To Shoot or Not to Shoot an Elephant Essay Example for Free

To Shoot or Not to Shoot an Elephant Essay Audience Profile: My target audience for this summary and response paper is my online English class. Being an online course through a community college, this is a large and very diverse class containing people of all ages, all ethnicities, and all kinds of education backgrounds. Audience-Subject Relationship: I believe the main idea of this essay has to do with peer pressure. Although my target audience is a diverse one, I know every single person has in some way been exposed to peer pressure and can relate in some way to the reading. Audience-Writer Relationship: Being in an online class is different and in some ways makes it more difficult to get to know classmates. So far we have shared brief descriptions of ourselves and our writing styles and that’s about it so this first draft will be a good way of showing what we all have to bring to the table. Writer’s Role: I would like to come across as someone with personal experience of this topic. The main idea of this essay, peer pressure, is something that every single person has to deal with at some point in their lives in some way or other so mostly everyone should have personal experience on this idea. A European man is stuck in a dreadful job, in a foreign country, where he is already disliked, and is faced with a decision that would impact a few thousand people. George Orwell, the author of the essay, is a sub divisional police officer in lower Burma. He is bitter towards his job and is ridiculed on a daily basis. He feels as though he is living only to impress the local â€Å"Natives.† There is an elephant loose in the town and George is called to help. When he arrives in the village and does some investigating he finds that the elephant went on a rampage eating, destroying, and killing. A local Burman had been in the way of the elephant and was trampled. Gun in hand, George located the enormous animal with no intentions of harming it, only intending on defending himself if necessary. A large amount of people had followed him, over two thousand and counting. He then realized he had given his followers the idea that he would be shooting and killing the elegant elephant. Now he felt obligated to do so or the Burmans would think less of him and laugh in his face. He internally struggled trying to make a final decision of what to do, although on the outside he knew he could not let the people know he was struggling to decide. He did not want to look weak; he wanted to be viewed as a strong authority. He truly believed the elephant was over his â€Å"must† and would no longer harm anything or anyone, as it was gracefully grazing in a pitiful field. However, he knew that would not be acceptable to the thousands in the audience waiting for him to pull the trigger. He considered testing the elephant by getting close to it to see if it would charge, but then decided that that would not please the crowd either. His final decision was to shoot the beastly elephant. I believe the essay â€Å"Shooting an Elephant† by George Orwell was intended to point out how peer pressure can impact a person’s decision and to make the audience question how they would react had they been in that situation. In the essay George takes many things into consideration as he is faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to shoot the elephant. He considers all the things the elephant destroyed, including a human beings life. He considers the owner of the elephant. He considers how many people are watching him and how they want him to shoot the elephant. The one thing he seems not to consider is his own feelings. He acknowledges that he feels it to be unnecessary to shoot the elephant. In the essay he says â€Å"As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him.† (Orwell) Although he thinks this, he still does not act on his feelings due to the pressure he felt from those thousands watching and wanting him to do it. He thinks â€Å"The crowd would laugh at me† (Orwell) if he did not do it. He cares more about what others think about him than what the actual right thing to do is. He thinks â€Å"I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Orwell) Against what he thought was the right thing to do; against his better judgment, he goes ahead and lies on his belly and shoots the elephant several times. He ends the essay by saying â€Å"I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant.† (Orwell) I think that even if the villager was not killed by the elephant, George would still have given into the peer pressure from the people and killed the elephant anyways. He is only using the death of the villager a s an excuse and a safety net to not get in legal trouble for unnecessarily killing the elephant. The fact that a person was killed was not the motivation for shooting the elephant, which is the only thing that bothers me personally. As the reader of the essay, put yourself in George’s situation. Would you have made the same choices George made? The essay takes us through George’s thought process. How would your thought process differ from George’s? In the beginning, personally, I mostly understood George’s way of thinking and why he did what he did. He was already trying as hard as he could to fit in and not be ridiculed for being a foreign authority. George says in the essay â€Å"†¦in every crisis he has got to do what the natives expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.† (Orwell) I think he was trying to convince the Burmans that he was on their side, and he was afraid if he did not do what the Burmans thought was the right thing to do, then he would give them the idea that he was not on their side. Although I do understand where George is coming from and why he made the decision to kill the elephant, after taking everything into consideration, it still was not the right thing to do and I believe I would have not made the same decision. It is harder said than done to do the right thing when you are pressured to do the wrong thing, but if I were in George’s situation I would have chose not to shoot the elephant. He did it to please the Burmans, but why continuously try to please people when they are already ridiculing you and most likely will not stop? I think that although George made a decision that the Burmans were happy about, they will continue to ridicule him and make his job and life difficult so what really is the point of trying to please these people? At the end of the day everyone is faced with peer pressure and you never know how you would actually react unless you are in that situation yourself because doing something is much easier said than done. Works Cited Orwell, George. â€Å"Shooting an Elephant.† Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace World, 1950. Gale Cengage Learning Litfinder. Web. 28 June 2012. Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writing. 9th edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson, 2011. Print.

