Mar 27, 2015 - Communication    No Comments

Compare the ways in which Frankenstein’s monster and Caliban are presented as victims of circumstance in Frankenstein and the Tempest.

In both Frankenstein the Novel and The Tempest the play, the authors have both portrayed Caliban and Frankenstein’s Monster as victims of circumstance. The authors have introduced this by using multiple language features, with the description and structural mechanisms. These components help the reader understand the concept and context of both Novel and Play. Mary Shelley and William Shakespeare have expressed the use of being “Naturally Benevolent” in both characters.

In Frankenstein written 1818 by Mary Shelley there is portrayal of victim of circumference by Frankenstein’s Monster. From the Frankenstein Novel I have witnessed that Frankenstein’s Monster has affected the lives of the people in the village. For me this was the reason for why Frankenstein is seen as a victim. For me, personally from this quote there is a clear indication of why the village’s perspective has a greater effect of Frankenstein’s value. In the quote “the whole village was roused.” For me there is a great emphasis on the word “whole”. The sentence would have made sense without the word being there. But the word was added there to play apart in a foreshadowing. When it says whole, this gives an effect to the reader that the people of the village reacting to Frankenstein’s Monster is just the start of that reaction. And so the reaction would spread around the world and everyone would be aroused from Frankenstein’s features. So for me, the use of structure within this quote is used to alienate Frankenstein’s monster and for him to be seen as a victim. As well as this if the whole world reacts to him as a monster just by his features, without him doing anything to harm anyone. He will never find anyone that will love him or have an intimate companionship. Similarly, in The Tempest written in 1610 by William Shakespeare there is a portrayal of Victim of Circumference by Caliban. As well as foreshadowing in Frankenstein there is also the same structural component in The Tempest for example, in the title of the play The Tempest it means violent and windy thunderstorm. Which symbolises that there will not be much left because there is damage is created by the thunderstorm. For this story the antagonist is Caliban. So for this foreshadowing to work, it would be directed to him. Mainly because at the end of the play Caliban still is a slave and mainly in a story there is an event in which characters change their role but for Caliban, he has started as a slave and now even at the end of the play, he still is a slave. Plus when the character is introduced he is working as a slave for Prospero and is a monster so there is an exposition of him being a victim. This is a great use of The Tempest structural components. The context of the play is set in the Island this gives the theme of isolation for Caliban. And now because both pieces of text contain foreshadowing, it shows that they are both similar and warns the reader that there is some foreshadow of both characters being and staying as victims.

For the language used in Frankenstein, there is great use of Imagery within the monsters monologue within quote “I ought to be thy Adam but I am rather. A fallen angel which drivest me from joy for no misdeed.” In this specific quote there are references to holy figures such as Adam and Eve. And also references to Angels and Devils. For example when Frankenstein’s monster says that he wants to be like Adam because he wants to be human. Also in the Bible there is a term for him being the fallen angel into the devil. Then he starts to blame God for why he receives no joy for no misdeed. Which means he is stating that him being made like he was, was not his fault. In this it shows that Frankenstein’s monster is a victim and the reader is also is affected if they are religious. If the reader is religious then they would envision an angel falling.In contrast to this the language used in The Tempest, in this quote “For every trifle are they set upon me; there pricks at my footfall.” From this quote we can see that William Shakespeare has represented that Caliban is powerless and encounters pain at every step. This use of imagery clearly states that Caliban is a victim. This affect also gives the reader an incentive to imagine Caliban’s hardship, and what it feels like. As well as this Frankenstein also faces similar footsteps. In Frankenstein’s quote for language, it also represents Imagery. They both persuade the reader to develop an envision of the struggle of being a monster displayed in imagery. This is a great language component used, which in terms of both novels really shows that they are victims of a circumstance.

