Literary Analysis Package

The Illusion of Freedom in The Handmaid’s Tale

In a world where women are told they are being “protected,” what does freedom truly mean? Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale explores this question through the dystopian regime of Gilead, where women are stripped of their rights under the guise of safety and order. One of the most chilling statements in the novel comes from Aunt Lydia, who declares, “There is more than one kind of freedom… Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of Anarchy it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from” (Chapter 5). This quote encapsulates Gilead’s manipulation of language and ideology to justify its oppression of women. While Gilead claims to offer women “freedom from” danger, it denies them “freedom to” live with individuality. Through an analysis of the freedoms lost and the so-called protections imposed, it is clear that “freedom to” is far more valuable than “freedom from,” as it empowers individuals to shape their own destinies and live with dignity.

Aunt Lydia’s statement reflects Gilead’s twisted logic, which redefines freedom as the absence of danger rather than the presence of opportunity. “Freedom to” refers to the ability to make choices, pursue desires, and live autonomously—the kind of freedom women enjoyed in the old world. In contrast, “freedom from” implies protection from harm, but this protection comes from the loss of individuality. By framing oppression as a form of liberation, Aunt Lydia manipulates the Handmaids to accept their current situations. This quote highlights the regime’s use of propaganda to control women’s minds, convincing them that their loss of autonomy is a necessary sacrifice for safety and stability.

Before Gilead, women enjoyed a wide range of freedoms that allowed them to live as full individuals. These included the freedom to work and pursue careers, contributing to society and achieving personal fulfillment. They had the freedom to love and marry, as seen in Offred’s relationship with Luke, which began as an affair but grew into a loving marriage. Mothers had the freedom to raise their children, unlike in Gilead, where children are taken from their mothers and given to elite families. Women could express themselves through reading, writing, and intellectual pursuits. They also had the freedom to make choices about their bodies, a stark contrast to Gilead’s Ceremonies. These freedoms allowed women to live rich, fulfilling lives, shaping their own destinies and contributing to society in meaningful ways.

In Gilead, women are told they have been granted “freedom from” the dangers of the past. The regime imposes strict controls on women’s lives, claiming to protect them while stripping them of their autonomy. Some of the things Handmaids are “freed from” include sexual violence, as Gilead claims to protect women from rape, yet moralizes sexual violence through the Ceremony, where Handmaids are ritually raped by Commanders. Women are removed from the workforce and assigned rigid roles, giving up financial independence and personal fulfillment. These structures isolate them from genuine human connection, as seen in Offred’s strained relationships with Serena Joy. “Serena Joy doesn’t speak to me, unless she can’t avoid it. I am a reproach to her; and a necessity.” (Chapter 13)This quote highlights the strained and transactional nature of Offred’s relationship with Serena Joy. Serena sees Offred as both a threat and a tool because Offred’s presence is a reminder of Serena’s infertility, and a “necessity” because Offred is essential for bearing a child. Their interactions are marked by coldness, resentment, and a lack of genuine connection. These so-called protections are not freedoms at all; Instead, they are mechanisms to stabilize the rigid hierarchy system.

“Freedom to” is inherently more valuable than “freedom from” because it empowers individuals to live with dignity and purpose. While “freedom from” may offer temporary safety, it often comes at the cost of personal agency. “Freedom to,” on the other hand, empowers people to live authentically and pursue their dreams. True freedom requires the ability to make choices, pursue dreams, and shape one’s own life. Offred’s memories of her past life illustrate the richness of a life lived with “freedom to.” In contrast, her existence in Gilead, is marked by fear, isolation, and dehumanization.

Aunt Lydia’s distinction between “freedom to” and “freedom from” reveals the insidious nature of Gilead’s ideology, which uses the language to justify oppression. Through Offred’s story, Atwood reminds us that true freedom is not the absence of danger but the presence of opportunity—a lesson that resonates far beyond the pages of The Handmaid’s Tale.

Materialism and Money in The Great Gatsby

In a society driven by the pursuit of wealth, materialism and money often become the foundation of relationships and decisions, overshadowing values like love and integrity. In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald uses the allure and emptiness of materialism to critique its impact on individuals across different social classes. Through the characters' actions and desires, Fitzgerald argues that materialism influences every person in the story, regardless of their wealth or status, by shaping their dreams, decisions, and relationships.

