Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary

Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary Literary realism refers to a style that faithfully portrays life and interprets the actualities of all the aspects of reality. The literary style emerged as a reaction to the clouded literary conventions, misplaced esthetic glorification, and excessive beautification of the universe presented by romanticism.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More As a literary technique, realism stands out from the other styles due to its four major defining characteristics. One of these characteristics is that realism is more concerned with characters than the plot. The second defining feature of realism is that its portrayal of reality is in comprehensive and vivid details. Thirdly, the language used by realists is not overly heightened or poetic. Finally, literary realism stands out as a result of its emphasis on the moral conflicts in the middle class. Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina and Gustave Flauberts Madame Bovary are outstanding texts that uniquely exhibit the defining aspects of realism. Flaubert’s novel Madame Bovary is widely acclaimed for its realistic portrayal of normal life scenarios. It presents an unadorned description of people in their daily life activities. The reality as experienced through the authors eyes is completely unaffected by any subjectivities of the author. As such, the text features carefully selected and planned events and incidents. As a result of this, the novel avoids the redundancy and boredom that many associate with literary realism.Advertising Looking for essay on comparative literature? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More For example, the authors calculated selection of real life events in Madame Bovary is depicted in the context where Emma Bovary is fantasizing about a midnight wedding under the light of torches, an idea that her fa ther dismisses as nonsensical (56). This part contrasts sentimental romanticism with the unsympathetic realities of life. The reality emerges triumphant following the downfall of Emma, who represents romanticism and her father who represents the real world. As a result of lacking the realistic appreciation of life, Emma Bovary lacks the true picture of what life should be. In a similar manner, Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is considered by many critics as a vivid reconstruction of the Russian experience. Literary, the text betrays its association with the realistic school of thought. This is due to its emphasis on sincerity, simplicity, the deliberate avoidance of style to elaborate on minute life details, and the use of a normal tone that lacks the artificiality of poetic language. By contrasting the main characters in the story (Anna and Levin), the author, manages to reveal the weaknesses of both. As such, Levin is presented as an all-round character and not a simplified her o, and Anna is portrayed not as a simplified villain but as a normal human. Her humanness is revealed by depicting the various aspects of her life such as her social life (Tolstoy 245). The writers depict the dullness of people’s lives without making the texts boring to the readers. The astuteness of the writers makes the explication of ordinary situations rather intriguing without any exaggerations. The readers get a three-dimensional effect of the characters as a result of the detailed descriptions.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In this regard, the characters are perceived as tangible by the audience. Even the metaphors that the authors use are directly picked from the real life. For instance, in describing some houses, Flaubert states that they are â€Å"like fur caps pulled down over the eyes† (86). The titles of literary texts play a very significant role in selling the contents. Through the titles of the two texts, the authors manage to hints about the contents of the texts to the readers. As such, the audience is prepared in advance for what they should expect in the respective texts. The fact that literary realism gives more emphasis to characters than the plot is depicted in the selection of the respective titles. The title Anna Karenina is derived from the name of the central character in the novel. The author makes it known to the audience that the character is essential to the story, and that arouses a sense of curiosity in the readers. The readers want to explore why the author has chosen the particular characters name as the title of his article. This prompts a critical reading of the text. On a similar note, Gustave Flaubert uses the name of the main character in the novel as the title of his text. The other effect realized by the choice of character names in literary texts such as Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary is that the audience is prepared to expect a real life story involving the real life experiences of the characters. This is entirely different from when the title of the story is a description of a place or a symbolic name. Both texts manage to suggest realism even before readers engage the text.Advertising Looking for essay on comparative literature? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The texts focus on the moral dilemmas that are rampant in the middle classes. This is achieved through the characters whose names constitute the titles of the texts. Both Flauberts and Tolstoys texts are considered as successful depictions of reality in their different contexts. Through the careful selection of real life events, the use of a natural language, the emphasis on the characters rather than the plot, and the vivid description of scenarios and characters, the novels explicate the magical sensation that realistic texts are capable of presenting to their readers. The titles of the texts are also derived from character names adding to the realism effect of the novels. Flaubert, Gustave. Madame Bovary. Trans. Francis Steegmuller. New York: Random House, 1957. Print. Tolstoy, Leo. Anna Karenina: A Novel in Eight Parts. Trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. New York, NY: Penguin, 2002. Print.