Law for Engineers: Analysis of Contract Law

Law for Engineers: Analysis of Contract Law Jonathan Phang Then Sien Area of Law The law involved in the case at hand is contract law, specifically involving commercial or business matters where both parties, Deveraux and Havana Moon Mechatronic Engineering Pty Ltd intend to be legally bounded. Principle of Law For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, there must exist essential elements of intention to create legal relations, agreement plus consideration between parties. The requirement of intention to create legal relations determine if a case is legally enforceable by differentiating between domestic or social matters and commercial or business matters. As in Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349, the claimant, a pilot who worked with the defendant is being asked to retire. However, the defendant reneged on a promise made to the claimant that, if the claimant withdrew his contribution on the company pension fund, he would be paid the equivalent of contribution in an ex gratia payment. It was held by court, an agreement was made in business context, thus the agreement is consequently presumed legally bounded and enforceable. The next element for a contract to be effective is there must be agreement between parties. An agreement is established when there is a meeting of the minds, where both parties are agreeing to the same thing and cleared about what are they agreeing to (Khoury Yamouni 2010). It is often being interpreted in terms of offer and acceptance, when offeror makes an offer and accepted by offeree, a binding contract is created. In contrast, invitation to treat is no mean an offer. In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421, an advertisement was advertised as Bramblefinch cocks, hens -25s each, it was judged as an invitation to treat instead of offer hence the seller did not prohibitly selling the birds. Besides, the Rule of Signature state that a contract should at least partially in writing to note the legal effect of a signed document and indicate that it is agreed and cleared on both party. In LEstrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, L bought a defective vending machine and signed without reading the agreement, which the agreement did mentioned not responsible for defects. He then raised the case, but the court held that since he signed the agreement, it indicate he understood all the terms and thus there was no breach of contract. In fact, intention and agreement alone are not enough to make an effective contract. Instead, an agreement must be supported by consideration where parties on both side must promise for a promise or act for a promise or promise for an act and vice versa. In Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Exch 153, it was stated that each party to a contract much receive a benefit and each suffer a detriment. In contract law of consideration, promise need to be paid before the promise can be legally enforceable (Khoury Yamouni 2010). It is simply a price for a promise. This principle also known as doctrine of consideration requires a party to a simple contract must provide consideration before that contract can be enforced. Following are the several rules that govern the doctrine of consideration (Gibson Fraser, 2007). First, consideration must not be past. This is simply due to past consideration is something that already been done which is unable to be form as a part of the current or future bargain element. In Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669, Majorie ran some renovation on a bungalow that was left on trust for her husband and his siblings. After the renovation, Majories husband and his sibling agreed to pay Majorie 480 pound for the renovation from the proceeds of sale of the bungalow, thus they signed a document stating the consideration. However, the payment was never paid. A court was appealed and held that the promise was made after the consideration and ceased with an ineffective past consideration. Similarly, in Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234, the plaintiff bought a horse from the defendant, but only asked about the condition of the horse after transaction made. Later the plaintiff found that the horse is abnormally violent and ask for a refund. As the court held, it is obvious that the promise made after contract was formed, hence the consideration was a past and never was a part of the contract. Therefrom, the plaintiff could not enforce on the promise made. Though, a past consideration also can be valid if it is proceeded by a request or something is accomplished in business context and both party were agreed to the terms. In Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] EWHC KB J17, Braithwaite committed a murder and then requested Lampleigh to obtain him a pardon. Lampleigh managed get the pardon for Braithwaite and he promised to pay Lampleigh 100 pound, but it was never paid. It was held, although the promise to make payment came after the consideration, which is treated as a past consideration, Braithwaite is obliged to pay Lampleigh because the consideration was proceeded by request. Likewise, in Ipex Software Services Pty Ltd Ors v Hosking [2000] VSCA 239, as per agreed between Hosking and Ipex, Hosking will merge his software company with Ipex and shares in Ipex would be transferred to him as return. However, merge have been accomplished by Hosking before a written agreement regarding the share transfer been made. Subsequently, Hosking sue to enforce agreement on Ipex for refusing to transfer the shares. Soon the court held that the agreement was legally enforceable as Hosking was informed in the first place that he would be granted the shares in the new merged company. Secondly, consideration must move from the promisee. This imply that the plaintiff who wish to enforce the contract must prove that the consideration is provided by him and him only. It will not valid if consideration is from third party or agreement enforcement request is done by third party. For example, in Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC QB J57, the father of bride came into an agreement with the father of the groom that they will pay the newlyweds a sum of money. But the bridges father died before payment was made. The grooms father also died soon after hence, no enforcement was done on the contract. Following, the groom sought enforcement on the agreement but failed as it was held that, first the groom was not part of the agreement, and secondly the consideration did not move from the groom. Finally, a new promise of consideration is not entitled if there is existing contractual duty. In Stilk v Myvick [1809] EWHC KB J58, during a voyage two of the twelve crew deserted the ship. The captain then promised the remaining crew to split the wages of the deserted crews and the claimant was one of the remaining crew. When the voyage is completed, the captain never paid up.