Myrtle Wilson embodies the destructive nature of materialism as she strives to escape her life of poverty through an obsession with wealth and appearances. For example, during her time in the New York apartment with Tom Buchanan, she insists on buying a police dog impulsively: “I want one of those police dogs” (Chapter 2). This moment highlights her superficial desires for luxury and power, as the dog symbolizes status rather than practicality. Furthermore, Myrtle changes into an elaborate dress after arriving at the apartment, shedding her modest clothes for an outfit that aligns with her fantasies of wealth: “With the influence of the dress her personality had also undergone a change. The intense vitality...was converted into impressive hauteur” (Chapter 2). These actions show Myrtle's belief that material possessions can transform her identity and elevate her social standing. However, her obsession blinds her to the reality that Tom uses her merely for convenience. This behavior demonstrates Fitzgerald’s critique of materialism as a fleeting escape that ultimately deepens discontentment rather than fulfilling aspirations.

The destructive power of materialism is also evident in the lives of Daisy, Tom, and Gatsby, who find themselves trapped by their desires for wealth and its symbols. In Chapter 5, Gatsby shows off his collection of luxurious shirts, an attempt to impress Daisy and symbolize his wealth: “He took out a pile of shirts and began throwing them, one by one, before us...while we admired he brought more and the soft rich heap mounted higher” (Chapter 5). Daisy’s reaction—sobbing at the sight of the shirts—underscores how deeply she is affected by material displays: “They’re such beautiful shirts,” she cried, “It makes me sad because I’ve never seen such—such beautiful shirts before” (Chapter 5). This moment reflects how Daisy values material wealth as an emotional substitute, revealing her shallow nature. Likewise, Gatsby’s accumulation of riches is driven by his belief that wealth will help him reclaim Daisy's love. Tom and Daisy, despite their immense fortune, cling to materialism as a way to maintain their power and shield themselves from accountability, showing how wealth corrupts moral responsibility. Fitzgerald uses these characters to illustrate how materialism dehumanizes relationships, reducing love and emotions to monetary transactions.

In The Great Gatsby, materialism pervades every aspect of the characters’ lives, demonstrating its ability to corrupt dreams and relationships. Myrtle’s fixation on wealth fuels her fantasies, while Daisy, Tom, and Gatsby show how materialism replaces genuine emotions with shallow displays of success. Fitzgerald’s message is clear: regardless of status or wealth, materialism ultimately leads to disillusionment and moral decay. By exposing the hollow pursuits of his characters, Fitzgerald challenges readers to question the societal values that prioritize possessions over authentic connections.

Materialism might provide a temporary illusion of fulfillment, but as Fitzgerald’s characters reveal, its effects are ultimately destructive. In a world defined by wealth and appearances, The Great Gatsby serves as a timeless warning about the consequences of placing material desires above humanity.

Literature Analysis of The Great Gatsby

"Will you still love me when I got nothing but my aching soul?" The lyric from the song, young and beautiful written by Rick Nowels and Lana Del Rey, symbolizes a heartfelt concern for true love from the characters who seem be loved. In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald portrays the relationships of Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, and Myrtle driven by various motivations. The novel questions whether true love can exist aside selfishness and societal expectations. While Gatsby’s devotion to Daisy seems intensively, and Daisy admits her love for Tom in the past, the genuineness of their emotions are under debate. This analysis dives into the nature of their relationships portrayed in the story, revealing that what appears to be romantic is not true love. True love is defined as a connection that runs deeper than merely physical attraction, and material desire. According to the definition, the relationships between the characters cannot be considered as true love, as their pursuits are fueled not by love but by their obsession for material wealth and status. The essay will explore Gatsby's motivation for pursuing Daisy, Tom and Daisy's attitudes toward each other, and Myrtle's affair with Tom.

Gatsby’s pursuit of Daisy is driven by his desire for wealth, status, and the idea of rekindling the past. From the very start, Gatsby’s infatuation with Daisy is portrayed as an obsession with her wealth and the social standing she represents. In chapter 5, when Gatsby reunites with Daisy, he is "trembling" with excitement, showing how deeply his emotions are tied to the prospect of achieving a dream, rather than genuine love: “His dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it.” Gatsby's fixation on Daisy is rooted in his aspiration for a perfect future that aligns with his material desires. His feelings for her are not motivated by true emotional connection but by the illusion of what she symbolizes: a part of his idealized vision of success. Gatsby is trying to relive a past where wealth and love seemed intertwined, but in reality, he is chasing a dream that can never be fulfilled. This shows that his pursuit is based on material desire and the idea of possession, rather than true love.

In contrast to Gatsby’s obsessive pursuit, Tom and Daisy’s relationship is one defined by mutual convenience and societal expectations, rather than love. Tom, who is openly unfaithful to Daisy, seems to view their marriage as a matter of social standing. Daisy, on the other hand, despite her own awareness of Tom’s faults, chooses to stay with him for the stability his wealth provides. In chapter 7, Daisy says, “I did love him once—but I loved you too.” This statement reveals Daisy’s divided loyalties and suggests that love, in their case, is secondary to the benefits their marriage provides in terms of power and wealth. Tom’s attitude toward Daisy is possessive and controlling, especially when he deliberately reminds Gatsby of Daisy’s marital ties. His treatment of Daisy is not one of affection or care, but of dominance and entitlement. Similarly, Daisy’s attachment to Tom is not rooted in true love but in the social security and status that his wealth provides. Together, Tom and Daisy represent a relationship where love is overshadowed by the pursuit of wealth and social position.

