Realism, as William Dean Howells declared, involves “the young writer attempting to report the phrase and manner of everyday life” (641-642 ). This mode of expression essentially boils down to the life perspectives of individual writers and includes elements such as regional realism and local color. However, realist pieces are typically centered on the characters of Sarah Orne Jewett's "The Open Boat " by Crane are both centered on a character or a group of characters, however, the difference emerges when examining the relationship between man and nature in these two pieces, while both "A White Heron" and "The Open Boat" .are character-focused pieces, the first piece demonstrates that humans ultimately have the ability to control nature, while the second shows how humans are powerless in the face of nature. Say no to plagiarism measure up'Why violent video games shouldn't be banned? Get an Original Essay Crane makes his disturbing themes immediately apparent. Although the characters in "The Open Boat" are very aware of their dire situation, they have difficulty truly placing themselves in the context of nature. In the first paragraphs of the piece, readers discover that men experience a literal sense of blindness when thrown into the middle of the non-human world. The narrator states, “As each slate wall of water approached, it closed everything else from the view 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 unable to understand their environment and their insignificant place in nature. When humans are placed in the context of nature, they are so diminished that they are literally and metaphorically blind. Readers see this theme resurface as the correspondent reflects on his situation throughout the piece. An example of this occurs near the end of the story: “He thought, 'Am I going to drown? Can it be possible? Can it be possible? Can this be possible?' Perhaps an individual must regard his own death as the final phenomenon of nature” (Crane, 1005). Here the correspondent has difficulty understanding his place in nature, thinking that it is impossible for nature to condemn him to such a cruel fate after all he has suffered. This short-sightedness is symbolized, as discussed above, by the literal blindness that being in the water causes in him and his companions; it also prefigures the theme that man is indeed vulnerable in the “final phenomenon of nature.” Persistence is also an overarching theme in “The Open Boat.” While one could argue that this persistence is simply the result of humans' situation, one could also point to humans' reluctance to accept their own oblivion in the face of nature. A demonstration of tenacity occurs when the men discover a lighthouse in the distance: “It was just like the head 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 to search for a glimmer of hope. Their stubbornness and refusal to accept defeat and give in to blindness speak to their inability to accept their insignificant role in nature. In somewhat similar fashion, the men then encounter a large windmill. The meeting leads the correspondent to question nature, considering the windmill as representing "to a certain extent, for the correspondent, the serenity of nature in the midst of the struggles of the individual [...] It didn't seem cruel to him then,neither beneficial, nor treacherous, nor wise. But she was indifferent, decidedly indifferent” (Crane, 1003). In this passage, the correspondent realizes the role of man in the presence of natureabsence of emotions. Ironically, although nature is perceived as a character in this piece due to its continuous and essential presence, nature, emotionless, is the least human presence of all. However, even though this passage directly states that nature is “totally indifferent,” the key to interpretation lies in what happens after this scene. Just as the correspondent begins to accept nature as a powerful and indifferent force, his reflections are abruptly interrupted by the captain speaking, 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 apply his continued persistence. This impulse not only speaks to man's insignificant role in nature, but suggests that the correspondent has difficulty accepting the truth he encountered in front of the windmill, so he chooses to ignore it and move on. His willful ignorance of the truth further solidifies the fact that man is portrayed as defenseless and unimportant. “A White Heron” certainly takes on an incredibly different and more complex perspective than “The Open Boat” regarding humans and their relationship with the environment around them. While the Ornithologist demonstrates clear control over nature, Sylvia's relationship with nature is much more complex. Ultimately, by posing this dichotomy, “A White Heron” demonstrates that humans can have the choice to control nature if they wish. Jewett begins by contrasting Sylvia and the ornithologist as two potential models for relationships between humans and nature. In the first paragraphs of the piece, Sylvia is described as at one with her environment: “She seemed as if she had never been alive before she came to live on the farm [. . .] this was a nice place to live, and she should never want to go home” (Jewett, 527). This statement immediately establishes that the tone of the piece will be different from that of Crane's piece. Sylvia is not at the mercy of nature; rather, it is in harmony with it. This situation will then be contrasted with that of the Ornithologist. The opening scene also depicts Sylvia and a cow. Spiteful, the cow stands perfectly still to hide, but Sylvia and her grandmother don't care: “If the creature hadn't given good and abundant milk, the situation would have seemed very different to the owners. Besides, Sylvia had all the time” (Jewett, 526). This is the first clue that Sylvia and her grandmother have the ability to control the cow (either by forcing it to obey their will or by abandoning it). However, for personal reasons, they choose not to control the cow, and so Sylvia's relationship with nature is further solidified. The ornithologist's actions are contrasted with Sylvia's harmonious relationship with nature. Jewett explains: “Sylvia would have appreciated him much more without his gun; he couldn't understand why he had killed the very birds he seemed to like so much” (530). This excerpt demonstrates a very clear antagonistic relationship between the ornithologist and nature. At the beginning of the piece, the ornithologist talks about how "I shot or trapped them all myself" (Jewett, 529), referring to his collection of birds. His use of the word "myself" conveys a tone of pride in his work, revealing that he makes a conscious choice to manipulate nature for his own satisfaction and pleasure. This dichotomy reaches its climax in the final scene, when Sylvia climbs the evergreen tree and takes a look.