playing the part of a double v

When stories are told now a days, there seems to be a common theme.  There tends to always be a victim in one character, and a villain in another.  All of the super hero movies coming out now are like that.  Even in all the Harry Potter films, there was a good guy (Harry and friends), and a bad guy (Voldemort and friends).  This week in class we discussed if Dorian Gray himself was a villain or victim.  While there are many reasons for why and why not he is a one thing and not the other, why are we forced to choose between the two?  I myself believe that he not one of the options, but rather both.  I feel that Dorian was an innocent person until Lord Henry started teaching him of desires.  I feel that Lord Henry used Dorian Gray as a puppet.  This is when I believe that Dorian is just a victim.  When Dorian gives into these desires, even when he knows that they are bad, he shoves them aside and pretends it doesn’t happen.  When Dorian realizes that his actions are ruining the painting of himself, Dorian knows that this is a new portrait of the person he is becoming.  This is when I feel Dorian is the villain in the book.  He may not be a villain to others, but he is a villain to himself.  At the same moment, being a villain to himself also makes him a victim to himself.

The Awakening

Honestly I was pretty surprised with the whole plot of the awakening, not to mention the ending. During the 19^th century, like the book shows, the typical role of a woman was to give birth and take care of the kids; not to mention adultery was a huge scandal. So for a woman writer of that time to explore that aspect of a women’s self seems very scandalous and brave to do. I think it’s good of Edna to want to develop herself more and, especially in this day and age, it is stressed to figure out who you are as a person. Having said that, I do believe she acted very selfishly in respect to her children. I personally believe that since she was the one who brought them into this world, she should want to take better care of them. I understand that she did love them but the fact that she, so easily, was able to leave them to explore herself is pretty selfish. It no doubt would affect the kids in one way or another, even if they were wealthy enough to have caregivers for them.  Then, the fact that she committed suicide seems the most selfish act of all. Maybe it’s just a personal opinion, and I know how tragic and tricky the subject of suicides are; the fact that a person feels so hopeless and depressed that they see suicide as their only way out is beyond tragic. However, to abandon her children at such young ages and in such a dramatic way is pretty unfair to them.  It sort of reminds me of the classic situation of those rich mothers who are so concerned with material wealth, men’s affection, and appearance that they forget about their children. I mean, I get it, that in that time period it was a lot more complicated for a women to explore her own identity then it is now, but I just don’t get why should couldn’t have attempted to stick it out, at least a little while longer, for the children’s sake.