ÂÂ   As the claimant was already under existing duty to work on the voyage, the captain was not obliged for the payment. Yet, if the party performed beyond their contractual duty, a new promise of consideration maybe valid. In Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 7 EB 872, as half of the ship crew deserted the ship, the captain promised the remaining half of the crew getting paid extra when they sailed the ship back. The captain then refused for the extra payment. It was held the promise is enforceable because the crew performed beyond their duty to replace the deserted crews. Applying the Law From the beginning of the case at hand, it can be seen both parties had serious intention to create a legal relation. There was a meeting between Deveraux and Havana Moon Mechatronic Engineering management team regarding Deverauxs issue, in which it was in a business context. It was then Deveraux successfully negotiated the pay increase. A negotiation is simply an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Therefore, no agreement was made as there was no offer like the precedence in Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421. Plus, no signed document that indicate both parties agreed on the terms hence no effective contract was established as referred In LEstrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394. As for consideration element for Deverauxs, he provided his consideration as his previous work and education. It was made clear that past consideration is not valid because it was not made as an element in the contract, similarly in Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669 and Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234. Although the consideration came from the promisee (Deveraux), but ultimately it is deemed invalid due to it was a past. Furthermore, Deveraux was already had a contractual duty in the company, he was not entitled to have a new promised, similar case happened in Stilk v Myvick [1809] EWHC KB J58. Conclusion The bottom line of Deverauxs case, he cannot enforce the agreement with Havana Moon Mechatronic Engineering due to the fact, there was no valid agreement made nor signed document. Besides, the consideration provided was not valid. Biblography Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Exch 153 Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349 Gibson, A. Fraser, D. 2007. Business Law. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 7 EB 872 Ipex Software Services Pty Ltd Ors v Hosking [2000] VSCA 239 Khoury, D. Yamouni, Y. S. 2010. Understanding Contract Law 8th ed. Sydney: Butterworths. Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] EWHC KB J17 LEstrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421 Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234 Stilk v Myvick [1809] EWHC KB J58 Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC QB J57 (1504 words excluding bibliography) Do You Trust The Media? Do You Trust The Media? According to the journalist Thomas Carlyle Media is often called the fifth branch of governments After the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the federal bureaucracy, saying that no other institution has such an impact on governments as the media has. Well I think I have to agree with Thomas even though the media members are not elected by the people and its motives are often driven by profit. When we listen or hear the media we tend to believe it because we assume they have done some research and the information we are receiving is true. But media sometimes takes sides for example in the Colombian recent elections the media played a key role in influencing the public vote, since the two main channels in Colombia are owned by wealthy families that preferred Juan Manuel Santos over the other candidates I would probably have to say that is why we saw more propaganda for Santos than for Mockus or any other candidate and also favoritism from the two channels. Media also play s a crucial role in shaping a democracy, democracy being the art of how states related with each other used to be secret but now thanks to media is very public and the government doesnt have its privacy like it used to. Nevertheless, the media can also be good since it makes us aware of various social, political and economical activities happening around us. The media in Latin America has evolved and become more active over the time that is why the modern media reminds politicians about their unfulfilled promises and relations with other countries they promised during elections. For example the Colombian media, when it comes to the war with the guerrilla they cover what politicians do not want us to see because it may be too grotesque and make the population scared, maybe the politicians are right in not lettings us see such grotesque pictures but I think is also important to know what is also happening in the country you live in and most importantly in the world. Television allows us to see live the major political events in fact Television has become so important that is the major platform of communication between political figures and the citizens. Television plays an important role in political socialization, helping both children and adults to acquire knowledge about the political system and how it operates. This type of media has allowed nations economies to rise at unprecedented levels, also accelerating the urbanization trend and lastly it has also influenced the high schools and universities to pour millions of graduates every year. Television with the help of the radio has increased the number of voters for presidential elections since together they have reached less educated and less involved sections of the population. Nowadays we can say that the main role of television is to be a watchdog on government actions since they exercised the greatest influence on governments by pressuring them, in other words television is the bridge be tween the people and the government. But television also has its down sides for example the Latin American society has suffered a crisis of confidence of governmental private documents going public, Due to this Venezuelas president Hugo Chavez has entered to control what journalists are allowed to say in Venezuelas television, He is also controlling the access to the internet keeping the people from Venezuela informed in only what he thinks is good for them to know. Another type of media is the newspaper when I say newspaper I am also referring to magazines like semana. An essential function of the newspaper is to bring us news of all