1st and 2nd Hour Honors English III and A.P. US History
May 17, 2013
A man kidnaps and kills a young girl he’s been stalking. Another man gives free flowers to passerby on the street. At first glance these men seem very different, but are they really? Both men are doing what they think is right. Both men would be hard to convince otherwise. Both men are judged by people who don’t agree with their ideas. Most importantly, both men embody the theme of idealism.
The first man is Ferdinand Clegg, an eccentric butterfly collector that becomes obsessed with art student Miranda to the point of kidnapping her. Ferdinand sees nothing wrong with holding Miranda captive in his basement since he is not being violent or sexually abusive towards her. Having been raised with strict Christian values, Ferdinand believes that to lust after women is a sin. He simply admires her beauty in a “right and proper” way, thinking of her as another butterfly to add to his collection. To most people this seems crazy, but to Ferdinand it makes total sense. Not even her eventual death at his hands can change his mind. In fact, he’d like to find another woman and try it again.
The second man is a 1960s hippie. Obsessed with the concepts of love and peace, disgusted by the concept of a traditional life, and decked out in flowery clothes, the hippie spreads his love by giving flowers to strangers. He uses drugs recreationally, has no job or plans to get one, and has a sexually transmitted disease from a casual encounter in the park. To most people this also seems crazy, but the man feels that he is living the right way. Many 1960s Americans were baffled by his mindset, yet it’s a mindset that millions of young Americans shared.
Ferdinand from “The Collector” and hippies from the 1960s were a lot alike in that they both held strong ideals that were met with strong opposition. Ferdinand justified the kidnapping and murder of a young girl, something she could never understand. The hippie justified recreational drug use and casual sex, something older generations deemed irresponsible and immoral. The theme of both the 1960s and “The Collector” is that tensions arise when two strongly willed entities have conflicting ideals.
Some people are just impossible to change. They are so steadfast in their beliefs that they won’t change them no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary. This is the major theme of John Fowles’ “The Collector.” The title character’s refusal to view kidnapping as wrong no matter how much his prisoner appears to be suffering shows that some people just aren’t worth trying to change.
In “The Collector”, lonely butterfly collector Frederick is obsessed with young, principled art student Miranda. He simply stalks her from afar until a chance pools win enables him to purchase a cottage in the middle of nowhere and plot to abduct her. The author describes in detail the calculating preparations that Frederick makes to “collect” Miranda, boarding up the cottage so there is absolutely no chance of her escaping. Telling himself that everyone would kidnap someone if they had the means, Fred uses chloroform to abduct Miranda and bring her to her new home. Miranda is visibly distressed by this and although he isn’t violent or sexually abusive towards her she repeatedly demands her freedom. The theme of “The Collector” is that although Fred is obviously hurting someone by taking their freedom, he doesn’t see it that way. He continually says phrases like “My feelings were very happy because my intentions were of the very best” (Fowles 31). Despite Miranda’s numerous escape attempts and increasingly desperate behavior (“all of a sudden she kicked a burning log out of the hearth on to the carpet, at the same moment screamed and ran for the window”) (Fowles 86), Fred doesn’t see the error of his ways. James Acheson captures it best when he states; "Moreover, he lacks the self-awarness of a sane man: amongst other things, he is unable to see that if he truly loved Miranda, he would not imprison her in a cellar" (Acheson 17).
Fred had a strict upbringing that taught him any sexual thought or inclination was immoral and wrong. He sticks to the beliefs that were engrained in him as a child and is appalled when Miranda suggests that he plans to rape her. Fred believes that being “right and proper” towards Miranda will cause her to eventually fall in love with him. He obviously lusts after her (“I really would have liked to take her in my arms and kiss her, as a matter of fact I was trembling”) (Fowles 62) but never takes advantage of his position of power. He entertains delusional romantic thoughts about her, even buying her an engagement ring and asking her to marry him. Despite Miranda’s obvious hatred of him, Fred thinks she loves him. Fred is utterly delusional and it is because of this that he can never change.
