Twelfth Night--The Three Personalities

Thursday January 21, 2010

The Three Personalities

            In Shakespeare's play, Twelfth Night, there are three main female characters: Olivia, Viola, and Maria. Each of these females performs a different role in the play. Each has her own good and bad  personality. How are they alike? What makes each unique? Is one morally better than the other? Read on and the answers to these questions will become apparent.

           

            How are these women alike and similar? In the beginning of  the play, Olivia's father and brother both die. When Viola comes ashore, she thinks that her brother has also died: “O my poor brother” (1.2.7), Viola says to the Captain who had saved her. During the course of the play Olivia, Viola, and Maria struggle with many different conflicts. Maria struggles with Malvolio at various times. Viola comes into a conflict with several people, including Malvolio. Olivia struggles with Viola/Cesario. Malvolio irritates Maria as well as others, including Sir Toby. Maria devises a plan to write a letter to Malvolio, to embarrass him in front of Olivia. Viola gets into a conflict with Malvolio when Olivia sends him to return the ring that she did not forgot. Olivia gets into trouble with Cesasrio/Viola when she tells him that he is her husband and that they had just gotten married a couple of hours ago: “Hast thou forgot thyself? Is it so long?”(5.1.136).

            Despite their struggles, the play concludes with a happy endingto each of these women. Fabian comes to tell us that Sir Toby and Maria have been married: “Maria writ/The letter, at Sir Toby's great importance/ [regarding the letter found by Malvolio] In recompense whereof he hath married her”(5.1.350-352). When Viola and Sebastian reunite, all the pieces of the play fall into place, so Viola really hasn't married Olivia but Sebastian had, and Orsino married Viola [when he said] “Give me thy hand”(5.1.262). 

            Each of these women have a strong personality. With Viola we find that she is quick to answer, very resourceful, smart, intelligent, and a very likable person. These characteristics are shown all over the play, including with her talks with Olivia that will later attract Olivia to her. “[Olivia says] Yet come again: for thou perhaps mayst move/That heart which now abhors, to like his love”(3.2.159-160). She is quick-witted and fast thinker which makes her answer Olivia back very quickly. Orsino likes Cesario/Viola because she was successful in visiting and talking to Olivia.  

            Olivia has a big part in the play. She has strong emotions, we know this because she says she will mourn seven years for her brother. “[As Orsino said] O, she that hath a heart of that fine frame/To pay this debt of love but to a brother”(1.1.33-34). She is also beautiful and that makes her attractive to Orsino.

            Maria is smart, determined, stubborn, listens to directions. She is not married until the end of the play. She is clever and able to teach people. She teaches a lesson to Malvolio. She likes Sir Toby even with his drunkenness. She gives him drinks when Malvolio tells her not to. Maria even reprimands him for it, “That quaffing and drinking will undo you”(1.3.13).

            Humans are not perfect. In this play we see that some characters are more morally superior to others. We know that we only see part of their personalities and not all of it. Some characters have faults. There are character in disguise. There is confusion between two characters. There are characters that are dreaming.        

            Viola is a young woman that has survived a shipwrecked and thinks that her brother, Sebastian, has drowned. She tells the captain who saved her about her idea of disguising herself as a man, and to go and work for Orsino, the Duke of Illyria. Viola falls in love with Orsino but goes on the mission she was told origianly to woo Olivia for Orsino but that didn't worked because Olivia actually fell in love with Viola/Cesario. Viola tries to mention a couple of times, that she was a woman to Olivia and Orsino but they with their faults were dreaming. [As she said]“I'm all the daughters of my father's house/And all the brothers too”(2.4.128-129).

            Olivia has told Viola/Cesario to tell Orsino that she doesn't love him.. Viola doesn't seem to like the fact that Olivia likes her so she tries to tell her that she is a woman but she still doesn't get the hint. When Olivia asked Viola that if she would marry her and Viola said she wouldn't. When Olivia meets Sebastian, who Olivia thinks is Viola, and she asks him again and he (Sebastian) agrees to get married. Later Olivia gets into a conflict with Viola about the fact that she had married her but Viola said she had not. The plot comes together when Sebastian appears.

            Maria is mysterious person. We don't know much about her.  She introduces the gulling of Malvolio. During the play Maria does not show us any reason to thinks that she has faults.

