Realism, as William Dean Howells stated, involves "the young writer attempting to account for the phrase and the transportation of everyday life” (641-642). This mode of expression essentially boils down to individual writers' perspectives on life and includes elements such as regional realism as well as local color. are generally centered on the characters of Sarah Orne Jewett and Crane's "The Open Boat" both focus on a character or group of characters However, the difference appears when we examine the relationship between humans and. nature in these two plays, while "A White Heron" and "The Open Boat" both focus on a character or group of characters are character-centered plays, the former shows that humans have in the end. one account the ability to control nature, while the second shows how powerless humans are in the face of nature. Say No to Plagiarism Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violence”. Shouldn't video games be banned? Get the original essay. Crane makes his disturbing themes easily apparent. Although the characters in “The Open Boat” are very aware of their dire situation, they struggle to truly place themselves in the context of nature. In the first paragraphs of the article, readers discover that men experience a true feeling of blindness when they are thrown into the middle of a non-human world. The narrator states, “As each wall of slate water approached, all the rest was hidden from sight of the men in the boat” (Crane, 991). This literal blindness also represents a broader metaphorical blindness to their situation. Since humans are unable to see around them, they are also incapable of understanding their surroundings and their insignificant place in nature. When humans are placed in the context of nature, they are so small that it literally and metaphorically makes them blind. Readers see this theme resurface as the correspondent reflects on his situation throughout the article. An example of this occurs near the end of the story: "He thought, 'Am I going to drown?' Is this possible? Is this possible? Is this possible? Perhaps an individual must regard his own death as the final phenomenon of nature” (Crane, 1005). Here, the correspondent struggles to understand his place in nature, thinking that it is impossible for nature to condemn him to such a cruel fate after all he has endured. This myopia is symbolized, as we saw above, by the literal blindness that being in the water causes in him and his comrades; this also foreshadows the theme that man is indeed vulnerable in the "final phenomenon of nature". Perseverance is also an overarching theme in “The Open Boat.” While one could argue that this persistence is simply the result of humans' circumstances, one could also emphasize humans' reluctance to accept their forgetfulness in the face of nature. A demonstration of perseverance can be found when the men discover a lighthouse in the distance: “It was just like the point of a pin. It took an anxious eye to find such a small lighthouse” (Crane, 993). Despite their metaphorical and literal blindness, men strain their eyes in search of a glimmer of hope. Their stubbornness and refusal to accept defeat and give in to blindness testify to their inability to accept their insignificant role in nature. In a somewhat similar vein, the men later encounter a large windmill. The meeting bringscorresponding to wondering about nature, seeing the windmill as representing “to a certain extent, for the correspondent, the serenity of nature in the midst of the struggles of the individual [. . .] She then seemed neither cruel, nor beneficent, nor treacherous, nor wise. But she was indifferent, downright indifferent” (Crane, 1003). In this passage, the correspondent becomes aware of the role of man in the presence of nature.powerlessness. Ironically, although nature is seen as a character in this play due to its continuous and essential presence, nature, without emotions, is the least human presence of all. However, although this passage states very directly that nature is "downright indifferent", the key to interpretation lies in what happens after this scene. As the correspondent begins to accept nature as a powerful and indifferent force, his thoughts are abruptly interrupted by the captain's speech, and the perspective shifts again to the individuals as they continue to row (Crane, 1003-1004 ). Even as he begins to understand his insignificant role in nature, the correspondent cannot help but show perseverance. This impulse not only testifies to man's insignificant role in nature, but also suggests that the correspondent has difficulty accepting the truth he stumbled upon at the windmill, so he chooses to ignore it and move on. His willful ignorance of the truth further reinforces the fact that the man is portrayed as helpless and unimportant. “A White Heron” certainly takes an incredibly different and more complex perspective than “The Open Boat” when it comes to humans and their relationship with humans. the environment that surrounds them. Although the Ornithologist demonstrates a clear mastery of nature, Sylvia's relationship with nature is much more complex. Ultimately, by positing this dichotomy, “A White Heron” demonstrates that humans can have the choice to control nature if they choose. Jewett begins by contrasting Sylvia and the ornithologist as two potential models of human-nature relations. In the opening paragraphs of the play, Sylvia is described as one with her surroundings: “It seemed as if she had never been alive before she came to live on the farm[. . .] it was a beautiful place to live, and she should never wish to return home” (Jewett, 527). At the outset, this statement establishes that the tone of the piece is different from that of Crane. Sylvia is not at the mercy of nature; on the contrary, it is in harmony with it. This situation will later be compared to that of the Ornithologist. The opening scene also depicts Sylvia and a cow. Mischievous, the cow remains perfectly still to hide, but this does not worry Sylvia and her grandmother: “If the creature had not given good milk and in abundance, the case would have seemed very different to the owners. Besides, Sylvia had plenty of time available” (Jewett, 526). This is the first hint that Sylvia and her grandmother have the ability to control the cow (either by forcing it to conform to their will or by abandoning it). However, for personal reasons, they choose not to control the cow, which strengthens Sylvia's relationship with nature. The ornithologist's actions contrast with Sylvia's harmonious relationship with nature. Jewett explains: “Sylvia would have liked him much better without his gun; she could not understand why he killed the birds he seemed to love so much” (530). This extract demonstrates a very clear antagonistic relationship between the Ornithologist and nature. Earlier in the article, the ornithologist recounts how "I shot or trapped each one myself".