What evidence is these in the play to support these opinions? How do you think that Shakespeare has presented Angelo in the play?
. 'Angelo is an arrogant hypocrite'. 2. 'Angelo is a vulnerable and confused man, deserving of our sympathy'. What evidence is these in the play to support these opinions? How do you think that Shakespeare has presented Angelo in the play? If you ask any critic of the play 'Measure for Measure' by William Shakespeare, to give you a simple description of the character of Angelo, they will tell you that he is the villain of the play. He is a man who rules strictly, without mercy, summarised by the Duke, "strict and most biting laws". Yet his hypocrisy was his downfall in the end. Originally classified in the first Folio as a comedy, Measure for Measure is one of the three problem plays, as there are many question raised by the writer. Shakespeare deliberately gives the audience three different characters opinions of Angelo before we can make formulate one ourselves. This is deliberately done to primarily give us a clouded view of the character, and therefore prolong the mystery and uncertainty. This in itself is foreshadowing the actions of the play, as our opinion of Angelo does change throughout the play. The title of the play is a key theme throughout. Originally coming from the bible, "what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7:2-3). Which translated means, what you do to others, they will do to you. Which is what Angelo finds out in act V,
How far does the poetry of Wilfred Owen break new ground in the tradition of war poetry? Before the First World War, war poetry was written by non-combatants, whether it was for or against war. Wilfred Owen was one of the first to break this tradition. He went to war so he was writing from experience. A lot of soldiers before the First World War were illiterate, so they could not convey their emotions in poetry. World War One was the first time when literate men joined up. Their experiences in the trenches were expressed in their anti-war poetry. Wilfred Owen was in France when war broke out, so he returned to England and volunteered to be an army officer. He was back in France at the end of 1916 in the Somme sector. In spring 1917, he took part in the attack on the Hindenberg Line, near St. Quentin. A huge shell burst near him, giving him shell shock. He wrote a letter to his mother in May 1917, which said, "Suffer dishonour and disgrace, but never resort to arms. Be bullied, be outraged, be killed, but do not kill". The war had obviously had a severe impact on him. He was treated for shell shock at Craiglockhart Hospital in Edinburgh where he wrote poems for therapy. Craiglockhart was a hospital for soldiers with war trauma. It was there, in August 1917, that he met Sassoon, a much more distinguished and renowned poet, who encouraged him to write poems. Many men died in
Compare The Awakening to Madame Bovary Kate Chopin's The Awakening and Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary are both tales of women indignant with their domestic situations; the distinct differences between the two books can be found in the authors' unique tones. Both authors weave similar themes into their writings such as, the escape from the monotony of domestic life, dissatisfaction with marital expectations and suicide. References to "fate" abound throughout both works. In The Awakening, Chopin uses fate to represent the expectations of Edna Pontellier's aristocratic society. Flaubert uses "fate" to portray his characters' compulsive methods of dealing with their guilt and rejecting of personal accountability. Both authors, however seem to believe that it is fate that oppresses these women; their creators view them subjectively, as if they were products of their respective environments. Chopin portrays Edna as an object, and she receives only the same respect as a possession. Edna's husband sees her as and looks, "...at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of personal property which has suffered some damage." (P 2 : The Awakening) Chopin foils their marriage in that of the Ratignolles who, "...understood each other perfectly." She makes the classic mistake of comparing one's insides with others' outsides when she thinks, "If ever the fusion of two human begins
Benjamin Meza Period 7 1/05/01 Topic #2: To what extent do the names and labels we use in the pursuit of knowledge affect the conclusions we reach? Is language used to label thoughts or are thoughts molded by the formation of language? In the pursuit of knowledge we formulate our ideas by attaching names and labels to the thoughts we conceive. This dependence on language is common to both thought and communication. As a form of communication, language is restricted to those universal terms, which can be understood by all people in their limited scope of perception. Therefore, a precipice is reached where the limitations of language affect formulated concepts, confining them to the minute window of understanding which all humans share. George Steiner explained it best when he wrote: "Language can only deal meaningfully with a special, restricted segment of reality. The rest, and it is presumably the much larger part, is silence."1 In defining concepts, language also ties meaning to other preconceived definitions and from this there evolves a impedance to true accuracy. Therefore, it is possible to say that despite the attempt by all languages to describe all possible realities, in the rendering of thoughts the use of names and labels skews to a great extent the realm of possible meaning, often times diverging from one's original intent. In order to develop the way
In "Emma" Jane Austen presents a picture of an inward looking community, limited in outlook. Does this view fit with your reading of the novel?
Romi Verstappen In "Emma" Jane Austen presents a picture of an inward looking community, limited in outlook. Does this view fit with your reading of the novel? In Jane Austen's novel "Emma", the purpose of the limited setting is to demonstrate life as it would be in Highbury around the same time as Austen was writing the novel(around 1815). The setting mostly refers to the period that is set in the novel as well as the place. However, Jane Austen's main concern in the novel was to express social convention, an aspect of life which would have a major affect on the characters in the novel. In "Emma", the setting for the novel is a 'large and prosperous village' called Highbury, and it is supposed to be situated 16 miles from London and 9 miles from Richmond in Surrey. Emma and her father live on the edge of this village in what is unquestionably its Principal house, named Hartfield. "Emma" is set in a very fixed environment; practically the entire story is set in the village and a small surrounding area. Although Austen focuses on one small community and is limited in outlook I don't think this is a negative point. It is this small community displayed in the novel that allows Austen to focus on certain relationships and develop them to the reader in more detail. Therefore the novel is microcosmic as even though it is focusing on a small community it tells us about how
While Heathcliff and Edgar act as foils for one another, it is more useful to consider their function in the novel as individuals. Discuss
While Heathcliff and Edgar act as foils for one another, it is more useful to consider their function in the novel as individuals. In the novel, if Heathcliff is to be considered the primary protagonist, then Edgar is the primary antagonist. Heathcliff's greatest desire is Catherine and the main obstacle that stands in his way is Edgar who, with his greater wealth and higher social status manages to keep her out of his reach. There is therefore a great connection between these two characters which could be explored in great detail; but is it more useful to consider them as two separate entities in the novel, with their other connections having greater importance? When viewed together it can be claimed that as the reader we understand the characters more clearly when they are contrasted against each other. Bronte has set up a possible juxtaposition between Heathcliff and Edgar as it allows the reader to gage the extremities of the two men who are, in many respects polar opposites. This is evident in the most immediate of ways: physical appearance. There is an instant difference in the "long light hair" of Edgar whose figure is "almost too graceful" to the face of Heathcliff that is "half covered with black whiskers" with eyes "deep set and singular". Further and possibly more useful comparisons include the gulfs in class and wealth of the two men. This is obviously an
" All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language." What does this statement mean and do you think it is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language?
