Essays for school

Last town on earth paper (9th grade)

secret

Mr. secret

English

March 29

Last town on earth paper (9th grade)

The last town on earth is a novel written by Thomas Mullen about the 1919 influenza. The story takes place in a town called commonwealth built by Charles Worthy. It is meant to be a haven or "the perfect community", but is such a thing even possible? The novel explores the vast and changing moralities of the people living in Commonwealth as they go under a quarantine to protect themselves from the sickness that's spreading across the world faster than wildfire. Each character's opinion about going into quarantine are all different, some want to help others outside of their haven, others prefer to hide and protect themselves. Although they all want to live and save themselves and their families but can they have both? Are they willing to endanger their neighbors just to see their family? Are they willing to do what's best for their community?

Already the quarantine is going against everything the town had been built for. In the town meeting the people are discussing whether or not it is a good idea to post guards outside the town keeping others from coming in and whether or not they should go into an isolation. They take a vote whether or not they should go into the quarantine. Rebecca, Charles' wife is against the idea because it goes against the ideologies of the town. "To her, closing the town seemed the antithesis of everything they had works for. The founding of Commonwealth had not been an act of rejecting the world, she believed, but of showing the world how it could be improved, so that others could follow their example. If they closed their doors – if they approved this reverse quarantine – they would seal themselves off from that world.". Already the quality of the morality is decreasing. They built this entire town to show the world what it could be, instead they are hiding behind their no entry signs to stop others from coming in and others from leaving.

Morality is a fragile thing, when you have the power to choose between your family and some stranger your decision is very predictable. Graham know the pain of losing someone he loves and now that he has a family who he wants to protect. When both Philip and Graham are on guard duty they come across a soldier who needs food and shelter, he is near death and he asks to enter the town. Of course the town is under quarantine and both Philip and Graham cannot let him in lest they risk getting the whole town sick. The soldier is clearly sick, with the Spanish flu or a simple cold is unknown. Graham shoots the soldier as Philip watches, neither had killed anyone before. After the soldier is dead Philip feels guilty for not even trying to help the soldier, he even realizes he could've brought food for the dying man. "Philip aimed his rifle at the man too. He'd never aimed at a human being before, and it felt wholly unnatural, a forbidden pose. He hoped and hoped the soldier would turn around." (11). This quotation shows how Graham has abandoned a sense of morality. We hear the scene through Philip's point of view and when we compare what we see from Graham to what we hear from Philip we realize that Graham will not hesitate to kill someone. Although we are not in his head, we do not know what thoughts are running through his head but He was the first to raise his gun. He is willing to do anything to protect his family and his town. It occurs to Philip later that they could've found a way to help the soldier. They immediately came to the conclusion that they must kill the man, not help him. Needless to say, the soldier was not helping his situation, choosing to advance instead of stop which would have made things easier for both Graham and Philip.

It's not only Philip and Graham that are faced with multiple morality problems but the entire town. In chapter seven part three two men discuss Mientkiewicz who seemed very sick and was doubling over. One man says that they had locked eyes but he didn't approach him in fear of getting sick. Then the man he was talking to becomes skeptical about his companions health despite him keeping a good distance from Mientkiewicz. ""He was about two blocks away when I saw him, and he had this guilty look in his eyes. Then he just started coughing, all doubled over and everything, so I walked away. Didn't want to be too near him, you know?" "I'm starting to think I shouldn't be too neat you now ""(244). Your fear will always come before your morals. Even if someone made a promise to help all those in need very few will keep it in a situation like this one. They would rather keep a distance than risk themselves getting sick, which is understandable. It's programmed in the human brain to prioritize our own safety and health over anything else, morals just go out the window. And when People are afraid, they blame others. The levels of panic and superstition and rumor are growing in Commonwealth. Earlier in the chapter it is also mentioned that a man shot his dog in fear that he would carry the disease. This shows that anyone would be willing to end the life of their (animal) companion out of fear. Did they think about the dog's welfare? No, they hadn't, they didn't care. Could this extend to humans, other people? Yes, Graham is a perfect example. He killed a man to protect his family without being absolutely certain that the soldier was sick.

Later Amelia and Rebecca against the doctor's wishes meet the other women to harvest their community garden only to find it has been completely ransacked. They realize someone had taken everything they had planted and left it barren. "" Who would do this?" Amelia asked as tears came to her eyes, too. Rebecca watched as the wind scattered her baskets. "Anyone."" (248). No one is innocent, it could be anyone that steals and pillages because everyone is desperate. These are all just examples for the same argument. People are animals, no matter how civilized we train ourselves to be or moral we think we are the moment danger arises it is survival of the fittest. The townspeople are left with nothing while one person feasts on his own spoils of war. Food that he stole that was never meant solely for him.

People are all the same, when we are in danger it all boils down to survival. Commonwealth is meant to be a place different from all the others. Advanced as Commonwealth is supposed to be with improved living, people tend to revert back to more primitive principles (primitive principles, meaning there are none). After the food has been stolen and the pantries empty the people fall into a frenzy. When Metzger's store is completely ransacked, he is left with nothing. His wife had just died, he had no food and now his store has been robbed he had nothing. ""If you want anything, I'm sure your neighbors would help." Metzger shook his head. "Which neighbors would that be? The ones who stopped coming to visit when they heard Flora was sick? The ones who hold their breath when they walk past our home?" Charles looked down. "Open your eyes, Charles! My neighbors did this! No one is going to feed my daughter but me!"". Were those who had just robbed him thinking about the man with a sick wife and a daughter? The people had no consideration for him, they probably didn't hesitate to steal all of his goods. Where is their morality? Everyone is scared, everyone is hungry and everyone wants to survive. Why would they care about anyone else when their own safety is threatened? When the other men learn that the food is all gone, they claim that they want to kill those who stole it or at least steal it all back. "" I'm gonna kill the bastards that did this!" someone vowed. "Forget killing'em," another man said. "Let's just steal the food back."" (307).

Charles' decision is understandable. It's very obvious that his decision would lead to the safest outcome with the least fatalities. It's hard to make a decision in Charles' place when you are not in the same situation he found himself in nor are you in the same state of mind. I understand that once people get desperate, they do desperate things to survive and there is no way to stop them from doing so. Would it actually be better to let everyone come in and out of town and give them endless hospitality yet risk getting the flu? Or should I try to isolate everyone to prevent the sickness in my town? Either way not everyone will be happy with my decision. If I were in his shoes, I would want to protect the people of my town, my family even if it meant forgetting about all those who lay near-death outside. All those who would want to leave could but they would not be allowed back inside until the influenza was annihilated. Honestly the thought of people outside my town would not concern me. But that is just for survival, I wouldn't have concerns for morals, just to live.

I hope this essay is good enough to boost my grade, have a gr

(lol that last sentence I had made the text white so my teacher couldn't see)