Three Studies in Characterization

THE WOMEN OF BEN JONSON IN EPICOENE AND BARTHOLOMEW FAIR. This paper compares and contrasts the method variations that cause the women of Epicoene to be less interesting and more stereotyped than those of Bartholomew Fair. Basically, in the women of Epicoene, Jonson used character types exclusively. The women were all masculine, and remained that type throughout the play. In Bartholomew Fair, Jonson created versatility in the characters by including more information on the women through rhetorical places, particularly the consilium or reason behind their actions. The multiplied places in the women in Bartholomew Fair, the changes in the community women while they were at the fair, plus the looser roles as evidenced in the types of women, created more diversity in characters. HAWTHORNE\u27S FAIR MAIDENS. It is the object of this paper to reveal many of the seemingly ideal qualities the maidens share with Sophia Hawthorne, Nathaniel\u27s much beloved wife, and then use the characters of the major fair maidens--Phoebe, Priscilla and Hilda-- to show how Hawthorne both individualized and humanized these maidens to bring them our [sic] of the realm of the stereotyped ideal into the world of humanity. Some of the characteristics the girls share are looks, sunniness, housewifeliness, birdlikeness, optimistic and naive philosophies, and the redemptive power of love. Hawthorne individualizes the maidens by varying their reactions to the responsibilities to love. Phoebe has an overwhelming love, able to bring joy and relief to overburdened hearts. Her only weakness in the story is her temporary loss of control to mesmerism. On the other hand, Priscilla\u27s love is very weak. She helps no one. Hilda changes during her tale, from a girl too pure to help a friend to a wife able to bring back her husband to the reality of life. RESPONSIBILITY AND CHARACTER IN FAULKNER\u27S FICTION. This paper classifies and evaluates several of Faulkner\u27s main characters according to four specific types. The first say, \u27This is rotten, I\u27ll have no part of it.\u27 The second says \u27This is rotten, I don\u27t like it, I can\u27t do anything about it, but at least I will not participate in it myself, I will go off into a cave....\u27 The third says, \u27This stinks and I\u27m going to do something about it, I\u27m going to change it.\u27 The fourth type is so devoid of good that he can\u27t even see beyond his own situation to acknowledge evil, or responsibility. The examples examined are: Quentin, Dilsey, and Jason in The Sound of the Fury; Ike in The Bear, and Chuck in Intruder in the Dust; and Flem, Linda and Ratliff in the Snopes trilogy. While it is true that Faulkner\u27s technique of emphasizing evil often left his works with an abundance of evil characters, yet in the works discussed, Faulkner was able to point out the evils that overcome man as well as the alternate choices to those evils