            We see the differences of the thee personalities of Olivia,Viola and, Maria. We see the way they are alike, the way each is unique with their own qualities. We can see that the way each of them are more morally better. These three main female characters make up the play to be a comedian type of play .

Work Cited

Shakespeare,William. Twelfth Night. New York: Oxford, 2001.

Word Count: Total, 920 Words including Quotations.

Macbeth Soliloquies

June 2011

Macbeth Soliloquies

            In Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth, there soliloquies that are comparable in many ways. The 2 Macbeth's soliloquies that I will compare are: The first on is, “To be thus is nothing”(3.1.50) and the second one is, “Time thou anticipat’st my dread exploits” (4.1.150). Both are Macbeth soliloquies and are right before the Macbeth commits the murders of Banquo and Macduff's household.

            The mood in the both soliloquies are very different. The first soliloquy Macbeth is worried about himself, that he killed Duncan so that Banquo's children could be kings, “For Banquo’s issue have I fil'd my mind”(3.1.65). Macbeth is very thoughtful in this scene. Macbeth show his reasoning and rationality for killing Banquo:

            Our fears in Banquo stick deep, and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd:     'tis much he dares, and to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide             his valor to act in safety”                        (3.1.49-54)

Macbeth is telling the reader that he is afraid of Banquo, and that Banquo has the wisdom to act bravely but also safely. In second soliloquy Macbeth is angry and emotional. Macbeth is angry at Macduff for running away to England and ruins his plans and then vows to kill his household, “Time, thou anticipat’st my dread exploits”(4.1.144). Macbeth is also emotional and say's that he will act without thinking first. “The very firstlings of my heart shall be the firstlings of my hand”(4.1.147-148). He sends murderers to kill Macduff's family: “The castle of Macduff I will surprise, seize upon Fife; give to th' edge o' the sword his wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls”(4.1.150-152).In the first soliloquy Macbeth is emphasizing his fear of Banquo, as Macbeth say's “Our fears in Banquo Stick deep”. Banquo was talking earlier in the scene with Macbeth, and he saw that Banquo was suspicious of him and expresses his fear of him, “There is none but he whose being I do fear”. However, in the second soliloquy Macbeth is acting out of pure revenge and not for any reason, like in the first soliloquy. When Macbeth hears that Macduff had run off to England he get angry as he notes, “This deed I’ll do before this purpose cool”. That Macbeth will kill his family just to get revenge.

            Macbeth is full of ambition. He wants his future children to rule after him. He fears Banquo's ambition that the witches prophesy would become true. Banquo remarks that if the prophesy by the witches is true by Macbeth maybe it will be true by him to. To which Macbeth answers “He chid the sisters, when first they put the name of king upon me, and bade them speak to him. Then, prophet-like, they hail'd him father to a line of kings”(3.1.57-60). Macbeth admits that if the prophesy is true and that he murdered Duncan for Banquo's sons to be kings: “If ’t be so, for Banquo’s issue have I fil'd my mind, for them the gracious Duncan have I murder'd”(3.1.64-66); that he had given his soul to the devils just to make Banquo's sons kings. As Macbeth say's “Put rancors in the vessel of my peace only for them; and mine eternal jewel given to the common enemy of man, to make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!”(3.1.67-70). The ambition of the second soliloquy is entirely different that the first. Macbeth here has become a monster killing innocent people just because he can. Macbeth is no longer targeting his political enemies but also their innocent families as he says: “The castle of Macduff I will surprise, seize upon Fife, give to th' edge o' th' sword his wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls That trace him in his line” (3.1.150-154).

            Since the beginning of the play Macbeth has put his faith entirely on fate. Macbeth says in act 3, “Come fate into the list, and champion me to the utterance”. He is saying that he will challenge fate to battle and fight to the death. Macbeth is saying that if he would kill Banquo he would defeat fate. From this we see Macbeth is partly trusting in fate. In Act 4 Macbeth completely abandons fate. Macbeth starts abandoning all reasoning and rationality. He goes off and kills the Macduff household just because he can as he says, “I’ll start following up my thoughts with actions right now”.