Myrtle's affair with Tom is another example of a relationship driven by materialism rather than true love. Myrtle is not in love with Tom for his personality or emotional connection but because of the material benefits that come with him. She sees Tom as her ticket out of the lower class and into a life of luxury. In chapter 2, Myrtle says to Nick, “I’m going to make a big party out of it, and I’m going to invite you and Jordan.” She uses Tom's money to elevate her own status, and her relationship with him becomes a way for her to escape the limitations of her own social class. Tom, in turn, uses Myrtle as a way to assert his dominance and indulge in his desires, showing how their relationship is based on control and self-gratification, not love. Myrtle’s affair with Tom illustrates how love and affection are often replaced by the desire for social mobility and material gain.

In The Great Gatsby, the relationships between the characters are not based on genuine love but on material desires, societal expectations, and personal gain. Gatsby’s obsession with Daisy, Tom and Daisy’s marriage of convenience, and Myrtle’s affair with Tom all illustrate how love becomes secondary to wealth, power, and status. Fitzgerald uses these relationships to critique the hollowness of the American Dream and the way in which personal desires and material aspirations distort true love. The novel ultimately suggests that true love, as a pure emotional connection, cannot flourish in a society where wealth and status take precedence over authentic human connections.

Define what is a successful marriage, use examples in Pride and Prejudice.

What truly defines a successful marriage: love, money, or societal approval? Marriage in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice reflects the varied motivations of the characters, shaped by personal values and societal expectations. Austen presents contrasting attitudes to marriage, because Elizabeth Bennet challenges traditional notions by prioritizing love and respect, while Charlotte Lucas embodies a pragmatic approach, and Jane Bennet’s relationship with Mr. Bingley portrays an ideal union based on mutual affection and understanding.

Elizabeth represents a progressive and idealistic perspective on marriage, prioritizing emotional connection and respect over financial and social considerations. Her rejection of Mr. Collins’ proposal exemplifies her insistence on marrying for love rather than social status. When Mr. Collins proposes, Elizabeth firmly responds: “You could not make me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who could make you so” (Chapter 19). This moment highlights her unwillingness to settle for a loveless marriage, underscoring her independence in rejecting societal expectations. Elizabeth’s rejection of Mr. Darcy’s first proposal further emphasizes her ideals. Despite his wealth and status, Elizabeth refuses his offer due to his initial arrogance and interference in Jane and Bingley’s relationship. She declares: “From the very beginning—almost from the first moment, I may say—of my acquaintance with you, your manners impressed me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others” (Chapter 34). Her candid response reflects her belief that respect and understanding must form the foundation of a marriage, regardless of material benefits. However, Elizabeth’s perspective evolves over time. After reading Darcy’s letter and witnessing his changed behavior, she begins to see the integrity and kindness that underlie his actions. This change culminates in her acceptance of his second proposal, which is based on mutual admiration and love. Through Elizabeth, Austen critiques the transactional nature of many marriages of her era, instead of genuine emotional connection.

In contrast to Elizabeth’s idealism, Charlotte Lucas takes a pragmatic approach to marriage, shaped by the social and financial constraints of her position. At the age of 27, Charlotte is considered past the prime age for marriage in her society. Lacking beauty and financial resources, she views marriage as a practical arrangement rather than a romantic ideal. Her acceptance of Mr. Collins’ proposal illustrates her realism, as she tells Elizabeth: “I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins’ character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state” (Chapter 22). This statement highlights Charlotte’s focus on securing stability and social status over emotional fulfillment. Charlotte’s decision reflects the limited options available to women of her time. Austen portrays Charlotte with a degree of sympathy, emphasizing the pressures that drive her choice. Through Charlotte, Austen exposes the harsh realities faced by women in a patriarchal society, where marriage often served as a means of financial survival.