Another technique used in the language of both novels, is the use of hyperboles. In the Frankenstein text there are many hyperboles used to imagine the description of Frankenstein’s monster’s face. Within the quote “he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints moved he rendered capable of motion even Dante could not have perceived” This use of Hyperbole written by Mary Shelley is used to describe the appearance of Frankenstein’s monster. Also this is a very vague and simple statement but is just enough for the reader to understand that the hideousness of the sentence. Could suggest that the monster will soon suffer at this fate, so therefore portraying him as a victim. On the contrary, this technique of hyperbole is also used in The Tempest, the hyperbole is still used to elaborate the disgusting subhuman features of Caliban. Within the quote “I say so, he that Caliban whom I now keep in service. Thou best know’st what torment I did thee in: thy groans did make wolves howl” Within this quote, there are references to Caliban’s face. Caliban is told this by his master, which shows that even though he is a slave, his master is still mocking him. This effect of master-bullying slave influences the fact that his is a victim. Also this hyperbole shows the understanding of such things but when detailed where it is enough for the reader or even too much. There is a same technique used in both pieces of texts. Though there is a development in character but in the end they both end up as victims.

Both authors have also used different techniques, but the same effect towards reader. In Frankenstein, Mary Shelly uses Frankenstein to admit to himself that he is a victim. “I processed no money, no friends, no kind of Property”. In this quote we see Frankenstein’s monster admitting to himself that he has achieved nothing in life. Thus this allows the reader to envision Frankenstein as a victim. This is a bold statement and allows Frankenstein to see for himself what he has become and what makes him the person he is today. He says he obtains no money, this suggest him being poor and having no roof over his head, so for him living like this is just normal. Also having no friends introduces the idea of isolation and the fact that no one cares about him. He also says that he has no kind of property which means there is nothing in this world in which he owns. This technique used by Mary Shelley is similar to William Shakespeare, In The Tempest, Caliban also admits to himself that he is a victim. This is shown when Caliban says “not honour’d with a human shape”. In this quote William Shakespeare has also used Caliban to realise the he himself is a victim. By saying that he is not born with normal human features he is describing himself as a subhuman. He also is having a go at God due to physical appearances towards everyone else. Thus both monsters are blaming the God in whom made this world and made everyone how they are. For their accomplishments and establishments are all set on fatality so this also foreshadows them remaining victims throughout the play or novel.

From analysing both pieces of texts, you can clearly see that both writers have very much proposed to alarm the readers that Caliban and Frankenstein’s Monster are victims but to a much physiological capacity. Where the dialect has composed this in similar and different ways but so does the architectural segment. It seems that the structure and form of the story can have development towards the theme and certain circumstances setting around a character and has appeared in both novels. There is also a range of techniques used between both but overall the intention of displaying both characters as victims is hardly identical and should be considered diverse. Since not all similarities and differences are clear that they do correlate in both books.

 

Mar 23, 2015 - Communication    1 Comment

Empowerment in The Crucible

Arthur Miller expresses Empowerment in many different ways within the Salem society. The women of Salem have less empower than the men do and have dominated all choices for females. The woman work as servants for the men, this is only until the women are mature enough to get married and create offspring of their own. For example one of the portrayals of Empowerment is with John Proctor. In “His whip comes down.” The whips represents sexual dominance, toward Elizabeth. This also says that Elizabeth is a sex slave. John Proctor strips away her innocence when he commits adultery with her. This gives the reader that Arthur Miller has used John Proctor to show the empowerment that he holds.

Feb 2, 2015 - Communication    3 Comments

Torture Redraft

Imagine that a kenned malefactor is holding your family hostage, they are tied up with guns pointing at them. One of the kenned criminal’s accomplices is sitting in the same room as you and is gloating rather than concealing their guilt. The accomplice will not tell you where your family is and how to avail them, so the only way to preserve your family is to torture the accomplice in front of you. By torturing that person you can obtain the pertinent information to preserve your family. The utilization of torture is the best way to insure your family’s safety. The situation above is a personalised version of the ‘ticking-bomb’ case.

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified utilization of torture. The pristine ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city and the culprit is in front of you. Do you torture him and locate the bomb and preserving many lives? Most people would be indisposed to torture the culprit to get the information on where the bomb is and without this information potentially an abundance of people will die. Which is more immoral then torturing one individual who is will to kill innocent people.