around the world, without newspapers we would be like a baby who knows nothing of the outside world. Newspapers keep citizens informed about the political activities of their governments, they give in detail the statements and the speeches made by presidents or other political figures at public meetings or congresses. Newspapers now a days due to their freedom of speech criticize governments on what they do wrong and advice them. They also describe the economic policies of the government for example they describe its import and export policies, its economic development, and the prices of different things to keep people aware. Newspapers gives the same information as television does, the only difference is that is more detailed and specific. Newspapers also describe the problems of unemployment, farmers struggle wit h the guerrilla. Newspapers also convey information regarding the different crimes taking place every day they inform us about the political, economic and social changes occurring everyday in different countries, They give descriptions of the revolutions in different parts of the world, they provide descriptions of changes taking place in other societies in the fields of education, agriculture and a country defense preparation for war. But not everything is news they also have a space to relax with great comics and crossword puzzles. In the recent years the Internet has not replaced the influence of newspapers, radio, or television. However the internet has an advantage over the older media types since The Internet is an interactive medium that allows citizens to send information as well as receive it in real time, something that television and newspapers dont allow. In Colombias latest election the presidential candidates were able to developed web sites to support their campaigns. They also developed groups in facebook, twitter and many other websites, by this new form of communication presidential candidates were able to reach new audiences on the World Wide Web, creating the potential for an even greater influence in society. We could say that the key word for the Internet and politics is power. The 2010 Colombian presidential campaign demonstrated the power of the Internet to raise funds for candidates by collecting contributions via the Websites, Thats why I say dont be surprise next time the presidential c andidate debates are via chat rooms. Among the main internet users are the young adults maybe this is a reason why it has become so important since we are the leaders of tomorrow. The internet serves many functions to society some of them are that is serves as virtual community, information source, employment portal for jobseekers, research center, discussion forum, and entertainment center, among others. The internet brings together buyers and sellers and facilitates the flow of information, making it a key driver of trade. It also has some benefits like doing fast business gathering new ideas but the internet is not as great as it sounds it also has some limitations like the hackers or the privacy control problems we are facing right now I guess we will just have to wait and for the solutions. The last type of media we are going to analyze is the radio since its the oldest one with the most advantages. The most important advantage that radio offers is its ability to reach specific audiences through specialized programming. Radio can be adapted for different parts of the country and can reach people at different times of the day, For example radio is the ideal media for reaching people driving. When the radio first appeared it gave great potential for improving living conditions in the rural areas in Latin America. It is the most universal mass communication medium and is presently the cheapest type of media. Radio has also some effects in society the Excessive coverage of sensitive and violent news has led to communal riots at times in the case of Colombia the sindicatos when they found out about plan Colombia they formed a riot to stop the trade agreement of Colombia with the united states since they were going to be damaged by it. The constant repetition of news especial ly the violent ones can have major impacts especially on kids and make them repeat what they see for example if kids see a shooting they might be tempted to buy a gun and shoot their friends I know its a bit exaggerated but its just an illustration of how much power the media has on society as a whole.The media also plays a role in international political affairs as well, For example when Colombias government invaded Raul Reyes Camp people were all for it they were proud of the Colombian soldiers but when the internet and television stations started showing the other countries reactions a lot of people gave their back to the Colombian government saying they dint respected their neighbors and that they were disappointed on Colombia even though Colombia had already apologize to Ecuador. Radio and the other types of media also play an important role in war, in other words war is good for the media business because despite the excessive costs of sending correspondents for coverage, usin g expensive satellite equipment and airtime, war is precisely the type of event on which the media earns most of their money. A lot of the times the information is transformed and converted to be more dramatic that is why we should work with the media to help them focus in peace agreements and not so much in yellow news. In conclusion the Medias specific role in politics and society is informing us through persuasion always trying to influence us in our decisions. That is why media should have more clearly defined restrictions as to what they can write or cannot write. The media should be obligated to tell the truth and not manufacture or elaborate stories, even if it does not sound as good. Even though most of the television news stations are owned by wealthy individuals, they should not be so biased. The media and the politicians only want us to see what a perfect world we live in, so they tend to hide the truth or work their way around it. We can also conclude that the media has positive and negative things and that is good to read, listen or see the news but most importantly what I recommend is not to believe everything they tell us because they always come with a twist so just make your own decisions based on what you believe in and not letting yourself be influenced by anything. Through this es say we also saw the different types of media and their roles and how in the future the internet is going to be the most important type of media since it allows us to send information and receive information. Finally I recommend to the media to focus a little bit more in peace coverages than on violent news even though they sell better.

