Omar Alomar’s “The Teeth and the Comb” is an interlinked series of very brief, miniature stories about everyday objects. How does this author use these non-human, usually immobile things to make comments about human society? How can the teeth of a comb provide us with a parable about our own democracy? Why the choice of a comb as a symbol? What are some other objects that Alomar selects for this symbolic treatment and what “comments” do they make about us?
While Alomar is busy personifying objects (that is, giving them human attributes), Pascale Petit’s poem does the opposite, in a sense. Why might Petit pay tribute to her mother not only by comparing her to an Amazonian warrior, but also the Amazon rainforest and river? We generally believe that comparing a human being to a non-human thing is a downgrade, but can it be uplifting as well?
For instance, one story follows a pair of scissors that works day and night cutting cloth at a tailor shop; while they don’t have any sense of being tired or bored, the scissors gradually starts to feel “heavy” due to the amount of work demanded by its master (Alomar). This highlights how even inanimate objects can become overburdened with tasks assigned by authority figures—much like how people can be subjected to oppressive labor demands under certain conditions.
In another story, a comb watches couples arguing on city streets from her spot on the dressing table: while she knows nothing but love between her teeth, she begins to learn about anger from observing them (Alomar). Through this vignette Alomar conveys how even something static like an object can be deeply affected by life around it—just like human beings who observe and sometimes absorb understanding anger through interactions with others.
Alomar is able to use common everyday items such as scissors and combs in order explore important themes related to humanity such as oppression and emotions. His cleverly crafted stories are meant to remind readers that all aspects of our lives — both living and nonliving — intersect in meaningful ways despite often seeming unrelated on the surface.
Niccolo Machiavelli’s, The Prince, is one of the most controversial books of its time. Because of its contents, Machiavelli is seen by many as symbol for evil and vice. The book was thought to be so abhorrent that it was banned by the Catholic church, and harshly critiqued by many of Machiavelli’s contemporaries. The Sixteenth Century treatise was meant as an advice book for princes on how to gain power and maintain it, but the methods he proposed for achieving these aims were unsavory to many. In the years following its publication, The Prince, horrified and shocked the general populace due to its challenging of the current view that a leader had to be virtuous and moral, asserting that it was better for a leader to be feared than loved, challenging the idea that a ruler gained his power from divine right alone, and its proposition that a ruler might employ unethical actions to secure his position and better his country.
One of the first of things that Machiavelli tried to do in his treatise is to separate ethics from princes. While, many of his contemporaries believed that a successful prince would be one filled with the usual virtues, like honor, purity, and integrity, Machiavelli threw this idea out a window. He did not believe that being simply having the “right” value system would grant a leader power and security. In fact, he argued that often, being tied down by such morals would be counterproductive to one maintaining their position. Moreover, “if a ruler wishes to reach his highest goals he will not always find it rational to be morale” (Skinner 42).
So, what characteristics did Machiavelli think would actually make a strong leader? His ideal prince is one who is cunning and ruthless. Machiavelli believed that, “a ruler who wishes to maintain his power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary” (26). A ruler should also not be worried about being miserly, for overall this will help rather than hurt his control (Mansfield). If a prince is too generous his people will also become accustomed to such generosity and be angered when it is not forthcoming, and in the