Fred’s respect for Miranda doesn’t last long. In his convoluted sense of morality, he believes that she loses her worthiness of his respect after she offers him her body in exchange for freedom. Miranda’s attempt at freedom was actually the worst thing she could do, as it killed his obsession with her but didn’t make him want to set her free (“It was no good, she had killed all the romance, she had made herself like any other woman, I didn’t respect her anymore, there was nothing left to respect”) (Fowles 103). Fred may try to be “right and proper”, which at first causes the reader to respect him at least a little bit, but his sense of “right and proper” is as whack as it gets. Since real-life Miranda proved different than up-on-a-pedestal-wet-dream-Miranda, Fred thinks it’s okay to disrespect her. He forcefully undresses and takes pictures of her, chloroforms her again, and stops talking to her nicely. Even though logically Fred shouldn’t treat Miranda any differently, in his twisted mind he is doing the right thing.
Fred’s problem with perception extends to thinking that everyone is out to get him. From Miranda to the people at the doctor’s office to the man who knocked on his door, Fred thinks everyone is laughing at him or judging him. It may not surprise you that Fred was an outcast growing up, which undoubtedly caused him pain. Though he probably does come off as odd, being the type that collects butterflies and women in his free time and all, Fred blames society and its ills. He constantly tells Miranda that “her type” would never give him a chance and mocks her art as pretentious. At the end of the book when Miranda badly needs medicine and Fred goes to the doctor to get it, he chickens out when he feels the people in the waiting room are staring at him. Perhaps the most obvious example of his paranoia is after Miranda’s failed attempt at seduction. Miranda pities Ferdinand for not being able to enjoy sex for what it is, but he lays awake all night thinking about how she must be judging him and laughing at him for his psychologically caused erectile dysfunction. “I could just see her laughing at me down there. Every time I thought about it, it was like my whole body went red” (Fowles 102). Maybe Fred could make better choices if his perception wasn’t blurred.
Fowles attempts to show Fred’s inability to sense and respond to stimuli by showing Miranda suffering and Fred carrying on regardless. This is a very disturbing and effective way to show his condition to the reader. Miranda absolutely hates being Fred’s “guest” and no matter what she does, he can’t see why. You can see how distressed Miranda is when she writes in her diary “I want to scream sometimes. Till my voice is raw…utter despair” (Fowles 236). Fred doesn’t see how she can be so ungrateful for his hospitality. David H. Walker says that "Clegg repeatedly finds cause to congratulate himself for his tolerance and self-control" (Walker 56). He buys her anything she asks for and restrains his sexual impulses. Despite the fact she is the one being held against her will, she is the top dog in their relationship. He gets his feelings hurt when she yells insults and throws random items at him, but he never considers that maybe what he is doing is wrong “What I am trying to say is that it all came unexpected. I know what I did next day was a mistake, but up to that day I thought I was acting for the best and within my rights”(Fowles 113). Even when Fred eventually causes Miranda’s death by chickening out of getting her medical treatment, he refuses to own up to it.
The most disturbing and most obvious evidence Fowles uses to show us that some people can never change is the fact that at the end of the book, when Miranda has died as a cause of Fred’s kidnapping, Fred sets out to find another victim. Instead of learning his lesson, Fred thinks he just needs to find a victim that will resist less. The end scene in the book is of Fred contemplating kidnapping a girl named Marian and it is obvious that he is going to do it. No matter that someone has died from this behavior, no matter that Fred almost committed suicide because of this behavior, no matter that this behavior will cause this girl’s parents untold suffering, Fred cannot see that it is wrong.
John Fowles’ “The Collector” is a disturbing book that gives us a look inside a very disturbed mind. Frederick is not only unsympathetic to the suffering of his victims but is unable to see what’s wrong with his actions. The moral of this story is not that all the people in the world are bad but that there are some people that you shouldn’t bother trying to change. No matter what, a person like Fred would remain a cold, calculating “collector”.
The 1960s were a time of cultural change and idealism. The emerging counterculture, attention to civil rights, and increased political participation of young people combined to make the 1960s a time of social revolution. Also defining the decade were the international crises of the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, all part of the larger Cold War. A tumultuous 10 years, the 60s are defined by the idealism that created change on so many fronts. From civil rights to our country’s economic system, Americans in the 1960s had strong beliefs that they were willing to fight for.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who became president when JFK was assassinated in 1964, used his presidency to push his ideals of a "Great Society" with no poverty or racial injustice (Dudley). He got straight to work, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity to attack the roots of poverty less than a year after he was elected. Medicare and Medicaid were created to help the elderly and disabled and the Omnibus Housing Act was passed to create low-income housing (Dudley). LBJ can also claim credit for what were arguably the most important civil rights bills ever passed; the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were critical in preventing racial discrimination at the polls and in the workplace (History.com).
The presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson would probably be remembered more fondly if it weren’t for the scourge of the Vietnam War. The Cold War between Russia and the United States lasted for decades and was dealt with by six presidents, but the most important events of the war occurred during the 1960s. The Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis were all disastrous events in our country’s history. Pursuing the policy of containment, the U.S. did all it could to stop the spread of communism. This is the reason troops were sent to Vietnam to help the capitalist South stay free from the communist North. Support for the war quickly waned as the media coverage of the bloodshed disgusted Americans back home (History.com). The war became even more unpopular when the draft was instituted, sending many young men to die for a cause that they not only didn’t support but didn’t understand. Protests sprung up across the nation. Protests started out peacefully, with leftist groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society organizing “teach-ins” at college campuses (History.org). The situation soon took a turn for the violent, however, as protesters increasingly felt that the war had no end in sight. This was especially true after the Tet Offensive. In January 1968, the North Vietnamese attacked more than 100 locations in South Vietnam (About.com). This vicious attack brought popular support for the war lower than ever, with only 35 percent of Americans supporting LBJ’s handling of the war by February 1968 (History.com). One of the most famous of the anti-war protests was the March on the Pentagon. 100,000 protesters rallied at the Lincoln Memorial and then marched on to the Pentagon. This peaceful demonstration turned violent as the more radical protesters clashed with the soldiers protecting the building. By the end of the protest, 683 people had been arrested (History.com). The unrest of the political protesters shows the frustration Americans felt with the war in Vietnam.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was and remains an embarrassing event in our country’s history. After American-friendly president Fulgencio Batista was overthrown by young nationalist Fidel Castro, Cuba posed a threat to the United States. Since Cuba is only 90 miles from the United States, President Kennedy didn't want to risk letting Cuba fall to communism. 1,400 Cubans who had fled their homes for America were trained to invade their mother country (History.com). The strike was thought to be a sure success, but Castro's troops badly outnumbered the invaders and brought them under control in less than a day of fighting. The invasion was a horrible failure for the United States and actually helped secure Castro's power. After the Bay of Pigs failed, Castro proclaimed his intent to make Cuba a socialist country and strengthen relations with Soviet Russia (History.com). This companionship with our enemy is what led to the even scarier events of 1962.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13-day standoff in which the U.S. instituted a naval blockade around Cuba after it was discovered that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles there. The standoff ended when Soviet leader Nikita Khruschchev agreed to take the missiles out of Cuba in exchange for America taking missiles out of Turkey and agreeing not to invade Cuba (Leaning, De Cet, and Ollerenshaw). Although it ended with both sides unscathed, the incident will always be remembered as the time the world almost got blown up in nuclear war.
The violence of the 1960s wasn't confined to international issues. At home, the issue of civil rights was causing quite a stir. Even though slavery had been eradicated for a century, African-Americans were still oppressed in many ways. Jim Crow laws separated blacks from whites in public places, blacks didn't have as much economic opportunity as whites, and in many cases blacks didn't even get to exercise the right to vote. Protesters such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X tapped into the idealistic spirit of the '60s to change our country's oppressive ways.
Plessy v. Ferguson declared "separate but equal" facilities constitutional in 1896 but protesters looked to challenge this ruling. In 1960, African-American college students staged a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina (History.com). Word of their protest soon spread and similar sit-ins were staged across the country. Despite protesters being arrested, their message caused many lunch counters to change their policies (History.com).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented great strides in the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act, which was comprehensive in that it ended segregation in public places and outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, was passed with strong opposition from southerners in Congress (Dudley). Proposed by JFK and signed by LBJ, the law helped work towards the goal of economic equality for whites and blacks. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped African-Americans overcome the many barriers put in place to stop them from exercising their right to vote. Literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and intimidation were all tactics previously used to keep African-Americans from casting their ballot (Dudley). None of this legislation would have been possible without the civil rights activists of the 1960s. In 1965, protesters tried to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to campaign for black voting rights. Their march was cut short as they were attacked by police in what became known as “Bloody Sunday” (White House History). Protesters marched on the White House, demanding that LBJ protect the civil rights activists while they marched. Johnson answered their protests with his support and the following quote;
The real hero of this struggle is the American Negro. His actions and protests, his courage to risk safety and even to risk his life, have awakened the conscience of this Nation. His demonstrations have been designed to call attention to injustice, designed to provoke change, designed to stir reform (White House History).