The Perception of Change :: Transportation, Driving, Change Blindness

You can miss obvious signs while driving because your mind was wandering, listening to the radio, talking on your cell phone, or even talking to the passenger in your car. Change blindness is the difficulty noticing large changes in your visual senses that are normally easy to be seen (Simon, 2005 ). A main factor in change blindness is attention which is needed to see change (Simon, 2005). The perception of a change occurs when the attention is on the object being changed (Rensink, 1997). Changes to items in a central location are easier to detect than objects elsewhere and the objects that are in the same physical distance (Simon, 2005). Your attention can be distributed to 4-5 items at a time but only detect one change at that moment which is called change simultagnosia (Simon, 2005). Inattentional blindness was first studied by Ulric Neisser and his colleagues in the 1970s. Their study involved subjects viewing an attention-demanding task video where groups of players passing a ball. Subjects were asked to watch one group pass the ball back and forth while ignoring the other group who passed the ball. While this was taking place a woman carrying an umbrella walked through the scene which many subjected failed to notice (Simon, 2010). Simons and Chabris replicated this experiment by using a woman dressed in a gorilla suit that stopped in the middle of the video and thumped its chest for 9 seconds and only 50% of viewers noticed. The gorilla video is a well-known video on visual awareness with about 90% of people say they would notice the gorilla. A new video was later made in front of a green screen so that they could change the color of the curtain behind the event taking place. They had the gorilla walk through the scene stopped and faced the camera while he thumped his chest then left the scene. The curtain colored changed along with a player of the black team left the scene (Simons, 2010). (Beck, 2001) Detecting visual change in the environment is important and it is reported that people are poor when detecting the change during a screen flicker which causes the blindness to occur. When you divide your attention between two tasks you pay less attention to the second one than the primary task (Beck, 2001).

All Quiet On The Western Front - Film Versus Novel Essay -- Erich Maria

â€Å"All Quiet on the Western Front† is a novel by Erich Maria Remarque, published in 1928 about Paul Baumer, a 19 year old student, who is persuaded by his schoolmaster to join the Imperial German Army. He goes to the western front where he and his comrades witnesses the horror and brutality of war through a series of deadly, meaningless battles that left an entire generation traumatized. The book was adapted to a movie in 1930 as well as 1979. Having recently viewed the latter, I would strongly recommend that anyone read the novel rather than watch the 1979 film. To clarify, I am not immediately against a film remake just because it is not the original; at times it is interesting to see how a book is interpreted, however books are often difficult to make into a film and unfortunately, â€Å"All Quiet on the Western Front† was no exception. Not only was the film an poor adaptation, but it also was not visually appealing, the acting was somewhat poor, the wrong parts were emphasized and the atmosphere of the movie was inferior to that of the novel. When any book is made into a movie, one of the most difficult tasks is interpreting the visual aspects, and viewers are often disappointed by the result as it is not how they imagined it while reading the book. While the â€Å"All Quiet on the Western Front† novel was limited only by the reader's imagination, The movie's action scenes were anything but realistic and the special effects did not stand the test of time as modern films contain much more sophisticated special effects... While movies should never be judged by special effects alone, the film was certainly not enhanced by them. In fact modern audiences might even consider the effects as humorous which was certainly not the intention. Mo... ...the 1979 film adaptation of â€Å"All Quiet on the Western Front† failed to live up to the novel. Because it was made in the 1970's, the special effects were unrealistic and inferior to what one pictured while reading the novel. Compared to the novel, the film was also practically censored in terms of how graphic it was. Remarque intentionally made the novel graphic in order to present the anti-war theme, therefore the effectiveness of the film was diminished. The acting in the film was also mediocre and disappointing, and the cast was not well chosen. The trenches in the movie were also slightly softened from how they were described in the novel. Paul Baumer's thoughts and feelings were also not presented as well as they were in the novel. Ultimately, the novel was much more effective at delivering its anti war message, and telling the story. I is not happy. Penispuffer.