            Macbeth has been becoming more and more insane since the murder of Duncan. When Macbeth  plans to murder Duncan he had reason, to become thane of Cawdor. Now before the murder of Banquo Macbeth has many reasons to kill Banquo and his sons. So that his kin wont become kings, “To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!”(3.1.70) and also because he fears Banquo, “Our fears in Banquo stick deep”(3.1.49-50). However, in the soliloquy before the murder of Macduff's household Macbeth has no reason. He says, “From this moment the very firstlings of my heart shall be the firstlings of my hand”(4.1.146-148). Macbeth says he will start doing things without thinking first and for no reason. He starts off murdering Macduff's innocent household, “The castle of Macduff I will surprise, seize upon Fife; give to the edge o' the sword his wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls” (4.1.150-153).

            In the 3 points above, regarding ambition, fate and reasoning we see the character of Macbeth. We can see that Macbeth is becoming a monster, planning to kill Banquo and the the Macduff Household, giving his soul over to the devil and then trying to fight fate to death, and then his mindless reasoning.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth, Toronto; University of Toronto Press, 1996

The Crisis of Hamlet--English Hamlet ISU

January 1^st 2012

English Hamlet ISU

The Crisis of Hamlet

            Shakespeare's style of writing tragedy plays makes the crisis fall out at the geometric center of the play. Shakespeare's tragedy play, Hamlet, offers three possibilities for the crisis of the play. All these possibilities fall out during Act 3, the middle of the play. The first is in Act 3 Scene 2, when Claudius flees from the play that Hamlet had staged to see if Claudius was guilty of killing Old Hamlet. The second occurs in Act 3 Scene 3, when Hamlet is given a opportunity to kill Claudius in the chapel but he forgoes it. The third possibility happens in Act 3 Scene 4, when Polonius hides behind the tapestry while Hamlet is talking with his mother, Gertrude. Hamlet sees the tapestry move thinking Claudius was behind it he stabs it killing Polonius who was hiding behind it. Each of these possibilities can fit into be the crisis of the play each in their own way.

             Hamlet, the main protagonist of the play is determined to find out if Claudius, his uncle, had  murdered Old Hamlet, Hamlet's father, to gain the throne after the ghosts testimony. Hamlet asks the player to play the Murder of Gonzago in the theater in font of the king and queen. The play-within-a-play tells us the story of Gonzago, the Duke of Vienna, and his wife, Baptista, who marries his murdering nephew, Lucianus. This play resembles what Claudius had done to Old Hamlet. In order for Hamlet and Horatio, Hamlet's friend, to verify the word of the ghost they would be watching for King Claudius’s reaction. The play begins and when the murder pours the poison into the kings ear, Claudius gets up, cries out, and flees the room followed by the audience. “[Claudius cries out] Give me some light. Away!”(3.2.266). Hamlet and Horatio talk about what had occurred. They agree that the behavior of the king was telling of his actions to Old Hamlet and that the ghost was telling the truth: “I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound”(3.2.283-284). Hamlet realizes that Claudius’s reaction might have not geared to murderers actions which copies the way he killed of Old Hamlet but of the murderer. The play shows that the nephew pours the poison into his uncles ear, but in Claudius case, Claudius pours the poison into his brothers ear. Before Claudius had become Hamlets stepfather, he his uncle and Hamlet was his nephew. Claudius might had run out of the room because he thought that Hamlet was going to kill him. Hamlet and Horatio don’t know if Claudius reacted to his own crime or  that Hamlet, his nephew, would try to kill him. This scene demonstrates that Claudius had a important reason to flee. After this scene Hamlet and Horatio consider themselves to have proven Claudius guilt and that they can move to the next level of planning to murder him.

            In Act 3 Scene 3, Claudius enters the chapel and recites a soliloquy. In the soliloquy Claudius, for the first time, openly admits that he had murdered Old Hamlet. Claudius says his prayer wont work because he is not willing to give up the throne and queen: “I am still possess'd / Of those effects for which I did the murder,/ My crown, mine own ambition and my queen”(3.3.53-55). Hamlet enters into the chapel and receives a opportunity to kill Claudius once and for all. Hamlet being a very thoughtful person, thinks to himself that if he would kill Claudius right after he was praying for forgiveness, Claudius would go straight to heaven, “and so he goes to heaven, /And so am I reveng'd.”(3.3.74-75). Hamlet tells himself that its not right to kill Claudius now and he leaves to talk to his mother. Hamlet tells himself that he would kill Claudius when he would be sinning: “When he is drunk, asleep, or in rage, /Or in the impetuous pleasure of his bed”(3.3.89-90). Later Claudius ponders that if Hamlet had indeed killed him in the chapel he would have gone to hell because his words were useless: “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below”(3.3.96). In the exact middle if the play Hamlet gets what he wanted. Since the beginning of the play Hamlet wants to revenge on the murder of his father and he is given a chance to kill Claudius but he starts thinking. From all of the play Hamlets over thinks, and here as a example too much and this thinking saved Claudius from certain death.