However, these same people could be inclined to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the victims that will die or are astringently mutilated are ‘name less’. Hitherto most torture victims are not ‘name less’, this is because torture is up close and personal. But an obligatory evil to forfend mankind.

If a torture pill was engendered that subjected the utilizer to both phrenic and physical penalization that could not be resisted; but to the torturer, the victim appears to be asleep, would this type of torture become more convivially acceptable to utilize? By utilizing a torture pill no visible denotements of pain are visually perceived therefore engendering a caliber of naivety akin to that of a bomber pilot. Whereas both would ken that their actions would result in suffering as the victims pain is unknown and they cannot optically discern the damaged caused they can live guilt free lives. Even though innocents were essentially murdered.

During war a bomber pilot returning to base after relinquishing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is perceived as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person but has tortured people to gain vital information to preserve soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different calibers of culpability. The torturer who took actions that contravened the Geneva Convention will be viewed as a villain as albeit it was compulsory, people do not concur with the conception of torture and do not condone its use. Torture must be habituated to preserve innocents lives, in lieu of sanctioning millions to die at the hand of a lunatic. Torture is viewed as troglodytic; immoral and has no place in modern society. But the pilot who imperilled his life to kill others is viewed as a hero. This is because people view his actions as obligatory in order to forfend his country and to avail bring a war to a terminus. Additionally, his actions are visually perceived as protective. So how can a bomber pilot who murdered innocent women and children be a hero and a man who has never killed and whose actions preserved lives be a villain?

‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’ (Jonathan Glover). This quote is a precise depiction of how modern war is viewed, bombs which cause mass collateral damage are ok and torture is erroneous. The bomb is more inimical but accepted where the conception of utilizing torture is more shocking and abnegated. But both results in human suffering, if one is accepted surly the other should be as well, as both actions are equipollently lamentable.

The utilization of torture is an obligatory evil to forfend lives as it is the most efficacious method to obtain the germane information in scenarios kindred to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. Torturing someone is withal equipollently immoral to bombing another country.

Jan 22, 2015 - Communication    1 Comment

Torture

Torture is necessary in order to protect lives. In order to protect the lives of the innocent, you would need to do everything you can to protect a country’s citizens. However in some circumstances, like in a hypothetical situation when information is needed to save the lives of the innocent, the acts of torture are justifiable.

In this scenario I would like you to imagine a “Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario”. There is a device that will explode in a civil area somewhere unknown very soon. The person who ignites the explosive is the only one who knows of its location. That terrorist is being held by the police. The interrogators have overwhelming evidence to believe that they have the right man. They can check anything he says to see if he is misleading them. This is because of the other circumstantial evidence they have gathered.  He is declining to acknowledge the surroundings  of the bomb under interrogation.

Torture is required for these situations in need of information for example in the ticking “Ticking-Time Bomb Scenario”. Torture is possibly the only option for receiving important information when innocent civilians depend on it. It may lead to death but killing one guilty life will save many innocent lives.

I would understand why Torture would be seen as bad because you are forcing someone to do something by hurting them. Are there other ways of retrieving information from the bomber, instead of torture? No one has the right to harm someone else by emotional or physical actions.

Torture should not be taken lightly, as it is seen as an option to interrogate people for information. It may be terrible, although there are bad people in the world with tormenting intentions. So for torturing bad people to save the lives of the innocent, there may be no justification for it, but sometimes it is necessary in life. The horrible people in the world have no morals but in a ticking time scenario morals, laws and rules are meaningless and are not a priority.

If someone you love was taken from you and the kidnapper was in your possession, you would to not be able to gain any information without the use of some kind of torture. It would be the preferred option, and possibly the only option in order to save and protect your loved ones. So when it comes to love anything can happen, even though sometimes you have to go over the limits and surpass the law.