War? :: essays research papers

Owen’’s poem serves to uncover the lie that "it is sweet and becoming to die for one’’s country." Owen's use of diction, vivid language, and graphic imagery emphasizes his point. The poem describes the fatigue, blindness, evil, obscenity, death, sufferings, and disgust of war. It shows the true life of a soldier, lying low, ill, endlessly trudging through mud with bloody feet, away from and into the pain of gas poisoning of comrades, and away from the injured and dead, but never away from the memories. It ends with a bitter attack on those who see glory in the death of others. The only beauty in this poem is an idea that rest will come. Unfortunately, it is pointed out that the only rest is an undignified death; for those who sleep, sleep restlessly. The ugliness of war is described as low "like old beggars under sacks", diseased "coughing like hags", "blood-shod. All went lame, all blind", exhausting "drunk wi th fatigue", pointless "flound’’ring . . . Dim . . As under a green sea . . . drowning", careless of living or dead "flung" aside, evil "like a devil’’s sick of sin", disgusting like "eyes writhing . . . blood gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs. . . vile, incurable sores", "bitter as the cud", and merciless "on innocent tongues." The comparisons of lines 1, 14, 20, and 23 through 24, describe the soldier as someone the reader can see and war as the disease Owen wants the inexperienced to understand. 1 Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, 14 As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 20 His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; This places the reader in the soldier’’s place——drowning, stumbling, and fumbling--and shows the lack of glory in war. These lines tell the reader what a man becomes once he has been to war——less than an admirable human, drowned in evil deeds, and emotionless. Lines 23 and 24 give war a character. 23 Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud 24 Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-- They create a tangible entity for the reader. They show the truth of the creature of war——cancerous, bitter, incurable——and its eternal, undignified effect on the innocent. Owen uses plural pronouns and the past tense to describe what cannot be undone. He uses "we" and "our" to include the reader as part of the ill-equipped troops——as tired marchers and witnesses to death and pain. War? :: essays research papers Owen’’s poem serves to uncover the lie that "it is sweet and becoming to die for one’’s country." Owen's use of diction, vivid language, and graphic imagery emphasizes his point. The poem describes the fatigue, blindness, evil, obscenity, death, sufferings, and disgust of war. It shows the true life of a soldier, lying low, ill, endlessly trudging through mud with bloody feet, away from and into the pain of gas poisoning of comrades, and away from the injured and dead, but never away from the memories. It ends with a bitter attack on those who see glory in the death of others. The only beauty in this poem is an idea that rest will come. Unfortunately, it is pointed out that the only rest is an undignified death; for those who sleep, sleep restlessly. The ugliness of war is described as low "like old beggars under sacks", diseased "coughing like hags", "blood-shod. All went lame, all blind", exhausting "drunk wi th fatigue", pointless "flound’’ring . . . Dim . . As under a green sea . . . drowning", careless of living or dead "flung" aside, evil "like a devil’’s sick of sin", disgusting like "eyes writhing . . . blood gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs. . . vile, incurable sores", "bitter as the cud", and merciless "on innocent tongues." The comparisons of lines 1, 14, 20, and 23 through 24, describe the soldier as someone the reader can see and war as the disease Owen wants the inexperienced to understand. 1 Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, 14 As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 20 His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; This places the reader in the soldier’’s place——drowning, stumbling, and fumbling--and shows the lack of glory in war. These lines tell the reader what a man becomes once he has been to war——less than an admirable human, drowned in evil deeds, and emotionless. Lines 23 and 24 give war a character. 23 Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud 24 Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-- They create a tangible entity for the reader. They show the truth of the creature of war——cancerous, bitter, incurable——and its eternal, undignified effect on the innocent. Owen uses plural pronouns and the past tense to describe what cannot be undone. He uses "we" and "our" to include the reader as part of the ill-equipped troops——as tired marchers and witnesses to death and pain.

Discuss the Differences Between Beatrice and Hero Essay

Shakespeare’s play ? Much Ado about Nothing’ has two main female characters, Beatrice and Hero, who are cousins. Both appear to be completely different in the beginning of the play but, as things progress and their characters develop, there are also some very obvious similarities between them. Hero and Beatrice have a very close relationship; they are best friends. Leonato is Hero’s father but Beatrice has no parents, which gives her greater freedom. Where Hero is polite, quiet, respectful and gentle, Beatrice is feisty, cynical, witty, and sharp. Shakespeare uses quite a lot of literary devices and techniques to present the characters of Hero and Beatrice in a way that lets the audience easily compare and contrast them. For example, in the characterisation of Hero and Beatrice, the dialogue used ? what they say, how they say it, what other characters say about them and Hero’s silence are all very important in revealing their characters; in a similar way, their actions ? what the characters do, and their inaction contrasts and creates significant difference between them, bringing each