1. Choose THREE literary texts assigned for class (see a list below).
2. Choose ONE gothic-specific theme that is shared amongst the selected literature. (Remember that a theme is the main point that the author is making about a particular topic; it’s a statement, not a one or two-word “topic,” and it’s not a question).
3. Choose TWO literary elements [protagonist(s) and/or antagonist(s); characterization; setting; plot (rising action, climax, falling action, and/or resolution); symbols; irony; point of view; conflict (internal or external)] from each piece of literature that helps develop the gothic-specific theme.
choose THREE of the following literary texts:
1. “Rip Van Winkle” by Irving (pp. 29-40)
2. “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” by Irving (pp. 41-61)
3. “Young Goodman Brown” by Hawthorne (pp. 345-354)
4. “The Minister’s Black Veil” by Hawthorne (pp. 368-376)
5. “The Birthmark” by Hawthorne (pp. 377-388)
6. “Rappaccini’s Daughter” by Hawthorne (pp.405-424)
7. “The Fall of the House of Usher” by Poe (pp. 629-640)
8. “The Masque of the Red Death” by Poe (pp. 662-665)
9. “The Tell-Tale Heart” by Poe (pp. 666-669)
10. “The Black Cat” by Poe (pp. 670-675)
11. “The Cask of Amontillado” by Poe (pp. 696-700)
Second, consider the following questions to determine theme and to determine literary elements that help convey the theme:
1. What important gothic-specific theme does this literary work convey?
2. What do characters do that helps to illustrate this idea?
3. What do characters say that helps to illustrate this idea?
4. What events take place in the work that help to illustrate this idea?
5. Are there any recurrent images or clusters of images? Do these images support the idea or theme that you find in the work? (If so, they may be symbols.)
6. What does the narrator say that helps to illustrate this idea?
7. What examples of irony may be present?
8. What types of conflict can be found?
Sociologists for example, in their examinations concerning the systems of the littlest of social units, the family, soon understood that no supreme and widely inclusive laws could be connected to the conduct of these units (Gerrad, 1969: pp. 201-212); the colossal multifaceted nature originating from the requirement for the sayings and ideal models which are valid for one family should, as per unadulterated positivism, be appeared to be valid for all families in all spots and constantly. Unadulterated positivism expresses that the laws of sociology are of an indistinguishable sort and criticalness from the laws of material science, science and science; however for these laws to accomplish this equity, the laws of sociology must be effortlessly expressible and as thoroughly testable as those of the common sciences. The trouble of achieving such fairness is effectively exhibited by's (Gerrard, 1969) tests, where he examines the multifaceted nature of social issues engaged with a four part family in America, and after that proposes the close inconceivability of experimentally showing that families in Northern France, in Thailand, in Hawaii and in every other place can be appeared to comply with an indistinguishable correct standards from those influencing the family in America. In this way social researchers from the 1950's onwards, gone up against with the sheer unfathomability of ethnic, racial and group assorted variety, started to scrutinize the likelihood of creating social laws that would be all around and pervasively authoritative. What's more, in 2006 when even characteristic researchers have no surenesses even about the correct conduct and nature of a solitary iota; in what capacity would social be able to researchers plan to demonstrate laws for something as mind boggling as a city? Another shortcoming of outrageous positivism has been its powerlessness to precisely demonstrate its speculations through exact tests (Popper, 1983: p. 12 and likewise: Dowding, 1995: p. 138). While experimentation in the characteristic sciences ordinarily includes the examination of lifeless or moderately straightforward questions, for example, metals, stars, chemicals thus these having similar properties continually, conversely, social wonder — individuals, groups, associations and so on., — are vivify and are creations of immense impressively entwining sentiments, feelings, contemplations, volitions, interests, intentions, affiliations et cetera. Accordingly, to embrace a social analysis, a social researcher must make sure that he can isolate the single mental or behavioral component, say 'a criminal propensity' that he needs to explore, and afterward to prohibit or control the impact of the other mental and social factors that will generally influence the exactness of the trial. In numerous occurrences such avoidance is about difficult to the level of virtue requested by outrageous positivists; an individual can't be placed in a test-tube or a vacuum thus protected from outside impacts in the way that magnesium or molecules can. In this manner social researchers have turned out to be always cognizant that a noteworthy confinement of the positivist approach in regard to their train is its emphasis on idealize conditions for experimentation and for the precision of theories and forecasts (Dowding, 1995). Further, different disclosures in the sociologies have started to put an ever more prominent accentuation upon the life of the individual and upon subjective encounters as indispensable factors in the electorate of social orders (Marsh and Furlong, 2002). The hermeneutic or 'interpretive' approach has come to expect ever more prominent significance inside the