            Hamlet angrily goes to his mothers room. Gertrude tells Hamlet that he has offended his father, meaning his stepfather Claudius: “Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended”(3.4.9). Hamlet responds that she had offended his father, Old Hamlet, by marrying Claudius: “Mother, you have my father much offended”(3.4.10). Hamlet starts arguing and making her aware of what she had done. Hamlet was starting to act violently and his actions make contact with her guilty conscience, and she screams fearing for her life: “What wilt thou do? Thou wilt not murder me?”(3.4.21). Polonius who was hiding behind the tapestry cries out for help, “What, ho! Help, help,help!”(3.4.22). Hamlet thinking Claudius was behind the tapestry and cries out, “How now! a rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!”(3.4.22). He pulls his sword and stabs though the tapestry killing Polonius who was behind it. We see many things from Hamlet's actions here. Hamlet acted upon instinct without thinking. He pulled his dagger and stabbed the tapestry. Claudius notes of Hamlet, “His liberty is full of threats to all”(4.2.14). When Hamlet stabbed the tapestry he revealed his deep desire to murder Claudius.

            Each of these events can be the crisis of the play. I think that the third possibility suits to be the crisis the play. Hamlet has been thinking throughout the play until this point where he just commits the action of murder only to find that he had killed the wrong person. Once he had killed Polonius he had seen what his thoughts and action had led to. We see that that this crisis fits to be the turning point in the play. Hamlet has been more active after this scene:

            Rashly, /And prais'd be rashness for it, let us know, /Our indiscretion sometime serves us well...    There's a divinity that shapes out ends, Rough-hew them how we will.                       (5.2.6-11)

Hamlet senses that fate controls destiny. Claudius realizes that Hamlet is a threat after Hamlet had killed Polonius and sends him to England. Hamlet being sent to England is a positive resolution of Denmark. After the turning point Hamlet acts more and thinks less. Hamlet rewrites the letter that was being sent to England with instructions to kill Rosencranz and Guildenstern. When Hamlet find out of Ophelia's interment he jumps into the grave followed by Laertes which leads to brawl in the ground.  All these are some examples of what had happened after the crisis of the play. We uncover one of Hamlet's tragic flaws, his inability to coordinate between his thoughts and actions. When Hamlet would be in his thinking “mode” he thinks of the good and bad consequences of his actions and then he would not commit the action like what happened in the chapel. But when Hamlet does decides to act, he does it blindly, as by the crisis, killing Polonius.

Work Cited:

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Mississauga: Canadian School Book Exchange, 1996.

Hamlet Act 3 Scene 3

December 11^th 2011

“O My Offence Is Rank”

            In Scene 3, Act 3, Claudius recites a soliloquy in the chapel. This soliloquy is the turning point in the play. Claudius admits his deed and remorse for his actions. The atmosphere and mood of this soliloquy rotates around admittance and his remorse.

            In terms of plot, Claudius admits of his killing of Old Hamlet, “O, my offence rank, it smells to heaven.” (3.3.36). He mentioned that his hands are stained with his brother's blood and this is similar to the blood images in Macbeth. Claudius says his prayer and forgiveness wont work because he is not willing to give up the throne and queen: “I am still possess'd/ Of those effects for which I did the murder,/ My crown, mine own ambition and my queen” (3.3.53-55). He constantly says the he is in a bad situation. “O limed soul that, struggling to be free” (3.3.68), and “O bosom black as death!” (3.3.67). Lastly, Clausius ends by praying that everythig should turn out to be well, “All may be well.” (3.3.72).