Jane and Mr. Bingley’s relationship exemplify an ideal union based on mutual affection. Their romance is characterized by genuine love and admiration, free from the societal pressures that complicate other marriages in the novel. Jane’s reserved and gentle nature complements Bingley’s amiable personality, making them a perfect match. Elizabeth observes of Jane: “You are a great deal too apt, you know, to like people in general. You never see a fault in anybody. All the world are good and agreeable in your eyes” (Chapter 4). Jane’s trusting character enables her to approach Bingley with sincerity, fostering a relationship rooted in mutual respect. However, their relationship is temporarily disrupted by external forces, particularly Darcy’s interference and Caroline Bingley’s manipulations. Darcy’s letter reveals his initial concerns about Jane’s seemingly indifferent behavior and the impropriety of her family. Darcy’s misjudgment of Jane’s feelings underscores how societal expectations and misunderstandings can hinder even the most ideal relationships. Despite these obstacles, Jane and Bingley’s love endures, demonstrating that mutual affection and respect can overcome external challenges. By presenting Jane and Bingley’s relationship that balances emotional fulfillment with societal expectations, Austen highlights the possibility of achieving a successful marriage based on genuine affection, even within the constraints of 19th-century society.

In Pride and Prejudice, Austen presents a spectrum of attitudes toward marriage, from Elizabeth Bennet’s idealistic pursuit of love and respect to Charlotte Lucas’ pragmatic acceptance of realities, and Jane Bennet’s harmonious union with Mr. Bingley. Each relationship reflects the characters’ values and societal constraints, revealing the complexities of marriage in Austen’s time. Ultimately, Austen critiques the transactional nature of many unions while celebrating the possibility of genuine love and compatibility within the institution of marriage.

Wealth, Power, and Status in Pride and Prejudice

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice open with the famous line, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife,” immediately highlighting the centrality of wealth, power, and status in the novel’s world. The story revolves around the Bennet family, particularly Elizabeth Bennet, as they navigate the societal pressures of marriage and class in Regency England. Through its characters and plot, Austen argues that wealth and status often distort human relationships and moral judgment, as seen in the superficiality of societal expectations and the misuse of power by the elite.

One way Austen critiques the influence of wealth and status is by exposing how they lead to superficial judgments and societal hypocrisy. For instance, when Mr. Darcy first meets Elizabeth at the Meryton assembly, he dismisses her as merely “tolerable” and not handsome enough to tempt him (Chapter 3). This moment reveals how Darcy’s wealth and high social standing inflate his sense of superiority, blinding him to Elizabeth’s true worth. His initial pride stems from his belief that his £10,000 a year and prestigious family name place him above others, particularly those like the Bennets, who lack similar fortune and connections. Similarly, the Bingley sisters exemplify the shallow values of the upper class. Despite Jane Bennet’s kindness and beauty, they look down on her because of her family’s lower social standing and lack of wealth. Caroline Bingley’s snide remarks about Jane’s “low connections” and “total want of propriety” (Chapter 4) reveal how societal expectations prioritize wealth and status over genuine character. Austen uses these examples to critique a society that values material wealth and social standing above all else, showing how such values lead to misjudgments and fractured relationships. Ultimately, the novel suggests that true worth lies not in material wealth but in moral integrity and self-awareness, as demonstrated by Elizabeth’s refusal to marry Mr. Collins despite the financial security it would bring.

Furthermore, Austen illustrates how power and status are often misused to control and manipulate others, reinforcing the rigid class structures of the time. Lady Catherine de Bourgh epitomizes this abuse of power when she confronts Elizabeth, demanding she promise never to marry Mr. Darcy: “You are to understand, Miss Bennet, that I came here with the determined resolution of carrying my purpose” (Chapter 56). Lady Catherine’s arrogance and entitlement stem from her high social standing, which she wields as a weapon to intimidate those beneath her. Her belief that she has the right to dictate Elizabeth’s future highlights the corrupting influence of power and the lengths to which the elite will go to maintain their status. Similarly, Mr. Collins’s obsequious behavior toward Lady Catherine underscores how the lower classes often enable such abuses in their quest for favor and security. His constant praise of her “condescension” and “noble presence” (Chapter 14) reveals his willingness to sacrifice his dignity to align himself with her power. Through these interactions, Austen critiques the ways in which power perpetuates inequality and stifles individual autonomy. However, the novel also champions characters like Elizabeth, who resist such pressures and assert their independence. Her refusal to bow to Lady Catherine’s demands demonstrates her belief in personal agency over societal expectations, offering a counterpoint to the corrupting influence of power.

In conclusion, Pride and Prejudice reveals how wealth, power, and status distort human relationships and moral judgment, as seen in the superficiality of societal expectations and the misuse of power by the elite. Austen critiques a world where material wealth and social standing overshadow true character, while also exposing the corrupting influence of power in maintaining class hierarchies. Through Elizabeth Bennet’s defiance and moral clarity, the novel advocates for a society that values integrity and individuality over wealth and status. In the end, Austen reminds us that true power lies not in fortune or rank, but in the strength of one’s principles and the courage to defy societal norms. By challenging the superficial values of her time, Austen offers a timeless critique of the ways in which wealth, power, and status shape—and often distort—human lives.