sociologies, setting up for itself a region of examination of wonder very unique in relation to positivism, and along these lines undermining the authenticity of positivism's cases to depict the totality of social marvel. Positivism is, as indicated by this view, the result of a specific culture and specific history (Western European); what authenticity at that point does it need to announce its outcomes as of general legitimacy, as it must, to meet its own particular benchmarks of logical examination? In addition, social researchers themselves convey to their investigations their own particular subjective encounters, their own considerations, volitions, partialities and so on., and these all influence experimentation and in this manner the security of results — similarly as without a doubt do these things in the subjects of examination. Consequently David Marsh and Martin Smith have expressed, in their intense allegory got from Marsh's before article, that 'In the sociologies . . . subjective ontological and epistemological positions ought not be dealt with like a pullover that can be ''put on'' when we are tending to such philosophical issues and ''taken off'' when we are doing research' (Marsh and Smith, 2005: p.531). That is, they ought not be dealt with as a 'pullover', as impermanent measure, as they have been by positivists to date. - - - - - - In the last examination, it appears to be evident that neither the outrageous positivism once supported in the wake of Auguste Comte's first philosophical compositions, nor extraordinary against positivism nor hostile to foundationalist positions as have as of late been taken by some hermeneutists and pragmatists, can prompt huge future advance in the sociologies. The central quality and preferred standpoint of a positivist approach is the enthusiastic procedure of setting speculations, of observational experimentation to test these theories, of profound examination to quantify the outcomes, and afterward the capacity to classify the outcomes in an arrangement of laws and expectations. Guaranteeing for themselves, in this sense, a parallel sureness of laws and forecasts as and laws requested by the regular sciences, positivism uncovers to the sociologies marvelous questions as they truly are — as they are when stripped of superstitions, erroneous hypotheses, preference et cetera. Positivism requests an unequivocal deposit of realities and 'certainties' that are all around pertinent to social gatherings and groups irregardless of time, place or condition. In endeavoring so overwhelmingly for such goals, positivism gives the sociologies a high level of specialist and respectability inside the more extensive logical and scholastic group in general. Further, a positivist approach in the sociologies bears a prepared methods for correlation and trade of information between different trains such law, rationality, writing thus that utilize positivism moreover. To be sure, in fundamental regards, such is the significance of positivism for the sociologies that it is hard to perceive how they could legitimize being 'sciences' without it. The two foremost drawbacks of a positivist application to the sociologies are these: initially, that its look for perfect and ideal benchmarks of logical philosophy and investigation are excessively improbable when set adjacent to the outrageous unpredictability of social marvel; the second shortcoming, is positivism's absence of sympathy and thought of the subjective, individual and hermeneutic parts of social wonder. Managing the main protest, pundits of positivism contend that it can't — filling in as it does in the outside world, in urban areas and in organizations, in towns and mass associations — accomplish similar models of exact perfection, either in experimentation or in check of results, as would natural be able to researchers working in the controlled states of a lab and getting standards for the most part from lifeless matter of slighter modernity than people. In addition, social researchers have an almost insuperable trouble in classifying laws of social wonders with the exactness that material science or science take into account material marvels. Along these lines positivism in the sociologies accomplishes a lower level of forecast and precision as for the wonder it sees, than do the common sciences. The second real shortcoming of a positivist application is its inability to assess the subjectivity of individual life and to decipher the importance of that marvel for the subject and the group of the subject. On these issues positivism has almost nothing to state, and in this way it is banished from an entire side of the equator of human social experience. As the primary sentence of this conclusion proposed: neither an extraordinary positivist not an outrageous subjective or hermeneutic state of mind can overwhelm the eventual fate of the sociologies. Or maybe, social researchers must figure out how to join positivism with subjectivism, in this manner combining the two parts of social amazing knowledge. In the event that positivism can be carried into association with the subjective in the sociologies, and if positivists can figure out how to endure something not as much as flawlessness in their methodological approach, at that point positivism should at present be said to have an expansive commitment to make to the eventual fate of sociology. In may be said at that point, in our last words, that positivism is at the same time preference and inconvenience for the sociologies; regardless of whether one or other of these characteristics is predominant stays to be seen.>GET ANSWER