Please read the following essays.
Wanting to Cruise Off of a Cruise
Have you ever been in a position which you absolutely did not want to be in? Something that you
utterly wanted to end? Somewhere that you wish you just could jump and escape from, literally? Well, I
have indeed been in a situation like this and I was not exactly what you would typically call a “happy
camper”. Usually after the first time of strongly disliking something, a normal person would not try it
again, but in my case I tried it three different times. After each time, I was disappointed, wondering why I
had just spent money for a week that I did not enjoy the least bit. In many ways, a cruise ship is not
pleasurable and has proven itself to be a waste of precious time and money.
In today’s society, we have a tremendously diverse population therefore some people have different views
on such a broad topic as cruise ships. However, to me, I absolutely do not enjoy what a cruise has to offer
in the interior and exterior of the ship. Seasickness, overly touchy couples and obnoxious children, buffet
food, and beach destinations are just a few reasons behind my extreme hatred for cruises.
To start off with, I am deathly afraid of heights and being on something so tall in the middle of
the ocean makes me awfully nauseated. Every time I am on a cruise, I have gotten sick due to the ongoing
flow of the ship. The boat wobbles, which makes my body wobble. As I look out at the ocean, I see it
sway back and forth which makes me envision my body swaying back and forth. I then start to feel a
queasy feeling in my stomach, which I have never felt before. Also, because I have seen the movie
Titanic, it brings the idea in my head of the cruise sinking, which makes me extremely nervous. The fact
that I am not on land, with two feet on the ground, literally freaks me out.
Next, ever noticed how many honeymoon couples and obnoxious children there are on the ships?
Obviously a newlywed or a family with kids is going to want to go on a tropical excursion, but does there
really need to be such a ridiculous amount of them. Honeymooners are so touchy and in love that it makes
us loners without significant others question ourselves and become quite jealous. As you sit there on a
chair outside, wanting to enjoy yourself and relax, but instead you turn your head and see a couple
groping each other which makes you want to vomit. And to even begin about the irritating little kids that
find it necessary to scream at the top of their lungs and cry for no reason; I just do not get it. Cruise ships
are full of these types of people and usually we can avoid them by just moving on to a new location, but
on vessels like these, we are stuck with these people. Considering we’re in the middle of the ocean on a
specific number of days, there is no way of escaping.
Additionally, for some odd reason we are told that we are going to have a tremendous variety of
food during our time on the cruise, but I always seem to be unsatisfied. The buffet food for breakfast and
lunch are set out on the balcony, which is an easy target for birds flying by looking for something to
munch on. I remember one time I was talking to my dad while eating the food, and a bird decided that it
would be necessary to poop on his food. Then for dinner, there is always a formal setting and our waiters
hand us a menu with four different choices for an entre, two types of salads, and a couple of deserts. I will
never forget my third cruise, I ordered the sautéed salmon with noodles and later that night got sick
because I got food poisoning from it. That was the last time I was ever going to eat any type of food
offered on a cruise.
Something else that bothers me about cruise ships would be that each time I go on one, we either
go to the same destination, or somewhere extremely similar, which fails to leave me with a memorable
experience. Each cruise I have been on has made the same stop at Cozumel, Mexico, and two other
tropical islands that all look the exact same. In Cozumel, we always just go shopping for the first part of
the day and then waste money on visiting a beach that we have seen countless times before. The worst
part about it is that we only get to stay at each location for eight hours or less. This means that the
majority of our time is spent on the actual cruise, which gets old after spending days doing the same
thing.
Overall, I am not a big fan of cruise ships. For the amount of money my parents spent for our
family to go on one, I should have had a more enjoyable experience. I am not impressed with what cruise
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel
ships have to offer and strongly believe I never will be. However, I guess I will just have to see if one day
I become one of those newlyweds I was jealous of or have a family of my own with screaming obnoxious
children out on a cruise ship hoping for a lovely vacation.