" All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language." What does this statement mean and do you think it is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language? To interpret the world and to gain knowledge, people have developed several ways of knowing. These are considered to be perception, emotion, language and reason. The question "all of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language" is a statement that requires further investigation and reflection. Is this really a fair representation of the relationship between these four factors? In a way these four; perception, emotion, language and reason are closely tied together. Perception is often influenced by emotions (which plays a great part in human behaviour), the impressions are then expressed through language, and language is used to communicate thoughts and to reason with people or simply to seek clarity and order. By assuming that the essay question is right, one automatically puts language above the three other ways of knowing. One would claim that without language knowing would be impossible, that only language could create reality. Does language direct perception, emotions and reason or simply that these are interdependent to some extent? To begin with language can be defined as 'use of words in agreed way as means of human communication, communication of
"'Frau Brechenmacher' is a cry against the stupidity and brutality of men and the women who support arrangements through sentimentality or weakness; it is written with feminist rage." Do you agree with the above quote? Discuss.
"'Frau Brechenmacher' is a cry against the stupidity and brutality of men and the women who support arrangements through sentimentality or weakness; it is written with feminist rage." Do you agree with the above quote? Discuss. I do not fully agree that 'Frau Brechenmacher' was written with feminist rage. The suppression of woman and the dominance of men had always appeared in most of Mansfield's writings. However in her biography it has been stated that she does not view herself as a feminist. I think 'Frau Brechenmacher' is more of a psychological exploration of women who let men deny them of independent roles and a reminder as well of what is lost once a woman is married. Also, being that the story was set in Germany, we have to take in the account that women, socially and culturally, were viewed and expected to be nothing more then an extension of the men they were with and were primarily viewed just as objects in the German society. Throughout the story, Mansfield reveals with clarity, how the men completely dominates the women. The opening paragraph of the story immediately gives us a sense of Frau Brechenmacher's strict household. There is also a sense of rush or hectic as she 'runs over [Herr Brechenmacher's] best shirt with hot iron' and prepares the rest of his uniform. The mentioning of uniform in the first paragraph, paints a picture of a military structure in
"'We Need to Talk About Kevin' presents us with unsympathetic characters who nevertheless attract our sympathy." To what extent do you agree with this judgement?
"We Need to Talk About Kevin presents us with unsympathetic characters who nevertheless attract our sympathy." To what extent do you agree with this judgement? In the novel we are presented with three characters who are potentially unsympathetic, but who do seem also to attract our sympathy: Eva, Kevin and Franklin. The epistolary nature of the novel strongly influences our perception of the characters - we can only see them through Eva. The reader is not the intended audience for these letters and thus finds themselves baffled by such images as "But since we've been separated, I may most miss coming home to deliver the narrative curiosities of my day, the way a cat might lay mice at your feet: the small, humble offerings that couples proffer after foraging in separate backyards" - this is not aimed at us but based on a shared experience or private joke that Eva and Franklin would understand and is therefore frustrating. Eva's use of sophisticated vocabulary is potentially irritating because it comes across as pretentious, but the detached tone this creates is in fact rather admirable - it allows her to avoid self-pity: for example, when talking of the poor heating in her "Tinkertoy duplex" she says "awareness that there is no reserve permeates my ablutions with disquiet". She also refuses to give Kevin the recognition he wants for "Thursday" ("The atrocity sounds torn
"A blaze of love and extinction, was better than a lantern glimmer of the same which should last long years" Analyse Hardy's presentation of Eustacia Vye in Book One in the light of this comment.
"A blaze of love and extinction, was better than a lantern glimmer of the same which should last long years" Analyse Hardy's presentation of Eustacia Vye in Book One in the light of this comment. In "Return of the Native" we first come across the character of Eustacia Vye in Chapter 7. In this chapter Hardy gives us an in depth description of the character, for example we learn that she "was the raw material of a divinity". Here Hardy is comparing her to a godlike figure which immediately gives us an impression of a character that is above the rest of the characters of the heath. Further divine imagery is used throughout this chapter, other examples are, "On Olympus she would have done well with a little preparation", "In heaven she will probably sit between the Heloises and the Cleopatras." And "She had the passions and instincts which make a model goddess, that is, those which make not quite a model woman." All of these add together to present her as something not of this world, this in a way shows the audience how she doesn't belong with the 'lower' members of society. In a way Hardy is also ambiguous about the presentation of Eustacia, as he seems to be torn between her divinity and her humanity. This is particularly apparent in the quote "She had the passions and instincts which make a model goddess, that is, those which make not quite a model woman." Although we