppy she spends time looking after and taking for regular walks.Assessment Jane was referred following a health check at her GP surgery. She had been prescribed Citalopram 20mg by her GP for anxiety symptoms and panic attacks she had been having for two years. Jane has no previous contact with mental health services. Jane’s father had a diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder, her brother has Depression and her boyfriend has a diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder which he is continuing treatment for. Jane’s anxiety/panic has increased over the past two years.She had read about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy on the Internet and was willing to see if it was help ease her anxiety symptoms. Jane stated that the problem started due to family issues in 2007. Her brother and father were estranged due to a financial disagreement and this resulted in Jane’s brother leaving the country with his girlfriend, causing Jane to bec ome very distressed. Also during this time she was taking her final exams at University, Jane states this was when she experienced her first panic attack.She had spent the evening before her brother left the country, drinking alcohol with friends, she remembers feeling ‘hung-over’ the next day. While travelling in the car to the airport, with her brother and his girlfriend, Jane states she started to feel unwell, she found it difficult to breathe, felt hot, trapped and felt like she was going to faint. Jane stated she felt â€Å"embarrassed† and â€Å"stupid† and had since experienced other panic attacks and increased anxiety, anticipating panic attacks in social situations.Jane had reduced where she went to, finding herself unable to go anywhere she may have to meet new people. Her last panic attack happened when Jane visited her GP for a health check and fainted during the appointment, Jane has blood phobia and she stated she had not eaten since the day before and was extremely anxious about the any medical interventions. Jane believes it was a panic attack that caused her to faint.The GP prescribed her 20mg of Citalopram, a few weeks prior to her initial assessment with the therapist. When Jane and the therapist met for the initial session Jane described herself as feeling inadequate and as if she was trapped in a cycle of panic. Although Jane felt unhappy she had no suicidal ideation and she presented no risk to others. Jane stated she had become more anxious and that she had panic attacks at least twice a week. Prior to and during therapy, Jane was assessed using various measures.These enabled the therapist to formulate a hypothesis regarding the severity of the problem, also acting as a baseline, enabling the therapist and Jane to monitor progress throughout treatment. (Wells, 1997). The measures utilised in the initial assessment were a daily panic diary, Wells (1997) and a diary of obsessive- compulsive rituals, Wells (1997) a self rating scale completed by the client Jane. Other measures used were, The Panic Rating Scale (PRS) Wells (1997), the Social Phobia Scale, Wells (1997), used by the therapist to clarify which specific disorder was the main problem for Jane.Having collated information from the initial measures, a problem list was created so the therapist and Jane could decide what to focus on first. This list was based on Jane’s account of the worst problems which were given priority over those problems which were less distressing. Problem List 1. Anxiety/Panic attacks 2. Obsessive hand washing. 3. My relationship with my family. 4. Not having a full time job. 5. My relationship with my boyfriend Having collaboratively decided on the problem list, the therapist helped Jane reframe the problems into goals.As the problem list highlighted what was wrong, changing them into goals enabled Jane to approach her problems in a more focused way (Wells, 1997), the therapist discussed goals with Jane and she decided what she wanted to get from therapy. It was important for the therapist to ensure that any goals were realistic and achievable in the timeframe and this was conveyed to Jane (Padesky & Greenberger, 1995). Jane wanted to reduce her anxiety and expressed these goals:- 1. To understand why I have panic attacks. 2. To have an anxiety free day. 3. To reduce the amount of time worrying . To reduce obsessive hand washing at home. Case Formulation Jane stated that for about a year she had been repeating certain behaviours, which she believed prevented her from having panic attacks. This involved Jane washing her hands and any surrounding objects at least twice. Jane had a fear of consuming alcohol/drugs/caffeine/artificial sweeteners, she stated she had had her first panic attack the day after drinking alcohol and had read that all these substances could increase her anxiety. Jane had not drunk alcohol for 18 months as she felt this caused her anxiety and made her nable to control the panic attacks. Jane stated she feared that if any of these substances got on her hands and then into her mouth she would have a panic attack and faint. These beliefs increased Jane’s anxiety when