Romantic Comedies
I would like to consider myself a frequent movie go-er, I love going to the movies with family
and friends. My favorite type of movie I would say is a Romantic Comedy those are the best kinds of
movies because even if you are in the mood for romance you get that and even when you are in the mood
for comedy you get that as well! Romance comedies are bubbly, favorable, outstanding, but yet simple; I
would just consider them the most all around watchable movies.
I would have to say my top three romantic comedies include The Proposal, My Best Friend’s
Wedding, and How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days; although, I feel those three have very different story lines
but still represent the genre as a great whole, they leave viewers with a lasting impression after watching.
When going to see romantic comedy viewers know going into the film that they are going to see an
obvious comedy so they are most likely going to laugh, and that they are going to get to see sentimental
because it is going to involve a love story. Romantic comedies are pretty good movies for date nights
because they aren’t sappy so men wouldn’t mind seeing it but the woman defiantly gets the love story she
likes as well.
The Proposal with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds is about Margaret Tate (Bullock) who is
the stern, not so pleased boss of Andrew Paxton (Reynolds) who is her happy go lucky assistant.
Margaret Tate is threatened to be deported from the United States back to Canada after failing to renew
her rights a legal alien in the U.S. so she forces Andrew Paxton into marrying her so she is able to stay.
However, they come in with some run ins with a man from the government who wants to deport her and
follows them to Alaska, Paxton’s home, where they are planned to be wed that weekend. The two never
spent much time together out of the office but really connected their weekend at Paxton’s home, so Tate
decides she can’t ruin his life and tells the man from the government what is going on and he takes her
away. In the end, Andrew Paxton realized how much he really does love Margaret Tate and chases her
and actually proposes. This movie is filled with the witty comedic acts of both Bullock and Reynolds,
who did such a great job with this movie.
My Best Friend’s Wedding is another great romantic comedy with Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz,
and Dermot Mulroney. Julia Roberts plays Julianne Potter a food critic whose best friend and love of her
life, Michael O’Neal (Mulroney) is about to marry the rich, beautiful, and humorous Kimberly Wallace
(Diaz). Throughout the whole movie Julianne Potter is trying to steal O’Neal back by reminding him of
all the great times they shared. On the day of the actual wedding of Kimmy Wallace and Michael
O’Neal, Julianne decides to make her final move and kiss O’Neal and Kimmy sees. This sends the three
of them on a chase through the city on the day of the wedding. It ends up that Julianne gets the two back
together after she realizes Kimmy is the one that makes Michael happy.
How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days is probably my favorite of all time with Kate Hudson and
Matthew McConaughey. Kate Hudson plays Andie Anderson who is a “How to girl” for a popular
women’s magazine, and Matthew McConaughey plays Ben Barry who is a guy in the advertising
business. Andie’s new “How to” column for the new issue is how to lose a guy in ten days and of course
she picks out Ben at a bar and decides he will be the one she plays for her column. However, Ben also
made a deal that he would bring her to a party in ten days and she would be madly in love with him so
while she is trying to “lose” him he is doing everything in his power to keep her around to get this
contract he wants. During the ten days the two fall in love and Andie ends up losing the guy she actually
falls in love with until Ben hears what she was put up to. Ben ends up stopping her from leaving town
and the two live happily ever after.
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel
The Proposal and How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days are similar because the couples are forced
together in the beginning, while in My Best Friend’s Wedding they are technically forced apart in a way.
My Best Friend’s Wedding is probably the most different kind of a typical romantic comedy because the
main character, Julianne (Roberts) ends up alone but still happy in the end.
How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days, The Proposal, and My Best Friend’s Wedding are full of comedy
any person would find funny; whether it may be Julia Roberts’ smile or Matthew McConaughey’s charm
any viewer, male or female, will enjoy these movies. That is why I believe they are the best genre
because every average person can connect with the storylines, characters, and of course the comedy to
have a great movie to watch forever.
