The Locket Analysis

Edmond was foreshadowing by Kate when he was laying down in the hill slope, dreaming about his lady Octavie. He was homesick, and missed his lady. By having Kate write this, it would be foreshadowing, implying that maybe he will get to see her again, if hes dreaming about her, it

The ending of “The Locket” was very surprising. Three reasons the ending was surprising was one, Edmon was still alive. Also, Octavie was always depressed so it was unexpected her husband was still alive. Lastly, Nick, his alli, stole the locket.

The locket being stolen was predictable because of Edmond's battles as a Confederate soldier. In the story there was only one known detail about a recent battle and it was in part one. There was a deceased soldier boy which implies that there was a recent battle. The text states, "Around his neck hung a gold chain and locket." and out of that information you can predict that is Octavie's locket. If it is Octavie's locket that means that the boy either stole it from Edmond as an enemy or an

Racism. Fines. Jail time. Exploitation. Lack of security. On September 27th 2014, those of colour in Ferguson, Missouri, talked about their frustration towards their system of government. After one of the biggest scandals of 2014, the shooting of Michael Brown, the people of Ferguson are forced to face with the after math and the continued discrimination. Only this time it is in regards to paying fines. Those in Ferguson believe they are receiving unjustified fines that render them unable to pay back and to correct. This raises the question, what would you do if you were in this situation of exploitation? Would you just simply leave or would you wait it out? Two philosophers who discuss their ideas of the people being in control of their future are John Locke and Toussaint L’Ouverture. Throughout this paper I will be discussing Locke’s idea of leaving the state in which you are not pleased with, additionally with L’Ouverture’s idea of; you are compelled to follow those in powers will. I will also be comparing Locke’s idea of parental authority and their limitations with L’ Ouverture letting circumstances happen just to save selves from future misery. I will be arguing between Locke and L’Ouverture idea of how people can determine their futures regardless of hierarchy. As I argue in favour of L’Ouverture, I will be demonstrating how Locke opposes to L’Ouverture’s argument.

In the letter, the priest said he had found a body with the locket around his neck making the assumption it was Edmund. This gave the readers a feeling that the assumption was true. Thus, everyone believed that he was dead and that there was no turning back for Octavia. It made everyone feel as if the story was over. The author tricked the readers as no one suspected at this part of the story that Edmund was still alive or that the boy from the campfire stole the locket from Edmund because he thought it was a good luck

In the beginning Edmond was a highly ranked soldier and was untouchable throughout the entire war. When one of the other soldiers found out that his way of staying alive might be because of his locket they stole it and wore it so that he wouldn’t die.

Edmonds love, Octavie had given him the locket. The locket had a picture of her parents in it which they had first given to her. Edmond always had the locket on during his days at war. He thinks that he

First of all Ms. Chopin made the boy laying on the battlefield dead sound like Edmond. She went as far to say in the book that a priest unclasped the necklace the dead soldier's body. Last we knew Edmond had the locket and never planned on letting it go. Never would the reader think that oh someone stole it between when he fell asleep and when the Union army attacked.

The Locket was a great story and I often pondered what happened to Edmond in the end. I had to reread it multiple times because it all hit me at once and I could not grasp it all. One thing said in the story that threw me off where when Edmond had a dream foreshadowing his death by the serpent. Two others where when the Priest came along and Octavia's grief. I think these where the three main key points that really helped the end be such a surprise.

The Locket captures the grief and pain that accompanies war. In the story, Octavie goes through the worst nightmare for anyone with a loved one fighting in combat - the loss of that loved one. But fortunately for her, Edmund ultimately returned. This came as a complete surprise to me as the reader due to the numerous details in the story pointing at his death, but I was ultimately relieved and happy that Edmund returned to Octavie. The details of the appearance of the soldier who actually died, the ominous tone created by the author’s prose, and the reappearance of the matching locket returned by the clergyman made the eventual return of Edmund all the more suspenseful.

The man that had said nothing went unmentioned in this story until the very end. The reader doesn't even know his name. What made me believe that Edmond was still alive was the fact that there was no silent man in the story mentioned yet. Also, the fact that the locket was lucky only to Edmond was highlighted, but there was no way that the reader could know that Edmond didn't possess it anymore, leaving us no way to predict the silent man stealing the locket.

Suspense was created when the men were called to battle, in war you never know if you will come back alive or wont come back at all, we didn't know if Edmond was going to live through this war or not until the dead soldier wearing the locket was found, that's when a someone reading the story would presume the main character has been killed and you don't what the climax of the story is. The theme of lost and suffering is shown greatly toward the end of the story. Octavie, Edmond's wife takes the news of his death very seriously, she is greatly affected by the loss of her love, and doesn't understand why the world continues to go around her, unaffected by her sadness. The suspense created by Edmond's supposed death, and Octavie's grief resulted in me being pretty surprised when Edmond was alive at the end of the

John Locke's "BOX" is a great very funny book. i bought the book about ten days ago & read some pages. it awesome. very good writing skeel of the writer. And yet, reading Locke's books is inordinately satisfying, hilarious, if not totally crude, engrossing and addicting. How the man does it is a mystery (but I like his book prices). He's smart, selling books cheap and thereby gaining more readers and therefore making more money as compared to jacking up the price for a single read but less volume in sales. This book Box really is the second - turns out the doctor specializes in both cardiac and pediatric surgery. And based on what I've read of the latest one so far, I recommend reading this book first even though it isn't, IMHO, nearly as

There are two sides of the Liberal Theory of Justice which are represented by John Locke and John Rawls – Locke being on the liberal side while Rawls is more on the equalitarian side. Each agrees that man is an individual with rights given to him because of his mere existence. Even though Rawls, who came later, does build on Locke and their views are quite similar, they still have some disagreements on what these rights mean and how they should be handled.

The short story, “The Locket”, has a very surprising conclusion in my point of view. I thought the woman's husband had died in the war and they retrieved the locket from her dead husband's body. I thought that the author made it very believable that the woman's husband had died when he in fact never did.