In Greek mythology, Midas is a king obsessed with wealth. He asks the gods for the ability to turn anything he touches to gold. The gods grant his wish, and Midas soon realizes this gift is actually a curse. Chesterton uses the story of Midas as an analogy for chasing materialistic success. Much as the authors worship material wealth and pursue it as if it were attainable, Midas learns that his new ability doesn’t help him succeed because it prevents him from performing necessary tasks such as eating. Chesterton reminds readers of the obvious moral of Midas's story and shows that authors who write about success often misinterpret Midas's story—sometimes by using phrases such as "the Midas touch" in a positive light.
Chesterton emphasizes that King Midas is an example of foolishness and failure. He implies that, for the same reason, writers who encourage people to chase material success share Midas's foolishness:
We all know of such men. We are ever meeting or reading about such persons who turn everything they touch into gold. Success dogs their very footsteps. Their life's pathway leads unerringly upwards. They cannot fail.
Unfortunately, however, Midas could fail; he did. His path did not lead unerringly upward. He starved because whenever he touched a biscuit or a ham sandwich it turned to gold. That was the whole point of the story . . .
Answer Expert Verified. I believe the correct answer is Zaroff has no conscience, while Rainsford does have a conscience. As you can see in the excerpt, Zaroff is not opposed to murdering other people, which he considers to be just a type of hunting.
Explanation:
Answer:
It just makes sense i mean
Answer:
A: Cast of characters
Explanation:
Dispite it may seem as if it is D, this is highlighting the cast.