The 1960s were defined by idealistic people making their voices heard and in turn, making real change.
It is this idealism that caused tensions to rise between young people and old. In contrast with the stereotyped “happy days” of the 1950s seen in 50s sitcoms like “Leave it to Beaver”, the young people of the 1960s questioned traditional family values. "Counterculture" in the 1960s meant that young people began to rethink authority, disregarding the traditional Christian morality that had dictated American life for so many years. Casual sex, psychedelic drugs, rock and roll music (which was then considered controversial), and activism for such issues as civil rights and ending the Vietnam War all made up this new youth culture (Dudley).
“Peace”, “love”, and “freedom” were all words that came to be associated with counterculture. Young people favored a relaxed, pleasure-oriented lifestyle of harmony between people of all backgrounds. Youth grew their hair long and decorated it with flowers, symbolizing the free and relaxed lifestyle they treasured. These young people clashed with the “square” older generations that scratched their heads in confusion over this social movement. While the young people had their “be-ins” (casual celebrations in parks or other public places), ate their organic foods, and used their psychedelic drugs, their parents and grandparents criticized their lifestyles as irresponsible and sinful (Dudley). One critic of the counterculture movement argued that the “love” of hippies was meaningless because they “loved” everything. The critic quoted a hippie as saying, “Man, I love everything. That fire hydrant, LBJ, Wallace, all them cats”(Dudley). These conflicting ideals caused a widening of the generation gap.
Some hippies were more extreme than others, living in communes in an effort to create utopian societies. Sometimes these communes strayed from the ideals of “peace” and “love” preached by most hippies and turned into violent cults. Charles Manson, considered a hippie because he was obsessed with music and drugs, started a cult called “the Family” and convinced his followers to murder many people (About.com). A song by the Beatles caused him to believe a race war was imminent and he thought “the Family” must start it (About.com). Still in jail many years later, Charles Manson and other extremist hippies didn’t help the older generations’ perception of them as irresponsible and immoral.
A shift in the popular music showed the changing culture of the 1960s. The Beatles were the most iconic band of this social movement. Singing about peace and love, protesting against violence and war, and dressing in colorful and flowy hippie outfits made The Beatles the perfect band to represent the counterculture (The Sixties | PBS). The Beatles became wildly popular, gaining many hysterically loyal fans and resulting in a phenomenon known as "Beatlemania". Woodstock also shows the musical tastes of the 1960s. Occurring in 1969, the event was billed as "An Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music" (The Sixties | PBS). The 500,000 concert-goers enjoyed 32 rock and roll acts, relaxing and revelling in the newfound cultural appreciation for freedom and love (The Sixties | PBS). The event is remembered as one of the most important in the history of rock and roll and as one of the culminating examples of the cultural changes of the 1960s.
All in all, the 1960s were both tumultuous and productive. The positive spirit at the beginning of the decade brought an idealistic attitude that saw many gains in the areas of civil rights and social justice. The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to a nail-biting stand-still but in the end, disaster was averted. The counterculture of the 1960s was largely thought of as positive by the young and negative by the elderly but no matter what it was, it carries over into the culture of today. Our culture still highly values freedom and love, even if we aren't as into psychedelic drugs or flowery clothing. The generation gap of the 1960s was much wider than that of the 1950s but our country’s newlyfound diversity could only make us stronger.
“The Collector” by John Fowles is very fitting for the time it was written. The 1960s, like the main characters in “The Collector,” were all about conflicting sets of ideals. The 1960s pitted generations against each other. Young people and their counterculture shocked the older generations and their family values (The Sixties | PBS). The anti-war-protesters-protesters were just as enthusiastic as the anti-war protesters themselves (Kurlansky). Many gains were made in the area of civil rights, yet the KKK saw a revival like it hadn’t since the 1920s (Leaning, De Cet, and Ollerenshaw). This division of ideas is perfectly symbolized by the two main characters in “The Collector.” Ferdinand and Miranda have completely different sets of ideals, yet they must attempt to understand each other. This is what happened in the 1960s as different generations tried at failed to understand each other’s ideas.