Jane was exposed to any environment where these substances were present. This unfortunately was most of the time, Jane stated that every time she saw any of these substances consumed or even placed near her, she became anxious and had to wash her hands and any surrounding items which she may come into contact with again.These safety behaviours maintained the cycle of panic, Jane would always continue the routines that she believed prevented a panic attack. The worst case scenario for Jane was â€Å"the panic would never stop and I will go mad, causing my boyfriend to leave me†. Jane felt this would make everyone realise what she already knew, that she was worthless. Her last panic attack happened when Jane had visited her GP; this caused Jane feelings of shame. â⠂¬Å"There’s all these people achieving, doing great things and I can’t do the most basic things†The therapist used the Cognitive Model of Panic (Clark, 1986), initially developing the three key elements of the model to help socialise Jane to the thoughts, feelings and behaviour cycle (see diagram below) Cognitive Model of Panic Bodily sensations Emotional response Thought about sensation Clark (1986) Using a panic diary and a diary of obsessive-compulsive rituals, Jane was asked to keep a record of situations during the week where she felt anxious, and this was discussed in the next session.Jane stated she had not had any panic during the week, when discussing previous panic attacks during the session, Jane became anxious and the therapist used this incident to develop the following formulation. Heart beating fast/increase in body temperature Fear/dread I feel hot, I can’t control it Clark (1986) Jane stated she felt like she was sweating, she had diffic ulty breathing; felt faint, had feelings of not being here and felt like she was going crazy.All these symptoms suggested that Jane was experiencing a panic attack and Jane met the criteria for Panic Disorder, defined in the DSM IV and states that â€Å"panic attacks be recurrent and unexpected, at least one of the attacks be followed by at least one month of persistent concern about having additional attacks, worry about the implications or consequence of the attack, or a significant change in behaviour related to the attacks† (APA, 1994). During the sessions the therapist continued to socialise Jane to the model of panic (Clark, 1986); together Jane and the therapist looked at what kept the cycle going.The therapist continued to use the model formulation, with the addition of Jane’s catastrophic interpretation of bodily symptoms, to illustrate the connection between negative thoughts, emotion, physical symptoms. Social situation I will be unable to stay here Everyone will notice I am not coping I’m going to faint Sweating/breathing fast/dizzy Clark’s (1986) Cognitive Model of Panic.Progress of Treatment The therapist hypothesised that Jane’s symptoms continued due to Jane not understanding the physiological effects of anxiety. The results were a misinterpretation of what would happen to her while being anxious, and this maintained the panic cycle. Although Jane tried to avoid any anxiety by using safety behaviours, she eventually increased the anxiety she experienced. Session 1 After the initial assessment sessions, the therapist and Jane agreed to 8 sessions, with a review after 6 sessions.Jane and the therapist discussed that there may only be a small amount of progress or change during the sessions due to the complexity of Jane’s diagnosis and agreed to focus on understanding the cycle of panic (Clark, 1986) From the information gained from the formulation process, the therapist tried psycho education. The therap ist was attempting to illicit a shift in Jane’s belief about what, how and why these symptoms were happening. The therapist discussed with Jane what she knew about anxiety and from this the therapist discovered that Jane was unsure of what anxiety was and the effects on the body.For the first few appointments the therapist knew it could be beneficial to concentrate on relaying information about anxiety, (Clark et al, 1989) focusing on Jane’s specific beliefs anxiety, the therapist wanted to try to reduce the problem by helping Jane recognise the connection between her symptoms. As Jane believed, â€Å"she was going mad†, the therapist was trying to help Jane understand the CBT model of anxiety and to alter Jane’s misunderstanding of the symptoms. The therapist and Jane discussed Jane’s belief that she would faint if she panicked, Jane had fixed beliefs about why she fainted.The therapist attempted to enable Jane to describe how her anxiety affected her during a ‘usual panic’. Instead Jane began to describe symptoms of social anxiety, this suggested to the therapist that the main problems could be a combination of /social phobia and obsessive behaviours; the following dialogue may help to illustrate this. T. When you begin to become anxious, what goes through your head? J. I need a backup plan; I need to know how to get out of there. Especially if it’s in an office, or a small room. T. What would happen if you did not get out? J. I would panic, and