Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection

The Constitution is a document that was made over 200 years ago by a population that could have never imagined the type of technology or social advances made in the 21st century. This creates a natural rift between governing ideals between then and now, that needs to be addressed. Rather than holding the values of the nation to a time when people were not considered citizens because of the color of their skin, there need to be updates made to the Constitution itself. The need for change and the mechanisms were both established by the Framers while creating and advancing the Constitution. The ideal process to go about these changes is split between the formal Article V amendment process and judicial activism. The amendment process has infinite scope for changes that can be done, but due to the challenge involved in trying to pass any form of the amendment through both State and Federal Congresses, that process should be reserved for only fundamental or structural changes. Judicial activism, by way of Supreme Court decisions, is a method best applied to the protection of people’s rights.

For my project, I delve into the relationships of Victor and the Monster as well as the relationships Victor shares with other characters that were underdeveloped within the original novel by Mary Shelley in the novel Franeknstein. I examine their relationships in two components. The first through my own interpretation of Victor and the Monster’s relationship within a creative writing piece that extends the novel as if Victor had lived rather than died in the arctic in order to explore the possibilities of a more complex set of relationships between Victor and the Monster than simply creator-creation. My writing focuses on the development of their relationship once all they have left is each other. The second part of my project focuses on an analytical component. I analyze and cite the reasoning for my creative take on Victor and the Monster as well as their relationship within the novel and Mary Shelley’s intentions.

500 Days of Summer, released in 2009 and written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, is an American film told through the perspective of Tom Hansen, the male lead. It is a story that begins with a third-person narrator, explaining that “This is a story of boy meets girl.” The narration then finishes with a warning that “you should know up front, this is not a love story” (Neustadter & Weber, 2009). As the movie continues, however, it becomes increasingly challenging to believe this warning. Tom sees Summer Finn, falls in love, and their relationship ends with him broken-hearted. It is only natural for the audience to view it as a story of Tom’s failed love, and without a deeper analysis, to perceive Summer as the antagonist. <br/> This tendency to view the movie as a love story motivated me to question why the discrepancy between the beginning narration and the common audience perception occurs. My thesis addresses this discrepancy by focusing on the idea that the natural gravitation towards the belief that 500 Days of Summer is a love story exists due to the unreliable narration given by Tom Hansen throughout the movie. I wrote three songs, an interlude, a duet, and a solo, based on the themes and lead characters of the movie to help validate the warning provided in the beginning and provide a deeper insight into Summer’s version of the story.

This paper is an in-depth analysis of the actions and rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency from the perspective of Machiavelli’s most famed work, 'The Prince'. Its premise is born from two articles claiming Donald Trump was either the American Machiavelli or the Anti-Machiavelli, and sets out to find out which title is the most accurate. The end findings suggest that President Trump did not follow enough rules in 'The Prince' to be Machiavellian, but that Trumpism as a political doctrine has the potential grow into a modern day Machiavellianism.