Brownie_Bby
Member
- Apr 16, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
I wrote this paper on The Great Gatsby and Wealth and social class vs. human compassion. Well I just got it back, and I have to redo it. The one who graded it said it lacked an argument.
How exactly do you argue about something in a paper? and how can you argue about my topic?
She said: "Your claim is probably true, but that isn't the point. The point is whether or not it can be argued. I don't see how it can."
We don't need to make the entire paper based off of great gatsby, so we don't need to mention or compare characters etc from the book through out the paper, but we do need to mention it. However, it's not in this part because I have to redo that. (NOT MY WHOLE PAPER, THE REST I HAVE TO COMPLETELY REDO BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LAZY)
The roaring twenties was the rich decade of the twentieth century. A time where the stock markets were booming, automobiles were replacing horse drawn carriages and new inventions pouring out all over America. Scott Fitzgerald's book The Great Gatsby, secures the remaining of those days to be remembered for time to come. With his honesty of the way people treat their status and it being the oracle of their life. We can look at the 21st century now and observe that nothing has really changed. Social class and wealth dominates over human compassion still. But people lack to realize that no amount of money in the world could buy compassion.
The Universal experience of man kind has not changed much through out history, but each generation had their own different rules for each classes. From royalty and the common people back in the medieval times, and to celebrities and regular people to the present time. "Throughout recorded time... there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low."(Orwell, George) Let's Take a peek back to the 1920's, you'll see that the upper class were a bit too careless about their money. Spending it recklessly on outings and parties and purchasing expensive "trophies" to prove their status was the main deal in their rich society. Middle and lower class however, would try whatever they could to achieve that great life of luxury. To not worry about how much or when they spend their money. Although it may seem nice, it's careless and obviously not the brightest. "They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered." So, it's either People are spending their lives living as one of the wealthy, while others spend most of their lives breaking their backs to earn a status as such that they most likely will never be able to grasp. This behavior is not just limited in the twenties of course, as I said before, it hasn't changed much and it probably won't.
So that is when Marriage comes in to the picture. You could say it is somewhat a secret cheat for someone of lower class to gain a higher position, or for an already wealthy person to obtain an even higher status than what they originally were. But either way, most situations as such don't always have a happy ending. "When we say a woman is of a certain social class, we really mean her husband or father is." (Fairbairns, Zoe) There are different types of this kind of situation: Gold Digging and Arranged Marriage. Those are the most likely of cases to expect when dealing with a "not so eternal" commitment. "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least." (Austen, Jane PP) Most cases do involve marriage just for a higher social class or money, but there are slight possibilities for a chance to actually be happy, but most of the times not entirely. "Not all of us can afford to be romantic."
I already know that some quotations need to be fixed, and the paragraphs im having trouble with. >.< But the point is, how can it be argued? :S
How exactly do you argue about something in a paper? and how can you argue about my topic?
She said: "Your claim is probably true, but that isn't the point. The point is whether or not it can be argued. I don't see how it can."
We don't need to make the entire paper based off of great gatsby, so we don't need to mention or compare characters etc from the book through out the paper, but we do need to mention it. However, it's not in this part because I have to redo that. (NOT MY WHOLE PAPER, THE REST I HAVE TO COMPLETELY REDO BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LAZY)
The roaring twenties was the rich decade of the twentieth century. A time where the stock markets were booming, automobiles were replacing horse drawn carriages and new inventions pouring out all over America. Scott Fitzgerald's book The Great Gatsby, secures the remaining of those days to be remembered for time to come. With his honesty of the way people treat their status and it being the oracle of their life. We can look at the 21st century now and observe that nothing has really changed. Social class and wealth dominates over human compassion still. But people lack to realize that no amount of money in the world could buy compassion.
The Universal experience of man kind has not changed much through out history, but each generation had their own different rules for each classes. From royalty and the common people back in the medieval times, and to celebrities and regular people to the present time. "Throughout recorded time... there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low."(Orwell, George) Let's Take a peek back to the 1920's, you'll see that the upper class were a bit too careless about their money. Spending it recklessly on outings and parties and purchasing expensive "trophies" to prove their status was the main deal in their rich society. Middle and lower class however, would try whatever they could to achieve that great life of luxury. To not worry about how much or when they spend their money. Although it may seem nice, it's careless and obviously not the brightest. "They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered." So, it's either People are spending their lives living as one of the wealthy, while others spend most of their lives breaking their backs to earn a status as such that they most likely will never be able to grasp. This behavior is not just limited in the twenties of course, as I said before, it hasn't changed much and it probably won't.
So that is when Marriage comes in to the picture. You could say it is somewhat a secret cheat for someone of lower class to gain a higher position, or for an already wealthy person to obtain an even higher status than what they originally were. But either way, most situations as such don't always have a happy ending. "When we say a woman is of a certain social class, we really mean her husband or father is." (Fairbairns, Zoe) There are different types of this kind of situation: Gold Digging and Arranged Marriage. Those are the most likely of cases to expect when dealing with a "not so eternal" commitment. "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least." (Austen, Jane PP) Most cases do involve marriage just for a higher social class or money, but there are slight possibilities for a chance to actually be happy, but most of the times not entirely. "Not all of us can afford to be romantic."
I already know that some quotations need to be fixed, and the paragraphs im having trouble with. >.< But the point is, how can it be argued? :S