Conrad Richter’s book, The Light In The Forest, is about a boy from Pennsylvania who was adopted into an Indian family. After a long period of time, True Son had to go back to his white family. The ordeal in the story is that he wanted to go back to the Indians and not stay in the white village. When he came back, he made a big mistake and got kicked out of the Indian village. In my opinion, Cuyloga made the most difficult decision in the novel when he decided to send True Son away at the end.
My first reason why it was difficult for Cuyloga to make this decision is that he loved his son, and he wanted him to live. He knew True Son didn’t mean what he did, but it just happened. So he decided that since he was the father he should take full responsibility for True Son’s action. When he wanted the Indians to fight True Son, they didn’t. So instead he told True Son he had to leave and not come back. If he came back, he would be killed. Parents have to make difficult decisions for their children because they care for them. If they didn’t make decisions, something could happen to the children.
Secondly, it was a difficult decision because Cuyloga thought if he stood there and watched them kill True Son, he couldn’t face his family at home. His family would be mad at him if he let the Indians just kill him. He thought if he spared him his life and never saw him again, everything would be okay because he’d be much safer. He chose to make him leave because he cared for True Son. I would have done the same thing for True Son’s sake. At least I’d know he was alive and not scalped.
Free Essay: The Three Ages in Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken
The Three Different Ages in The Road Not Taken
William George, in “Frost’s ‘The Road Not Taken,’” describes the way in which Frost depicts three different ages of the narrator of the poem. These three different speakers all have to make a decision, and they face it in different ways. The middle-aged self is the most objective speaker, and he mocks the younger and older selves as they “are given to emotion, self-deception, and self-congratulation” (230). While the middle-aged self is able to maintain his objectivity, the younger and older selves are given to delusion and cannot maintain any objectivity.
The first part of the article describes the relation between the middle-aged self and the younger self. The younger self must make a decision about which path he will take. While the middle-aged self “stresses the similarity of the two roads,” the younger self lies to himself because he is “too dismayed with or too ‘sorry’ about the nature of choice to notice that ‘passing there / Had worn [the two roads] really about the same, / And both that morning equally lay / In leaves no step had trodden black’” (230). The younger self pretends that one path, the path he is going to take, is different, that it is less traveled.
The second part of the article describes the relation between the middle-aged self and the older self. The older self must make a decision about whether or not he will tell the truth about his past. “In this ‘age’ of the persona, the choice will be either to tell the truth or to lie about the choice made ‘ages and ages’ before. . . . [But] the older self ignores what the middle-aged self had come to know about that first choice: that ‘both [roads] that morning equally lay.’ Only self-aggrandizing self-deception could cause the older self to ignore what the middle-aged self clearly knows” (231).