then pass outT. What would the reasons be for you to pass out? J. Because I was panicking. T. Have you passed out before when you have panicked? J. I have felt like it. T. So what sensations do you have when you’re panicking? J. The feeling rises up, I feel hot and I can’t see straight. I get red flashes in front of my eyes, like a warning. My vision goes hazy. I think everyone is looking at me. T. Do you think other people can see this? J. Yes. T. What do you think they see? J. That I’m struggling and I cannot cope or, I try to get out of the situation by pretending I feel ill before they notice. T.What would they notice, what would be different about you? J. I stick out like a beacon, I’m sweating, loads of sweat and my face is bright red. T. How red would your face be, as red as that â€Å"No Smoking† sign on the wall? J. Yes! I’m dripping with sweat and my eyes are really staring, feels like they stick out like in a cartoon, it’s ridiculous. T. How long before you would leave the situation? J. Sometimes the feeling goes, like I can control it. But I could not leave. There would be a stigma and then I could not go back, the anxiety would increase in that environment or somewhere similar.The therapist persisted with this example and tried to use guided discovery to help Jane get a more balanced view of the situation. (Padesky and Greenberger, 1995) T. So you would not go back? J. I would if I felt safe, like with my boyfriend or I could leave whenever I wanted to. It’s the last straw if I have to go. It makes it even harder. T. You say that sometimes it goes away. What’s different about then and times when you have to leave? J. It’s like I just know I have to leave. T. What do you think may happen if you stay with the feelings? J. That I will pass out. T. hat would that mean if you passed out? J. It would be the ultimate. It would mean that I could not cope with the situation. T. If you could not cope what would that mean? J. I can’t function, I can’t do anything. I‘m just no use. T. How much do you believe that? Can you rate it out of 100%? J. Now. About 60% if I did faint it would be about 100% T. Have you ever fainted due to the sensations you have described to me? J. No. I have fainted because I’m squeamish. I don’t like blood. Or having any kind of tests at the GP. T. So do I understand you? You have never fa inted due to the panic sensations?J. No. I’ve felt like it. T. So you’ve never passed out due to the symptoms? What do you make that? J. I don’t know, that would mean that what I believe is stupid. It’s hard to get my head around it. Session 2-3 The therapist used a social phobia/panic rating scale measures to ascertain the main problem; this was increasingly difficult as throughout each session the patient expanded on her symptoms. The therapist managed to understand that the patient avoided most social situations due to her beliefs about certain substances; this caused the obsessive hand-washing.This then had an impact on Jane’s ability to go anywhere in case she could not wash herself or objects around her. Jane also believed fainting from blood phobia had the same physical effects as panic, and she would faint if she panicked. It was complicated and the therapist attempted to draw out a formulation. I SEE A PERSON DRINKING ALCOHOL IT’S G OING TO GET ON MY HANDS AND INTO MY MOUTH I FEEL SICK, I’M GOING TO FAINT I FEEL DREAD, I FEEL ANXIOUS, SWEATING I MUST WASH MY HANDS TO STOP THE PANIC GETTING WORSE.Session 4 The formulation shows the extent of Jane’s panic and how her safety behaviours were impacting on all aspects of her life. The therapist attempted again to use information about the causes of anxiety and its effects on the body. The therapist explained what happens when you faint due to blood phobia, this was an attempt to supply Jane with counter evidence for her catastrophic interpretations of her panic. The therapist also used evidence to contrast the effects on the body when fainting and when panicking.After two sessions, the therapist continued to provide and attempted to relay the facts about the nature of anxiety/panic/fainting with the inclusion of behavioural experiments. Educational procedures are a valid part of overall cognitive restructuring strategies, incorporated with questioning e vidence for misinterpretations and behavioural experiments (Wells, 1997) The therapist asked Jane to explain to the therapist the function/effects of adrenalin, to see if Jane was beginning to understand and if there had been any shift in her beliefs about panic.The following dialogue may help to illustrate the difficulties the therapist encountered; T. Over the last few sessions, we have been discussing anxiety and the function of adrenalin. Do you understand the physical changes we have looked at? Does it make sense to you? J. Yes. Something has clicked inside my head. I feel less insane now, I understand more about what’s going on. It makes things a little bit easier, but it takes time for it to sink in. T. Do you think you could explain to me what you understand about anxiety/adrenalin? J.As I interpret it is, I like to think of it as, â€Å"I’m not anxious it’s just my adrenalin, It’s just the effects of adrenalin effecting my body† but itâ₠¬â„¢s hard to get from there, to accepting the adrenalin is not going to harm me. I know logically it’s not. But it’s still hard. T. That’s great you’re beginning to question what you have believed and are thinking there may be other explanations for your symptoms. J. Yes. But I still think it’s to do with luck. I have good or bad luck each day and that predicts whether I have a panic or not. I think I’ll be unlucky soon.Session 5-6 The therapist continued to try use behavioural experiments during the sessions to provide further evidence to try to alter Jane’s beliefs about anxiety. The therapist agreed with Jane that they would imitate all the symptoms of panic. Making the room hot, exercising to increase heart rate and body temperature, hyperventilation (ten minutes) Focusing on breathing/swallowing. This continued for most of session 5. As neither the therapist nor Jane fainted, they discussed this and Jane stated it was different in the session than when she with other people.Jane also stated she felt safe and trusted the therapist, she did not believe she could be strong enough to try the experiments alone, as it was â€Å"too scary† The therapist asked Jane to draw a picture of how she felt and put them on the diagram of a person, this then was used to compare with anxiety symptoms, while talking through them with the therapist. The therapist and Jane created a survey about fainting and Jane took this away as homework to gain further evidence. The survey included 6 different questions about fainting e. g. – What people knew about fainting/how they would feel about seeing someone faint, etc. Treatment Outcome The treatment with Jane continues. The next session will be the 6th and there will be a review of progress and any improvements. There has been no improvement in measures as noted yet. The therapist intends to use a panic rating scale (PRS) Wells, (1997) during the next session. The thera pist will continue to see Jane for two more sessions, looking at what Jane has found helpful/unhelpful. Discussion Overall the therapist found the therapy unsuccessful.Although Jane stated she found it helpful, it was difficult for the therapist to see the progress due to the many layers of complexity of Jane’s diagnosis. The therapist has grown more confident in the CBT process and understands that as a trainee, the therapist tried to incorporate all the new skills within each session. The therapist was disappointed that they were unable to guide Jane through the therapy process with a better result. The therapist would have like to have been able to fully establish an understanding of Jane’s complex symptoms earlier on in the therapy.The therapist believes that Jane’s symptoms were very complex and the therapist may have been more successful with a client with a less complicated diagnosis. The therapist would then be able to gain more information via the appro priate measures to enable the formulations in a concise manner. This has been a huge learning curve for the therapist and has encouraged them to seek out continuing CBT supervision within the therapist’s workplace. This is essential to continue the development of the therapist’s skills.The therapist feels that although this has not had the outcome that the therapist would have wanted, it has been a positive experience for Jane. There appeared to be a successful therapeutic relationship, Jane appeared comfortable and able to communicate what her problems were to the therapist from the beginning of therapy. The therapist hopes this will encourage Jane to engage with further CBT therapy in the future and the therapist over the final session hopes to be able to support Jane in creating a therapy blueprint, reviewing what Jane has found helpful.Certificate in CBT September – December 2009 CBT Case Study Panic/Social Phobia/OCD WORD COUNT 3,400 References APA (1994). Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised, 4th edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Padesky, C. A & Greenberger, D. (1995). Clinicians Guide to Mind Over Mood. New York: Guilford Padesky, C. A & Greenberger, D. (1995). Mind Over Mood. New York: Guilford Wells, A (1997). Cognitive Therapy of Anxiety Disorders. Chichester, UK: Wiley

Marketing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 67

Marketing - Essay Example e prices are also a little higher than normal to compensate for the experience that the average customer gets from spending time drinking coffee it one of Beano’s cafà ©s. Beano’s Cafà © has decided to offer better quality coffee than local varieties so as to attract domestic customers. Because local tea, Kahwa, and shisha are the preferred beverage of choice among the locals, Beano’s Cafà © has to offer products that appeal to Egyptian tastes. Also, customer service is something that sets Beano’s Cafà © apart from its competitors because customers prefer to go to Beano’s Cafà © even though the quality of coffee may not be as great as its rivals. To combat international chains entering the Egyptian market, Beano’s Cafà © is offering new, modern European flavors to retain its competitive advantage over these new market entrants. Beano’s Cafà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s primary focus is on coffee, but it also focuses on other products that are compliments of coffee, such as sandwiches, hot meals, and desserts. It is very rare for a customer just to purchase a coffee and not have anything else with it. Because the purpose is for customers to spend time in store, they will need to eat something also. Also when managers decides what product to introduce to market they need to consider (Product attributes, Branding, Product Packaging and product support) From the case describe each of the above with some examples? A manager needs to choose a product that has attributes that appeal to the target market. If the target consumer is an old person, then the product needs to appeal to those elderly people. For branding and product packaging, this needs to attract new customers, preferably young people. Product support can be done through Facebook and Twitter because most teenagers and young adults use these sites every day. One segment of the market that Beano’s Cafà © has yet to really capture is young families with children. Many of Beano’s Cafà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s competitors already realize how

Environmental impact of carbon fuel consumption ( cars, taxis, buses, Essay

Environmental impact of carbon fuel consumption ( cars, taxis, buses, air plane...) - Essay Example The article cites that they only eat organic food which is mostly grown within a 250 mile distance to make it possible to access the food manually. They also do not use paper, they do not produce trash and most important is that they use no carbon-fueled transportation. Implementing these measures according to Beavan can significantly reduce the depletion rate of our environment and see a brighter future for the next generation. In the film â€Å" no impact man† there are similar measures as there is no use of elevators, television, no cars and/or buses, no cleaning products and no garbage. In this movie the food is also organic and he gets it from around Manhattan. There are critics of his families measure as they argue that starting from the mere air they breathe which is made of carbon dioxide to the buildings they live in which were made by machinery to the trucks that bring food in the city they still are accountable for some of the deterioration of the atmosphere. Howeve r it is important to note that with the level of ozone layer depletion at this point it is crucial to take measures to prevent further or slower depletion in order to have a future. This paper looks at some of the benefits and ways of using less fuel consuming cars and buses to the environment. The Beavans are four months into their experiment which involves the use of non-fuel transportation to run their daily activities. This paper advocates for the reduction in the use of cars, taxis, buses or anything that we usually use daily that consumes fuel. In the article Michelle Conlin asserts that she uses her scooter even in the rainy and snow seasons and never uses any other means of transportation. The use of the scooter can help reduce the carbon emissions significantly in the environment and help in living in an environment that is free of any fuel pollution. The wide use of cars, buses and machinery

The Negatives Use of Reinfusion Drains in the Surgical Setting Research Paper

The Negatives Use of Reinfusion Drains in the Surgical Setting - Research Paper Example This can be due to using unsterilized tubes or getting infected instruments into the delicate internals of the patient. There are also cases where patients had the pipes physically damaging the delicate internal parts during insertion or removal or from mechanical failure of the machines used in the process (Helms & Quan, 2006). Placing the tubes inferior to the pleural cavity has been found out to increase chances of damaging the spleen, liver or diaphragm. In the very unlucky cases, there have been injuries to the heart or other blood veins especially when the affected area occurs near the heart. The minor issues arising from the procedure include coughing especially after the removal of a large amount of liquid or air which creates a kind of vacuum in the chest cavity (Norton, 2008). Shortness of breath is also a common occurrence usually accompanied by a feeling of anxiety after the procedure. Most pains go away after the tube is removed from the body and therefore should not worry the patient in any way. Care should be taken though that persistent pain is checked in the shortest time possible since there could be internal injuries. The minor complications are usually associated with the general process and common among all those who have undergone the process (DeWald, 2003). The most important cautionary measure that medical practitioners undertaking this process need to take into consideration though is the prevention of clogging of the tubes during the fluid, pus or air removal (Atluri, 2006).