Despite the fact that torture is morally wrong, compared to what the terrorists do to soldiers it is still more humane. The torture that is given to a suspected terrorist would be water boarding. Waterboarding involves strapping a person to an inclined board and repeatedly throwing water on his face giving him the psychological feeling of him drowning. The suspected terrorist is still alive, on the other hand the terrorists behead soldiers which is much worse that water-boarding. Therefore the acts of torture are not as harsh as those in terrorism. Torture is not as bad as what the terrorists might do. If they do torture the suspected terrorists then this will stop them beheading soldiers.

To conclude, torture can never be justified but sometimes it may be necessary.

 

Jan 17, 2015 - Communication    No Comments

Text Response

Dear Isabelle Kerr,

I am writing to inform on the situation on where to agree or disagree on the use of slang in today’s society. For many people slang is a very quick way of talking to one another for example instead of saying “because” slang interprets it as “cos”. Slang also divides the community between the younger population against the older. This is because most teenagers are adapted into slang and just talk like that for the rest of their lives.

Though many people may disagree in the use of slang in our society for the reason that it is not proper English. That this may be a mockery of the English language, and so that the English language should not be changed. They believe that pupils of schools are taught English how they would speak it and spell it. This may contradict the fact the English language changes and evolves over time. This may point out that slang maybe an evolved version of the English language today.

I believe that schools today, are teaching young individuals the proper English Language. But still within their background or where they live they still have influences of talking slang. This may seem bad, but our English Language is changing everyday,  you may like everyone to talk like how you talk but would those who talk slang have a problem with your pronunciation of words. The thing is we all talk in our own ways to be recognised as to who we are. So you can talk slang or non-slang, the fact is we all talk in our own ways because everyone is different. And difference is what makes our society. This is what I truly believe the English language should be, for different interpretations for different people.

Yours Sincerely.

Jan 17, 2015 - Communication    1 Comment

Transformation

In the forest a bird lays on top of the world, she closes her eyes, and starts to dream. She went to sleep and practised her hunting skills when she was dreaming. In the dream she uses it as training for catching her prey. She believes that sleep isn’t for rest but for practice. Everyday the bird uses the trees as resting spots for when she has used a lot of energy when flying. The sun’s heat keeps the bird going.  The sun is an indicator for the bird to predict the weather and time. The sun shines the light on the earth and its reflection told whether the bird was in a good position or not.

The bird takes it’s time when hunting for it’s prey. During this time, she plans a strategy and conducts traps in which it would help her catch her prey easier. She needs to do this in order to survive. One day she sees a snake and is very curious on it’s destination, she had seen it before. So the bird follows this slithering snake through the forests. Tracking it footstep by footstep and then the snake stops and gives a look and smiles at the bird. The snake knew that the bird was following and continued to smile. Instantly the bird and the snake built relationship and together went hunting and catching animals to eat.

They both had great skills in hunting, the snake would use it’s ability to become sly when killing. The bird had the power of flight and could see and hear any incoming prey. She was a great indicator of any annoyances. Both the snake and the bird became enhanced with great food. They realised that they actually worked better as a partnership than being individuals. The bird and the snake had a great time, on the other hand the bird had not seen the sun for a long time. In fact it was raining everyday, for the past few weeks. The bird was worried and tempted to prey everyday until the sun came back. But every night the bird was constantly waiting for the sunrise and it would never come.

The sun didn’t really bother the bird for he had a vast amount of resources and was happy. The snake was feeling a bit peckish one day and decided to go out and hunt for some animals. So it went out in the rain, all cold and shivering then it sees a nice fruit in the wilderness. It felt very hungry so this was a great opportunity for him, so he ate the nice, shiny, red fruit. It tasted awful, but he was full. In the next few days the snake dies, and the bird was eating all the food they had captured.