These three wonderful movies do an absolute superb job on the romantic comedy genre; you have
your sappy typical romance novel endings but with some hysterical comedy mixed in. I think that is why
I love these kinds of movies so much, they are so fun to watch; although, most viewers know that who
will end up together in the end, the movies provide a light-hearted and enjoyable way of getting to the
dramatic “love story” ending we all hope for.
“Killings” Literary Analysis
Are people really that willing to kill another? Within “Killings” by Andre Dubus, characters are
willing to go that far. This short story explains how a man by the name of Matt Fowler ends up killing
Richard Strout, because Richard Strout had killed Matt’s son, Frank. “Killings” is overflowing with
murder as well as deception. This leads the reader to the question: what is Matt’s motivation for killing
Strout? Does the reason only revolve around the revenge that is settling within his heart, or is someone
manipulating his decisions from the shadows? Based on the emotions and actions Matt’s wife, Ruth,
expresses throughout the story as well as Matt’s reactions, it is clear that she is the one manipulating
Matt, giving him the necessary motivation to follow through with killing Strout. This leads the reader to
believe that Matt is weak for allowing others to control him like a puppet.
“Killings” by Andre Dubus is a short story which begins with Matt Fowler, the protagonist, and
his family attending Frank’s funeral. Frank is Matt and Ruth’s youngest son and was shot by Richard
Strout, Matt’s foil character. As the family is leaving Frank’s grave site, Steve, Matt and Ruth’s oldest
son exclaims: “‘I should kill him’” (Dubus 1). Steve is referring to “him” as Richard Strout. Clearly
there is tension between Matt’s family and this Strout character. Frank is currently seeing Mary Ann who
is in the process of divorcing Strout. One day when Frank is with Mary Ann and her boys, Strout enters
the house and shoots Frank. “Richard Strout shot Frank in front of the boys…Strout came in the front
door and shot Frank twice in the chest and once in the face” (6). Strout had initially gone to prison for
this crime, however he receives bail and once again is able to walk the streets. Matt talks to Willis about
this issue. “‘I didn’t think about bail. I thought I wouldn’t have to worry about him for years’” (2).
Since Strout is out on bail, Ruth continues to see him around town. The rest of the story continues with
Matt and Willis’s plan to deal with Strout. Willis is Matt’s buddy who owns a large restaurant. In the
end Matt shoots Strout and buries him in a distant forest.
Matt Fowler is often characterized as having a weak mind throughout the story. Even from the
beginning, as a father, he constantly fears for his children’s safety. “He had always been a fearful
father…he was relieved when he came home in the evenings and they were there; usually that relief was
his only acknowledgement of his fear” (6). Matt would constantly imagine his children either drowning
in the sea or falling from the oak tree in their backyard. This shows that Matt has a weak mind through
his lack of confidence in his children. Although Matt is weak from the beginning, his son’s murder
pushes him over the edge. While waiting near Willis’s car for Strout to exit the bar, Matt realizes that
from the time of Frank’s death to when he plans to kill Strout, “he had not so much moved through his
life as wandered through it, his spirits like a dazed body bumping into furniture and corners” (6). Since
Matt is unaware of his progressing life, I find it difficult to believe that the idea of killing Strout is
originally his. This is also expressed during the time that Matt and Willis execute their plan to execute
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel
Strout. When Matt sees Strout coming around the corner of the bar alone, he “[gives] up the hope he had
kept all night…that Strout would come out with friends, and Willis would simply drive away” (7). The
fact that Matt doesn’t want to go through with the plan shows the reader that Matt probably wouldn’t have
thought of him killing Strout in the first place. When Matt is with Strout, he expresses fear of spending
time with Strout and refuses to look him in the eye. “Matt had not told Willis he was afraid he could not
be alone with Strout for very long, smell his smells, feel the presence of his flesh, hear his voice, and then
shoot him…Matt aimed [the gun] at [Strout’s] temple and did not look at his eyes (7)…Matt [looked]
down the gun barrel but not at the profiled face beyond it” (11). Matt fears that the plan will be ruined if
he sees Strout as another person rather than just his son’s murderer. Based on this evidence, it is easy to
believe that Matt does not wholeheartedly want to kill Strout which probably means that someone else has
a greater desire for Matt to kill Strout.