“The Collector” is conveniently split into two parts, the first part of the story being told from Ferdinand’s point of view and the second from Miranda’s. The reason Fowles decided to tell the story this way is that Ferdinand and Miranda could not be more different people. Ferdinand is obsessed with being “good” and Miranda is obsessed with “beauty.” Ferdinand is willing to sacrifice fun in the name of Christian morality, whereas Miranda is willing to bend the rules of tradition in order to create her art. Being so different, Miranda and Ferdinand fail to understand each other. This is not for lack of trying; it could easily be argued that the novel’s entire premise is that Miranda and Ferdinand try very hard, and fail completely, to understand each other’s points of view.
This represents the 1960s beautifully. The “hippies” of the decade, the young people that wanted to “make love not war,” failed to understand the people that continued to live traditional lives (Dudley). In turn, these people viewed the hippies as irresponsible and immoral (Dudley). Just as Miranda and Ferdinand failed to understand each other, the two distinct groups of 1960s Americans failed to understand each other.
This division was obvious in the riots of the Vietnam War. College campuses everywhere broke out in protest of the war, with some of these protests turning violent. The older generations saw the rebelliousness of the young people as reckless, staging their own protests to restore order (Kurlansky). In “The Collector,” Ferdinand sees Miranda’s escape attempts as irresponsible and ungrateful to his kindness. She, in turn, sees him as oppressive and thinks he is infringing on her rights. The difference between the situation in “The Collector” and that of the 1960s is that Miranda was obviously in the right whereas the debate over counterculture vs. traditional values is still going on. Nevertheless, the fact that Miranda and Ferdinand view each other as immoral is a good mirror to the decade.
This misunderstanding is not for lack of trying. Miranda and Ferdinand make numerous attempts to understand each other’s philosophies of life. Miranda tries to teach Ferdinand about art, getting him to read “The Catcher in the Rye.” This plan fails as he rants about how annoying the main character is. Ferdinand shows Miranda his butterfly collection. This also fails as she calls his collection “dead” and scolds him for it, asking him how many butterflies he has murdered. Just as Miranda and Ferdinand fail to understand each other, the people of the 1960s fail to see the merit of each other’s ideas. The young people thought of the older people as needlessly oppressive and the older people thought of the younger people as needlessly reckless. This misunderstanding led to frustration and tension.
Although Miranda and Ferdinand didn’t understand each other, they were forced to find a way to live with each other’s ideas. Ferdinand had to deal with Miranda’s ideas about beauty if he was going to keep her as his treasured “guest” and Miranda had to learn about the strict morality taught to Ferdinand if she had any hope of escaping. Much like Miranda and Ferdinand, the people of the 1960s had to learn to deal with each other’s ideas even if they couldn’t appreciate them.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is also well-represented by “The Collector.” Sometimes with hard fighting on the part of civil rights activists came even more oppression from white-supremacists. The KKK saw a revival in the 1960s and many civil rights leaders were kidnapped and murdered (Leaning, De Cet, and Ollerenshaw). The difference between the civil rights movement and “The Collector” is that civil rights leaders won in the end whereas Miranda was murdered. Although blacks eventually got the rights they deserved, it was a difficult struggle. This is mirrored by “The Collector” when Miranda attempts to seduce Ferdinand in a bid for freedom and ends up more oppressed than ever. Miranda and civil rights leaders both saw that sometimes fighting for freedom just brings more determined oppressors.
“The Collector” and the 1960s both deal with conflicting ideals. Whether those ideals have to do with drugs, kidnapping, or racism, people who strongly disagreed had to find ways to live with each other. While “The Collector” ended with Miranda’s tragic death, the 1960s ended with a country made stronger by its newlyfound diversity.
"The 1960s — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2013. .
This comprehensive website contains a wide breadth of information about the 1960s. Major ‘60s topics like civil rights, the Vietnam War, and the JFK assassination are all covered. Although the articles are brief, this makes it easier to get through the information and find what’s important. This website was one of my most helpful sources. I’d recommend it to anyone looking to get a quick rundown of the important events of the 1960s.