 

Jul 1, 2013 - Communication    No Comments

Petrarchan Sonnet

In-case you don’t know, I am very cute! A
Take a good look at my lovely smile, B
You’ll have to let your eyes cure for a while, B
But you will notice that I speak the truth. A
Although my head looks like run-over fruit, A
And my skin goes well with a crocodile’s, B
And Lotion – bathing always proves futile; B
I know it’s fact that I am very cute! A
For every day God calls me beautiful. C
And when He made me, He said, ‘this is good.’ D
My cracked skin and flat nose are beautiful. E
It took a while before I understood, D
But standing I can boast, I’m BEAUTIFUL! E
And if I feel this way, anyone could. D

The Rhyming scheme on the Sonnet is on the far right.
14 lines a Sonnet.
10 syllables a line.
“And my skin lotion goes well with a Crocodiles”is a use of a metaphor.
No Similes.
The Poem is very biased because of the fact that most people would think that the person is talking about himself in a very good way.
There is no Volta because the sonnet does not have a twist it carries on talking about himself in a very biased way.
Haiku:
I am Beautiful.,
i would marry me because
I am Beautiful.

Jun 27, 2013 - Communication    1 Comment

Question On The Sonnet

What specific part of the sonnet do you like?
And why?
What is the purpose of the sonnet?
Who do you think the sonnet is meant for?
Why do you think the sonnet was made?
Explain the first quatrain?
Explain the second?
Explain the third?
Explain the couplet?
How could you improve the sonnet?

Jun 21, 2013 - Communication    No Comments

You are my Chicken Escalope

The first time I met you I was surprised ,
I thought you were clapped but you were the bomb,
I noticed that in your beautiful eyes,
I remember you were on match.com.

You are the main intention of my life,
I love you because of your juicy lips,
I want you to be my wonderful wife,
I think about you when I hear the pips,

I love the way you don’t know how to cook,
The way you cook your tomato pasta,
Happy when you are online on Facebook,
I love the way you hold bags in asda.

Be with me forever I really hope,
Because you are my chicken escalope

Mar 26, 2013 - Communication    1 Comment

Hotel Rwanda Scene Analysis

This particular piece of writing is going to be based on a film called Hotel Rwanda. This film is set in Rwanda and it shows the horrific lives of people during a Great civil War between the Hutus and the Tutsies. The director uses Non-digetic sounds and different camera angles to identify how the people of Rwanda’s perspective or point of view is shown. Hotel Rwanda was filmed and directed by Terry George. He used may non-digetic sounds as well as digetic sounds. The film is a documentary because of the fact that it does show how the people of Rwanda lived. Maybe there were some sounds from the effects but excluding all of that it is a sort of a documentary.

Our scene that we will be analyzing will be when Paul has been instructed to take the “river road” by George he takes it, because he trusts George even though he is the person ordering men to kill the “Tutsie Cockroaches”. So as they drove the van through the “River Road” the director has done an over the shoulder shot. Probably because he wants to view the fact that Paul and Thomas are having a conversation but also so he could see what they are seeing through the front window. While you watch this scene you will notice that the van is bumping over something not revealed because of the fog as they drive, this is because they cannot see where they are driving. There is also a mirror in the van which you will notice, this gives the audience a legitimate response, on the fact that there is no camera shown on the mirror.

After they drive through the misty road we see that Paul falls out from the shot but the camera is still kept from the shot. After this we witness the fact that we see his reaction before we see what actually is being seen by Paul’s wide eyes. By seeing his reaction first the director is trying to build suspense. So it makes the viewer wait for a longer time to know on what Paul is looking at. This makes you want to actually know what it is. By looking at his eyes it clearly horrifies him on what he sees. This really builds suspense because if the film finished like that, it would make a great cliffhanger. When we see the dead bodies which Paul sees in close up shot, we also hear a non-digetic sound. It was a kind of knife shin sound. now this really effects the scene because if there was no sound it would just be a dead body with silence. But the sound shows horror like it was a big surprise too the audience.

All comes too my conclusion is the fact that it is a documentary because it is all true but made up. A documentary with non-digetic sounds. A documentary would be too boring, by adding sound effects it builds suspense and horror. This really Enthasises that particular scene.

Pages:123»
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: