<p>My Roget's lists mercenary under selfish (932 adj.) "unkind, non-altruistic, acquisitive, venal, mercenary,hoggish..."</p>
<p>Ok, but I think it's kind of a stretch. It's only one question either way, so we shouldn't get too into it.</p>
<p>Synonyms are more valuable for determining metaphoric connotation. </p>
<p>Synonyms: acquisitive, avaricious, bribable, corrupt, covetous, grabby, grasping, miserly, money-grubbing, selfish, sordid, stingy, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous, venal</p>
<p>Her suggestions certainly aren't ethical or principled (at least not in the common meaning of the word).</p>
<p>I think there's stronger evidence that she's unsentimental, but I have been wrong before.</p>
<p>Sure, I agree that her tone is unsentimental. But if we look at Emilia as a whole, she has a lot of mercenary qualities. Look at her compliance to Iago's request to plant the handkerchief. I'm a little bit bewildered why I'm even quibbling about this. It seems evident enough that avarice and self-interest (and self-interest is the virtue of a cutthroat) are the same goddamn thing.</p>
<p>How about the Flannery Peacock passage? What was the narrator's attitude toward the end? I said enthusiasm but it didnt seem like a perfect fit.</p>
<p>I don't remember what the other choices were, but I remember that I didn't say enthusiasm.</p>
<p>Anyone?.....</p>
<p>oh. I remember one was indulgent, and I was deciding between that and enthusiastic. It was referring to the part when he's talking about the peacocks</p>
<p>Let me remember what I said...Hmm... It's definitely not enthusiastic since he's paralleling the peacocks to the white southern writers. And yet, it shouldn't necessarily criticize them either since he acknowledges that the peacocks have beauty. I don't think I've helped.</p>
<p>Edit: Then again, maybe it is enthusiastic. It really depends on what the question asked and I really can't remember right now--I had to get up at 4:30 since my testing center is 1:30 away from home.</p>
<p>Hmm yeah you've helped. I completely misinterpreted the whole peacock thing. That's all I really needed to know.</p>
<p>But he still liked Flannery O'Connor because of her openness about racism, right?</p>
<p>QUOTE: crap I thought the gravity thing was about her diminishing control, since she was "forced" up and down</p>
<p>I thought so too. Oh dear...</p>
<p>Specifically her characters, but yea</p>
<p>nvm nvm nvm</p>
<p><em>Ahem</em>"Francis Marion Tarwater's uncle had been dead for only half a day when the boy got too drunk to finish digging his grave and a Negro named Buford Munson, who had come to get a jug filled, had to finish it and drag the body from the breakfast table where it was still sitting and bury it in a decent and Christian way, with the sign of its Saviour at the head of the grave and enough dirt on top to keep the dogs from digging it up." The quote is from The Violent Bear it Away God is important to O'Connor, not necessarily history or race. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is very little criticism of Buford throughout the piece, least of all for forgetting his past (he's a simpleton anyway). Ms. O'Connor is all about extolling Christian virtue.</p>
<p>The language and character part was right. I didn't get the impression from anyone that it was wrong.</p>
<p>ummmm</p>
<p>I wish I knew what you're talking about :p</p>
<p>Wasn't the question specifically referring to O'Connor's characterization of racism and why the author liked it? I believe I did put something about the language and characters.</p>
<p>I was really confused as to the main point of the flannery o'connor passage. what was the author trying to do?</p>
<p>yeah it was hard to figure out for those of us who haven't read every single book that appears on the test</p>
<p>The author was trying to demonstrate that literary separatism (and all separatism) is irresponsible. In the first paragraph there was some brief commentary about the author's frustration at seeing people lionize Faulkner--which isn't to say that the author doesn't like Faulkner--and show nothing but callous disregard to the best black writers. This reflects the author's position that it is unfairly difficult for black writerst to gain literary acceptance or significance. Though the author enjoys the writings of some of the white southern writers (most specifically Flannery O'Connor), there is a certain frustration at the relatively easy time these white writers have had at gaining notoriety. The white writers are essentially peacocks revelling in their own beauty, insensible of the beauty of other birds.</p>