one’s personality. In addition, Shakespeare’s constant use of dramatic irony, exaggeration and contrasting plots, themes and structure all combine in his presentation of the two. At the start of the play Hero is presented as a typical woman of the time, modest and demure ? she says little. In fact, Shakespeare’s first words describing Hero, ? Is she not a modest young lady’ announce her essential qualities of modesty and decorum. In this period, these were vital qualities to have in a wife and Hero possessed them, unlike Beatrice. By contrast, Shakespeare portrays Beatrice as an untypical woman, being outspoken, independent, witty and unconventional ?she is always participating in the conversation even with the men (especially Benedick), which Hero never does. A prime example of this in Act 1 is when Beatrice asks the messenger about Benedick, (a lord, and soldier from Padua) in an offensive way: â€Å"I pray you, is Signor Mountanto returned from the wars or no? † This is part of her â€Å"merry war† with Benedick. Beatrice appears to loathe Benedick and vice versa; they engage in many â€Å"skirmishes of wit. † However, although Beatrice appears hardened and sharp, she is vulnerable, for she loves Benedick. She is disguising her feelings for Benedick by calling him names and disguise is a major theme in this play. Beatrice’s vulnerability is an important point of comparison with Hero, as she is also vulnerable, as we see later in the play. In contrast to her talkative cousin, Hero speaks only once in Act 1 ? in the presence of Beatrice, her father and the messenger, â€Å"My cousin means Signor Benedick of Padua† she says, to explain Beatrice’s jibe. Similarly, in comparing wooing, wedding and repenting to three types of dancing Beatrice describes them as a â€Å"Scotch jig, a measure, and a cinquepace. † This dance image is an inventive one and dance, music, and song are key themes in this play. Here Shakespeare is using an extended metaphor to portray Beatrice’s anti-matrimonial feelings. Of course, these feelings are not genuine. As we see throughout, disguise is one of the key themes in the play and Shakespeare makes it clear that Beatrice is disguising her true feelings, for she admits to Don Pedro that Benedick once â€Å"lent her his heart awhile but won her heart with false dice†. She and Benedick obviously have had a relationship in the past ? one that they would both like to resume. In Act 3, in the absence of men, Shakespeare develops Hero’s character. She is decisive in Scene One and commanding, â€Å"Good Margaret, run thee to the parlour† she orders. We witness a development in Hero’s character; she is dominant and authoritative; she initiates and organises the plot to gull Beatrice, the second benevolent plot in the play. For the first time in the play, Shakespeare also provides Hero with a poetic image, â€Å"Forbid the sun to enter ? like favourites, Made proud princes that advance their pride. † And we see that Hero is clever enough to denigrate Beatrice, â€Å"Of the false sweet bait that we lay for it. † in order to make Beatrice believe that they do not know she’s listening, otherwise they would not discuss her faults. Although Beatrice is intelligent, Shakespeare makes her gullible when she overhears Hero and Ursula discussing Benedick and Beatrice’s relationship. We see that Beatrice does have a softer side, â€Å"Benedick, love on; I will requite thee, Taming my wild heart to thy loving hand. † Enhancing the romance in the play and signifying a transformation in Beatrice. Indeed by the end of Act 3 scene 1, Beatrice and Hero are showing certain similarities. They are now both in love and as we see in Act 3 Scene 4, Beatrice has become quieter and more serious. During the scene of the morning of Hero’s wedding, Shakespeare reveals that Hero is having premonitions, more development of her character. â€Å"God give me joy to wear it for my heart is exceedingly heavy† she states. This is dramatic irony because she feels the wedding may go wrong but it is really a reminder to the audience of Claudio’s intentions to humiliate Hero in the next scene. The audience also find out that Beatrice is lovesick, Hero asks: â€Å"Do you speak in the sick tune? † Beatrice is subdued and Margaret also fills in the comic space and provides the wit by making jokes at Beatrice’s expense. â€Å"God send everyone their heart’s desire! † she says, implying she knows what Beatrice’s heart desires. Margaret makes obscure references to Beatrice’s new mood, saying she should take some â€Å"Carduus Benedictus† for her illness. Shakespeare has developed contrasts between Hero and Beatrice in the way that their relationship with men is presented, particularly the men that they love. Hero and Claudio are the sweet innocent â€Å"young lovers. † Their marriage is arranged by the Prince and Leonato and Claudio is given Hero. On the other hand, Beatrice and Benedick are comedy-makers and Beatrice is not ruled by her father as Hero clearly is. It does take Don Pedro’s benevolent plot to bring Benedick and Beatrice together, however. A modern audience would prefer Beatrice to Hero as she is her own self and admirable. The relationships also differ because Benedick and Beatrice’s relationship slowly grew whereas Claudio and Hero’s relationship was love at first sight. Perhaps it was a little hasty as we see in Act 4 how their love turns sour. Beatrice and Hero are both wonderful and intriguing characters. They develop in interesting ways and they represent two extremely different views of society and what it was like to be a woman in those patriarchal times. Personally, I find Beatrice the more interesting character of the two women; she is more active and has a fuller character which lets you speculate about her whereas this isn’t possible with Hero because her character is so bland. Beatrice’s character is also more entertaining and she stimulates feelings out of the reader, making you like or dislike her and the way she acts and again this isn’t as possible for Hero because her character is so featureless.

