Big Question with respect to Water For Elephants

This novel had many, many characters that each had a different answer to my big question. I will discuss the novel's protagonist, Jacob Jankowski. This novel is set up in an interesting way: a flashback format from a nursing home with 93 year old Jacob to his travels with the Benzini Brothers circus. But no matter what his situation, Jacob never stops short of seeking the truth in every situation. The novel begins with Jankowski fighting a neighboring man in his nursing home about the truth in carrying water for the elephants in a circus. Whether fighting about trivial things such as this or risking his life for Rosie the elephant and Marlena, his love, Jankowski is one of the truest characters to himself that I have ever read in any novel. He is the epitomy of moral righteousness and never, to my knowledge, did what was most physically convenient to get out of a situation.

Big Question with respect to Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man

My question is very interesting when pertaining to Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. When around other people and much moreso toward the beginning of the novel, Stephen certainly does what society considers to be most physically convenient (sleeping with prostitutes, etc...). There are even hints throughout the book that he is trying to force his path instead of allowing it to find him such as during his search for his calling and his struggle with the church. But ultimately, I find that Stephen rejects those societal standards and chooses to chart his own path through life. Obviously, this is not taking the easy road out, but instead he is willing to struggle and fight for his dreams and his writing. Although Portrait of the Artist doesn't exactly fit with my question, this is what I gathered from Stephen's maturation process. Does anyone have any comments? I'd love to hear feedback because this question doesn't fit exactly with this novel!

My Big Question and Crime and Punishment

My question does not really have any one definative answer with relation to Crime and Punishment. As we did in class, my question has characters all across the spectrum. I'll start with Raskolnikov. In the end of the book, Raskolnikov did what was morally right and not necessarily what was physically convenient (confess to the murders). He did not, however, confess on his own. With pressure from Porfiry and Sonya, he finally did what was right so I'm not sure if I would classify him as actually doing what was morally right. He avoided confession and arrest for the majority of the novel and could not come to terms with the fact that he had actually sinned.

Sonya sold herself for the well-being of herself and her family. Yes she sinned and was in fact immoral. But she did not do this because it was most convenient for her situation. It was something she had to do for herself and family.

Dunya is one of the most moral characters in the entire novel. She is always true to her family and her own moral instinct.

Razumihin went out of his way to be loyal to Raskolnikov and to protect Dunya and Alexandra. He never betrayed his morals in any situations (at least that I can recall) and never took the easy way out.

Svidrigailov is a very interesting character. He obviously works hard for what he desires most, and often goes to immoral extremes to get there (such as the attempted rape of Dunya). There is little doubt of his villanous status in this novel; however, he does not take the most convenient route. He is not morally righteous either. I have trouble understanding how his character relates to my question.

If anyone has any ideas, please feel free to let me know! I'd love to hear.

Big Question with respect to King Henry IV: Part I

Shakespeare's King Henry IV: Part I, to me, seems to be a commentary about honor and how it contributed to lifestyles at the time. For one character, Falstaff, the whole idea of honor is nothing but hot air and wasted effort that does no one any good. His character throughout the entire play depicts mankind as amoral and he always, without fault, takes the more convenient route through life. King Henry wanted the kingship to such a great degree that he ignored rectitude in exchange for the monarchy. His character throughout the play, however, is plagued by this ignominious action and his conscience frequently kicks in. Prince Hal desires to fiddle around with the commoners at the beginning of the play so as not to keep expectations of him elevated. To me, that sounds like taking the more convenient route to solving his problems. Yet, when his father castigated him for meddling in the affairs of the common man and not taking his position as Prince seriously, he quickly shaped up and became a leader admired even by the enemy. So quite frankly, I have no idea if Shakespeare believes that human nature does what is most physically convenient of morally righteous. Falstaff epitomizes a man who takes the easy road out of all situations and thinks very little of being morally upstanding. However, two of his other principal characters flip flop. Does anyone have any feedback for me about this? After thinking it out, I'm at a loss for one side or the other.

Big Question with respect to Oedipus Rex

In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus initially does not believe the truth that Teiresias presents him because it is more convenient to refuse to believe that he was indeed Laios' killer. As the story unfolds, however, he is forced to face his actions and their ensuing consequences. Therefore, in this case, Oedipus' nature leads him to follow the most convenient "truth."

AP Literature Big Question

My question to track through out literature selections this year is: With relation to truth, does human nature lead people to do what is most physically convenient or morally righteous?