"About.com Education." About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. .
This very informational website has articles on every subject you can think of. It doesn’t have a useful section on the 1960s in general but if you know what aspect of the 1960s you want to research, this website is a smart destination. I would recommend this website to anyone curious about any subject.
Acheson, James. "The Collector." John Fowles. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998. 17. Print.
This literary criticism was convincing and fascinating. Acheson compares the relationship of Ferdinand and Miranda to the relationships of other characters in stories such as “The Beauty and the Beast.” He also argues that Ferdinand is impossible to change because of his upbringing, a point I discuss in my literary analysis. Acheson also acknowledges that while Ferdinand is obviously the “bad guy” of the novel, Miranda’s snobbishness makes her unlikeable as well. Acheson’s honest voice and convincing points make this a good read for anyone who’s read “The Collector.”
Dudley, William. The nineteen sixties [1960s]: opposing viewpoints. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Print.
This is a collection of essays on different hot button issues of the 1960s. I only used the essay on counterculture but the information in this book is all relevant to the subject of the 1960s. There is always more than one side of every issue presented so this book would be especially helpful to anyone preparing a debate.
Fowles, John. The Collector. [1st American ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1963. Print.
This is a creepy but cleverly written book about a social outcast that goes on to kidnap and kill a college student. The story alternates being told from the kidnapper’s point of view and the kidnapping victim’s point of view. Although it can be slow at times, the story is fascinating and really feels like you are inside the mind of a psychopath. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in psychology or crime.
Kurlansky, Mark. 1968: the year that rocked the world. New York: Ballantine, 2004. Print.
This is a non-fiction book that reads like a fiction story. It is fascinating and would be fun to read even if I wasn’t researching the 1960s for a school paper. Kurlansky discusses the events of 1968 with an engaging voice that brings the story to life. This book was helpful in writing the Vietnam War section of my paper. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in history in general.
Leaning, Ray, Mirco De Cet, and Kay Ollerenshaw. USA: Sixties. Boston: Grolier Education Corporation, 2000. Print.
This is an encyclopedia of the 1960s. It is extremely long and is best used by looking up a certain subject. It was extremely helpful in getting a general idea of the 1960s although I only used it when talking about the KKK. I would recommend it to anyone that needed a lengthy report on a specific topic having to do with the 1960s.
"LIFE Photos | Classic Pictures From LIFE Magazine's Archives | LIFE.com." LIFE Photos | Classic Pictures From LIFE Magazine's Archives | LIFE.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. .
This is LIFE Magazine’s website and, like LIFE Magazine, its main selling point is its pictures. Although I didn’t end up using any of them in my essay, the pictures on this website give amazing historical insight. You can see for yourself what life was like in the 1960s. I would recommend these first-rate primary sources to anyone that is researching history and that learns visually.
"The Sixties | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2013. .
This website isn’t very comprehensive but gave me a wealth of useful information nonetheless. It covers the major events of the 1960s and has pictures to go with its articles. I used it for the pop culture section of my historical analysis and would recommend it to anyone that wants to learn about the 1960s but doesn’t have a lot of time on their hands.
Walker, David. "Remorse, Responsibility, and Moral Dilemmas in Fowles's Fiction." Critical Essays on John Fowles. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1986. 56. Print.
This lengthy essay was indispensable in writing my literary criticism. Walker talks about how Ferdinand justifies his horrific actions with his narrow view of right and wrong. Although Walker talks about more than one of Fowles’ works, he discussed “The Collector” enough to make convincing points about Ferdinand’s way of thinking. I would whole-heartedly recommend this essay to anyone who has read “The Collector” and has trouble understanding what is going on in Ferdinand’s mind.
"White House History | "Citizen's Soapbox, A History of Protest in Presidents Park"." The White House Historical Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. .
This article is informational even though it is an advertisement for the White House. The article discusses the Civil Rights movement and the importance that the White House played in the history of Civil Rights demonstrations. The article also gives information about the history of civil rights protests in general. I quoted from the article in my discussion of 1960’s civil rights activism. I would recommend this article to anyone interested in civil rights protests or activism in general.