Battle of New Orleans in the American Civil War

Battle of New Orleans in the American Civil War The capture of New Orleans by Union forces occurred during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and saw Flag Officer David G. Farragut run his fleet past Forts Jackson and St. Philip on April 24, 1862 before capturing New Orleans the following day. Early in the Civil War, Union General-in-Chief Winfield Scott devised the Anaconda Plan for defeating the Confederacy. A hero of the Mexican-American War, Scott called for the blockade of the Southern coast as well as the capture of the Mississippi River. This latter move was designed to split the Confederacy in two and prevent supplies from moving east and west. To New Orleans The first step to securing the Mississippi was the capture of New Orleans. The Confederacys largest city and busiest port, New Orleans was defended by two large forts, Jackson and St. Philip, situated on the river below the city (Map). While forts had historically held an advantage over naval vessels, successes in 1861 at Hatteras Inlet and Port Royal led Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus V. Fox to believe that an attack up the Mississippi would be feasible. In his view, the forts could be reduced by naval gunfire and then assaulted by a relatively small landing force. Foxs plan was initially opposed by US Army general-in-chief George B. McClellan who believed that such an operation would require 30,000 to 50,000 men. Viewing a prospective expedition against New Orleans as a diversion, he was unwilling to release large numbers of troops as he was planning what would become the Peninsula Campaign. To obtain the needed landing force, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles approached  Major General Benjamin Butler. A political appointee, Butler was able to use his connections to secure 18,000 men and received command of the force on February 23, 1862. Fast Facts: Capture of New Orleans Conflict: American Civil War (1861-1865)Dates: April 24, 1862Armies Commanders:UnionFlag Officer David G. Farragut17 warships19 mortar boatsConfederateMajor General Mansfield LovellForts Jackson St. Philip2 ironclads, 10 gunboats Farragut The task of eliminating the forts and taking the city fell to Flag Officer David G. Farragut. A long-serving officer who had taken part in the War of 1812 and Mexican-American War, he had been raised by Commodore David Porter following the death of his mother. Given command of the West Gulf Blockading Squadron in January 1862, Farragut arrived at his new post the following month and established a base of operations on Ship Island off the coast of Mississippi. In addition to his squadron, he was provided with a fleet of mortar boats led by his foster brother, Commander David D. Porter, who had the ear of Fox. Assessing the Confederate defenses, Farragut initially planned to reduce the forts with mortar fire before advancing his fleet up the river. Rear Admiral David G. Farragut. US Naval History and Heritage Command   Preparations Moving to the Mississippi River in mid-March, Farragut began moving his ships over the bar at its mouth. Here complications were encountered as the water proved three feet shallower than expected.  As a result, the steam frigate USS Colorado (52 guns) had to be left behind. Rendezvousing at Head of Passes, Farraguts ships and Porters mortar boats moved up the river towards the forts. Arriving, Farragut was confronted by Forts Jackson and St. Philip, as well as a chain barricade and four smaller batteries. Sending forward a detachment from the US Coast Survey, Farragut made determinations on where to place the mortar fleet. Confederate Preparations From the outset of the war, plans for the defense of New Orleans were hampered by the fact that the Confederate leadership in Richmond believed that the greatest threats to the city would come from the north. As such, military equipment and manpower were shifted up the Mississippi to defensive points such as Island Number 10.  In southern Louisiana, the defenses were commanded by Major General Mansfield Lovell who had his headquarters in New Orleans. Immediate oversight of the forts fell to Brigadier General Johnson K. Duncan. Supporting the static defenses were the River Defense Fleet consisting of six gunboats, two gunboats from the Louisiana Provisional Navy, as well as two gunboats from the Confederate Navy and the ironclads CSS Louisiana (12) and CSS Manassas (1). The former, while a powerful ship, was not complete and was used as a floating battery during the battle. Though numerous, the Confederates forces on the water lacked a unified command structure. Reducing the Forts Though skeptical about their effectiveness in reducing the forts, Farragut advanced Porters mortar boats on April 18.  Firing non-stop for five days and nights, the mortars pounded the forts, but were unable to completely disable their batteries. As the shells rained down, sailors from USS Kineo (5), USS Itasca (5), and USS Pinola (5) rowed forward and opened a gap in the chain barricade on April 20. On April 23, Farragut, impatient with the bombardments results, began planning to run his fleet past the forts. Ordering his captains to drape their vessels in chain, iron plate, and other protective materials, Farragut divided the fleet into three sections for the coming action (Map). There were led by Farragut and Captains Theodorus Bailey and Henry H. Bell. Running the Gauntlet At 2:00 AM on April 24, the Union fleet began moving upstream, with the first division, led by Bailey, coming under fire an hour and fifteen minutes later. Racing ahead, the first division was soon clear of the forts, however Farraguts second division encountered more difficulty. As his flagship, USS Hartford (22) cleared the forts, it was forced to turn to avoid a Confederate fire raft and ran aground. Seeing the Union ship in trouble, the Confederates redirected the fire raft towards Hartford causing a fire to break out on the vessel. Moving quickly, the crew extinguished the flames and was able to back the ship out of the mud. USS Hartford (1858). US Naval History Heritage Command Above the forts, the Union ships encountered the River Defense Fleet and Manassas. While the gunboats were easily dealt with, Manassas attempted to ram USS Pensacola (17) but missed. Moving downstream, it was accidentally fired upon by the forts before moving to strike USS Brooklyn (21). Ramming the Union ship, Manassas failed to strike a fatal blow as it hit Brooklyns full coal bunkers. By the time the fighting ended, Manassas was downstream of the Union fleet and unable to make enough speed against the current to ram effectively. As a result, its captain ran it aground where it was destroyed by Union gun fire. The City Surrenders Having successfully cleared the forts with minimal losses, Farragut began steaming upstream to New Orleans. Arriving off the city on April 25, he immediately demanded its surrender. Sending a force ashore, Farragut was told by the mayor that only Major General Lovell could surrender the city. This was countered when Lovell informed the mayor that he was retreating and that the city was not his to surrender. After four days of this, Farragut ordered his men to hoist the US flag over the customs house and city hall. During this time, the garrisons of the Forts Jackson and St. Philip, now cut off from the city, surrendered. On May 1, Union troops under Butler arrived to take official custody of the city. Aftermath The battle to capture New Orleans cost Farragut a mere 37 killed and 149 wounded. Though he was initially unable to get all of his fleet past the forts, he succeeded in getting 13 ships upstream which enabled him to capture the Confederacys greatest port and center of trade. For Lovell, the fighting along the river cost him around 782 killed and wounded, as well as approximately 6,000 captured. The loss of the city effectively ended Lovells career. After the fall of New Orleans, Farragut was able to take control of much of the lower Mississippi and succeeded in capturing Baton Rouge and Natchez. Pressing upstream, his ships reached as far as Vicksburg, MS before being halted by Confederate batteries. After attempting a brief siege, Farragut withdrew back down the river to prevent being trapped by falling water levels.