Ah, Woe Is Me

In the beginning of this short story we are introduced to Sarah, an aging black servant living in South Africa. She works hard for an upper-class white family and spends all of her money on education for her three children who are sent to a boarding school. They come home once a year at Christmas, and the first time the narrator meets the children, she is surprised at their well-mannered behaviour. She finds, however, that Sarah is a bit harsh towards them, and she comments on this. Sarah tells her that it is better to learn the lesson now and grow to accept ones fate later. In the course of the following year, Sarah must give up her job because of her legs, and one day her daughter comes to the house. Slowly she tells her story to the narrator. How the younger brother is working now, and how she is taking care of Sarah. The narrator offers her some clothes and some money and invites her inside for a cup of tea. When she is about to leave, she starts crying and can only mutter that her mother is very ill. Unsure of what to do, the narrator hands her a handkerchief. The setting in this story is South Africa in the 1950s. Apartheid and segregation are words that describe the conditions under which the blacks (the native Africans) live perfectly. The blacks nearly have no rights and must accept being oppressed by the whites. Sarah is only one of many poor blacks who only just manages to earn a living by working as a servant for a rich white family (the narrator). Slavery does not exist anymore, but it can be difficult to distuingish the life of a slave from that of a native African in the 50s except from the fact that they do after all get paid for their work. Sarah is very concerned about her children getting a good education. She probably wants them to have a better life than she has had so far, and while that is a very noble thought, the facts speak against it. Her children do not at this time have a very good (if any) chance of getting a good solid education because it is very expensive, and their mother does not make that much money. Even if she did make enough money, her legs are bad, and at the end of the story, she has to give up her job (and thus take her children out of the boarding school) because she cannot afford to pay for the school. This is what could look like the final blow to her childrens future success in life. No education means no chances of getting a better life in South Africa (and just about everywhere else, too). But what if she did have enough money to give her children a proper education – would that guarantee the children a good future life I gravely doubt it. As I said before, the blacks live almost like slaves, and as such, they do not have the opportunity to climb the social ladder. All in all, Sarahs hopes and dreams for her children are all very noble, but, unfortunately, at that time and place, very unrealistic. The narrator does not treat Sarah any better than most other white people in South Africa at this time. While she allows Sarahs children to stay in her house during Christmas, I think the only reason she does it is because she tries to escape her own bad conscience. It is Christmas after all. Throughout the rest of the year, she does not even think about helping Sarahs children financially so they can stay in school. Even though she presumably has more money than Sarah will ever see, the thought of helping her servant out does not strike her at any point in the story. Her servant is her servant, and servants children are not someone she thinks about. This point is also very clear to see when one reads the description of the narrators thoughts about Sarahs children. She is surprised at how well they behave, how good their manners are; as if she was expecting a horde of wild animals instead of normal human beings. She is undoubtedly not the only one to think this way about the blacks, they were considered animals by many white people at that time. However, the narrator seems to excuse her treatment and behaviour towards Sarah and her family with ignorance (see lines 99-103). I find it hard to believe that this ignorance really existed, but it is possible that it did, because the whites and the blacks were so distinctly segregated by the apartheid system. Yet I find it hard to believe that the narrator was completely unaware of Sarahs almost inhuman standard of living. Surely, even though apartheid almost divided the whites and the blacks into two separate worlds, she must have known something about the conditions under which Sarah and her children lived, and that it was getting worse as the days went by (because of the mothers bad legs). When Janet, one of Sarahs two daughters, comes to visit the narrator in the end of the story, the narrator once again displays her ignorance about the blacks, but this time she openly admits it. Janet is, of course, in an unpleasant situation when she stands in the back yard of her mothers former employer. Everyone has some pride in themselves, and standing in the back yard, asking for alms is, of course, very degrading to a proud person, no matter who that person is. Janet has probably tried being in a similar situation before, but now that her mother is unable to provide for the disintegrating family (her father has lost his job and her sister has married and moved away), the life and death of her family depends solely on her and her brother who are the only ones working. Janet is of course very depressed and sad, but she cannot give up now. Her last hope is that the narrator will help her out, and, fortunately, she does. The handkerchief is actually the first thing the narrator has ever done to help Sarahs children. It is not until that point in the story Janet realizes just how bad things are with Sarah and her family. Of course, one could again be tempted to think that it was only her bad conscience that made her give Janet the clothes, but there is no way to be sure. I am, however, inclined to believe that the narrator has finally realized how immense the difference between the â€Å"black world† and the â€Å"white world† really is. However, the things she gives Janet (some money and the handkerchief) will not last long, and what will Janet do then Come back for more, of course. I am not saying that the narrator is doing something bad, but I do not think she realizes that Janet will probably come back again. It is like giving a stray cat some food; it will always come back for more. The question is if the narrator would give Janet more money if she came back, and if it would be any help at all. The first question is easy: Yes, she would give her more money if she came back – her conscience forbids her to do otherwise. The second question is a bit more difficult to answer. Of course the money is an instant help to Janet and her family, but only a very insufficient one. The few dollars (or whatever currency they use in South Africa) she gives Janet will only provide the family with a meal or two, and after that they will be back to where they started, and would have to beg for more money. Now, I am not saying charity does not help, but I do not think it helps as much as many people would like to think it does. In many cases, it only puts off the sufferings. The apartheid system has officially been abolished in South Africa today, but I think old habits die hard, so to speak. I am sure there are still blacks like Sarah and her family who have to subordinate to the richer white population even though – officially – apartheid does not exist there anymore. Societies do not change overnight, especially not when one group has to give up its right and privileges and share them with others (whom they dislike). Sarahs story is undoubtedly not the worst example one could find, but no one knows what happened after the scene in the narrators back yard.