After Frank’s murder, Ruth manipulates Matt both emotionally and physically into hating Strout
to a point of murdering him. This is accomplished through the various times that Matt is forced to
witness Ruth’s pain and suffering. On one occasion, Matt notices after the funeral that “beneath [Ruth’s]
eyes there was swelling from the three days she had suffered” (1). Here Matt can only watch as Ruth
suffers due to the loss of her son which causes Matt even more emotional suffering.Ruth’s emotions are
being transferred to Matt since he can only watch After Strout receives bail and is released from prison,
Ruth continues to see him around town. Matt explains to Willis that he is aware of the torment Strout
causes Ruth. “‘Ruth sees him. She sees him too much…She can’t even go out for cigarettes and aspirin.
It’s killing her…It makes her cry’” (2). This affects Matt emotionally, manipulating him into believing
that something must be done to Strout so Ruth no longer sees him around. Ruth also manipulates Matt
through physical means. After Frank’s funeral, “Ruth’s arm, linked with Matt’s tightened” (1) in
response to Steve’s comment “‘I should kill him’” (1) as if she were telling Matt to pay attention to what
Steve says. Also, when Matt and Ruth were in bed together, “[Ruth] would hold Matt and cry, or
sometimes she was silent and Matt would touch her tightening arm, her clenched fist” (6). In this part of
the story, Ruth denies Matt the pleasure of sleeping with her since she is frightened of seeing Strout. This
is a form of manipulation against Matt because Ruth will not sleep with him until she knows that Strout is
out of their lives for good. The reader knows this is true because after Matt kills Strout and returns home,
Ruth asks: “‘Did you do it?’” (13) and finally opens up to him. “Now she touched him, lying on her side,
her hand on his belly, his thigh” (13). Clearly Ruth was denying Matt pleasure thus manipulating him
until the deed was completed. Ultimately, it was Ruth’s fear and hatred of Strout that influenced Matt’s
desire to kill him.
Based on Ruth and Matt’s actions throughout “Killings,” it is apparent that Ruth is acting as a
puppet master, manipulating Matt, like a puppet, into killing Strout. However, Matt is aware that Ruth
knows that he plans to kill Strout which causes him to appear even weaker minded and thus easy to
manipulate. The first example given is when Matt tells Willis “‘I’ve got a .38…she knows I started
carrying it after the first time she saw [Strout] in town’” (2). Matt realizes that Ruth notices his actions.
Even on the night Matt plans to kill Strout, Ruth shows signs of knowing what is going to happen.
“When Ruth said good night she looked at his face, and he felt she could see in his eyes the gun, and the
night he was going to” (7-8). Again Matt realized that Ruth knows what he is planning yet she does not
attempt to stop him. It is obvious that when Matt return’s home, Ruth knows what occurred as well as
approves of it. “‘Did you do it?’ she said...She was holding him, wanting him” (13-14). As previously
stated, Matt is characterized as a weak minded character, thus easy to manipulate. The idea that he is
aware that Ruth knows about his plans, shows the reader that Matt is perhaps allowing Ruth to manipulate
him.
The Gender Issue: Is it Still an Issue?
Gender discrimination is a problem often overlooked in the 21st century United States. Since the
1800s women have inherited more rights- such as the right to vote- and more and more women are going
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel
to college and making careers. However, despite these recent developments, are women really treated as
equals to men in our country? They were definitely not treated as equals in the 1800s nor do I believe they
are treated as equals now. We have either gotten used to this way of living, or oppression has just become
more subtle. Gender discrimination is not only a problem of the past, but can still be seen today depicted
with distinct gendered roles, as well as society’s myopic male-centered focus.
The first issue I will address is the distinct roles which society expects a person to play, depending on his
or her gender. This issue is made clear in marriage and in family homes. It was a widely believed
concept in the 1800s and still a common sexist view today that the woman is supposed to stay at home to
raise the children and clean the house while the man goes to work. Henrik Ibsen conveys many examples
of this type of gender discrimination in his play A Doll’s House. Torvald Helmer, the husband of the
play, finds one of his wife’s broken hair pins near his letter box. When Torvald asks his wife, Nora, if she
tried to open the box, she says that it must have been one of the children. Torvald’s response to this is,
“Then you must get them out of those ways” (Ibsen 60). The word “you” stood out to me in this
statement. Why doesn’t he say “we must get them out of those ways”? Torvald is a man of high morals
and he wants his children to be obedient and respectful, which is a common desire for a parent. However,
Torvald has no intention on teaching the children himself. He doesn’t plan on disciplining them or telling
them that their actions are inappropriate. The children are just as much Torvald’s as they are Nora’s, but
Torvald feels that raising the children is his wife’s responsibility. If they are getting into trouble, the
mother must not be doing a good enough job.
Although it may not be as extreme, this stereotype of the mother staying at home to take care of
the kids while the father goes to work still exists. My mom was a stay-at-home mom for many years.
She eventually went back to school to be a nurse- a “woman’s” job. Even now, she only works two days
a week as opposed to my dad’s five days a week. Honestly, she despises being a nurse, but she didn’t feel
like she had many options. She was too old to become a teacher.
Nobody is forced to live within these boundaries society has determined for us. A man could just
as easily be a stay-at-home-dad while the mother goes to work, but this is frowned upon by the public.
Society degrades those who live outside of the norm and makes them feel like outcasts. Allan G. Johnson
states, “The more powerful a woman is under patriarchy, the more ‘unsexed’ she becomes in the eyes of
others as her female cultural identity recedes beneath the mantle of male-identified power”. He goes on
to say “Power looks sexy on men but not on women” (Johnson 160). Society likes their men to be manly
and their women to be womanly. When a strong woman shows her strength and independence, the men’s
masculinity becomes threatened. They fear they will not be in control when interacting with this type of
woman. Women are supposed to be weak in comparison to men. Therefore, when a woman plays the
role that a man usually plays, she becomes manly in the eyes of society.
I don’t particularly think there is anything wrong with the father working and the mother staying
at home (if the family’s financial status can support it), but it is a problem when the father thinks that his
“job” ends there. A husband/father should actually be both a husband and a father. In the eyes of a child,
he is more than just a “provider”. Yes, he should go to work and bring home money, but he also has to
care for his children. Children need a strong, loving father figure. A male role model is essential for the
growth of both boys and girls. How is a young boy supposed to grow up to be a proper man if he never
interacts with his father? Also, it would be much easier for a young boy to learn how to use the bathroom
from someone who does it the same way he does it. Young girls need a strong father figure to teach her
how a man should treat her. Getting told you are beautiful means something different when it comes
from your father rather than your mother. Each parent should have a role in raising the children because
each parent has something different to offer. Ibsen’s play was written in 1879, and at that time, there was
no such thing as “partnership” when it came to marriage. The man and the woman each had very distinct
roles established by society at the time. These roles included the man going to work all day, coming home
to rest at night, and not socializing with his family except to say “What’s for dinner?” While today the
lines of these roles may have blurred, the stereotype is still visible. The father is still normally the one
who brings home the main income, and the mother is still normally the one that takes care of the kids
when they are home sick from school.
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel
Society’s strong focus on men has resulted in the stereotype that women are inferior. This gender
issue is evident in A Doll’s House and is made clear by men being portrayed as gallant heroes rescuing a
damsel in distress. When Nora asks Torvald what type of dress she should wear to the ball, he says, “So
my obstinate little woman is obliged to get someone to come to her rescue?” (Ibsen 26). I didn’t think
that wanting an opinion on what to wear was synonymous with being in danger. Torvald is implying that
Nora is incapable of making a decision on her own, thus he must fearlessly swoop in and aid her in
deciding on the perfect dress. According to him, a woman cannot do anything without the help of a
man’s strength and intelligence- except raise three children of course. This isn’t the only time Torvald
refers to himself as being a hero. In Act III, Torvald states, “Do you know, Nora, I have often wished that
you might be threatened by some great danger, so that I might risk my life’s blood and everything for
your sake” (Ibsen 61). Torvald wishes that his wife was in danger? This is a very selfish thought. If I
was married I would hope that my safety was more important to my husband than his pride. He wants
somebody to do something horrid to his wife so that he can have the opportunity to rescue her and be
viewed as a hero by everyone in town. Torvald also said that he wanted to risk his “life’s blood and
everything” for Nora’s sake; however, a few pages later Torvald says, “But no man would sacrifice his
honor for the one he loves” (Ibsen 70). This renders his statement about giving everything for Nora
meaningless. He would risk his life’s blood and everything, but not his honor. How could honor possibly
be more important than his wife? I would hardly call a man who made that statement heroic. This goes
back to the stereotype that women are inferior to men. According to men of the 1800s, no woman is
worth the sacrifice of a man’s pride because his feelings are more beneficial to the general public than the
life of a frail woman.
The fantasy of men being heroes is by no means “old-fashioned”. Allan G. Johnson describes
this cultural phenomenon as a rendition of patriarchy, or a male center of focus. Johnson claims, “If you
want a story about heroism, moral courage, spiritual transformation, endurance, or any of the struggles
that give human life its deepest meaning and significance, men and masculinity are usually the terms in
which you must see it”. He then challenges the readers to think about the most important movies they
have seen and think about how many of them have a male playing the main character (Johnson 161-162).
All of the recent hit superhero movies focus on a male hero saving a woman. Take Spiderman for
example: this movie now has three sequels, and in each one of them, Spiderman has to save his beloved
Mary-Jane from the clutches of some evil villain. I recently saw the new Sherlock Holmes (a movie based
on a book with a central male character). Even though this movie had a strong, independent female
character, she ends up getting herself into trouble and has to be rescued by the courageous detective
Holmes- more than once. The movie made clear that the woman was more intelligent than her quirky
detective friend, but somehow her womanly ways still found her getting kidnapped and set in harm’s way.
Some other recent superhero movies with this same theme include Batman, The Incredible Hulk, Iron
Man, Superman, Ghost Rider, Hancock, X-Men, Hellboy, The Punisher, and Daredevil.
But it doesn’t end with just movies or books, even video games are patriarchal. Super Mario
Brothers is one of the most well-known video games with many different versions and sequels. What is
the main goal of all of them? - defeat an evil villain and rescue the helpless Princess Peach. Even after
being kidnapped a hundred times, poor Peach still isn’t simulated to fend for herself. The puny but brave
Mario and Luigi must come to her rescue every time. Another popular video game is The Legend of
Zelda where the player takes on the role of a male character in pursuit to rescue a princess. I can’t think
of any video games where you play as a female character that has to rescue a kidnapped male character.
Our culture consistently portrays women as being weak and male-dependent. In fact, the idea surrounds
us so much, that we don’t even give it a second thought. We are so accustomed to this ideal that nobody
even questions, “Hey, how come the main character of all of these movies and video games are men?”
Gender was an issue in the 1879 when Henrik Ibsen wrote his play, and it is definitely still an
issue in the 21st century. Women are not treated as equals to men; therefore, our value is less than that of
men. We are subordinate to them in the workplace and at home. While there has been a small number of
women in power, this number is extremely outweighed by the number of men that have been in power.
We are still told what we are “allowed” to do by men. I am not a feminist, but I do believe that everyone
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel
should have equal opportunities regardless of gender. This will never be true in a society that revolves
around the wants and needs of men.
Instructor Materials: E. Goddard-Scovel