            Claudius unveils some of his hidden characteristics during his soliloquy. He has a certain amount of remorse for his evil deed, “O, my offence rank,” (3.3.36). Claudius seems to be very honest with himself about himself not being able to pray: “Pray can I not:/ Though inclination be as sharp as will,/ My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent” (3.3.38-40). From the beginning of the play Claudius is not the type of person to go to pray at a church. It is possible that Claudius has to do something to make him be forgiven of the murder of Old Hamlet. One of Claudius characteristics he has is his ability to evaluate himself..

            This soliloquy is the only place where Claudius admits openly that he had murdered Old Hamlet. After Claudius finished reciting his soliloquy, Hamlet walks into the chapel and has a opportunity to kill Claudius but he thinks to himself that if he would kill him after he has just prayed he would go to heaven. Later Claudius ponders that is Hamlet had indeed killed him in the chapel he would have gone to hell because of his unfulfilled forgiveness.

Sir Robert Laird Borden

January 1, 2011

Civics ISU

on

Sir Robert Laird Borden

Table of Contents

Introduction- Page 3

Early life and the Beginning of his Career- Page 3

Politics-Page 3

Head of the Canadian Government-Page 4

World War One-Page 4

After the War-Page 6

Retirement-Page 6

Death-Page 6

Honors- Page 6

Bibliography:-Page 7

  

Introduction

            Sir Robert Laird Borden was a great Canadian man. Sir Robert Borden was born on June, 26, 1884 and died on June, 10, 1937. He was a lawyer, politician and Canada's eighth prime minister.

Early life and the Beginning of his Career

            Robert Borden was born at Grand Pré, Nova Scotia, on June 26, 1854. He had a small and formal education. He had spent five years teaching at private academies in Nova Scotia and in New Jersey. He became interested in law and spent four years studying and passed the Nova Scotia Bar in August 1878, placing first in the bar examinations. Borden first practiced law in Halifax, then in Kentville, and again in Halifax, where in 1889 he became head of his own law firm. He seemed headed of a successful career until he became interested in politics.

Politics

            Robert Borden was a liberal until he changed to the conservative side over the reciprocity (free trade) issue with the Americans. Borden was elected to Parliament in the 1896 federal election as a conservative. In 1901 he was selected as leader of the conservative party to replace sir Charles Tupper.

            On September 25, 1889 he married Laura Bond and they had no children.

            Over the next ten years Borden worked hard to rebuild the conservative party and establish  a  reform policy. He eventually made the Halifax platform of 1907 which was described as "the most advanced and progressive policy ever put forward in Federal affairs". This policy could have called for reform of the senate and civil services, a more selective immigration policy, free rural mail delivery, and government regulation of telegraphs, telephones, and railways and eventually national ownership of telegraphs and telephones. unfortunately for him the conservative party had lost in the 1908 federal election to Sir Wilfred Lauriers liberals.

            The following election the conservatives had won. In the 1911 federal election the conservatives won when they had campaigned against Laurie's proposal for a free trade agreement with the United States.

Head of the Canadian Government

            In 1911 Sir Robert Laird Borden was sworn in as the eighth Prime Minister over Canada.

World War One

            Robert Borden leadership over Canada during World War One was truly remarkable. Several Major things had happened. He and His government passed the War Measures Act in 1914. Borden also sent half a million soldiers to England to help with the war. When the Canadians heard the casualty reports and they realized that the war was not going to end soon some stopped volunteering.

            In 1917 Borden had instituted the the Military Service Act, the Wartime Business Profits Tax of 1917 and the Income Tax,which was the first direct taxation by the Canadian federal government.   Borden decided that conscription was needed to reinforce Canada's troops. Borden formed a Coalition Union Government with many liberals to implement conscription. This government won the 1917 election. Quebec was opposed to conscription, and after Borden's efforts to unite with Laurier in a coalition failed, he determined on a coalition without Quebec. Canada was badly split, and the irony of the situation was that conscripts did not reach the front in sufficient numbers to have major impact before the end of the war

            Borden wanted to make a Canadian army, rather than have Canadian soldiers split up and assigned to British divisions as had happened during the Boer War. Canadian troops proved themselves to be among the best in the world, fighting at the Somme, Ypres, Passchendaele, and especially at the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

            Borden played a big role in world affairs in the transforming the British Empire into a partnership of equal states, the Commonwealth of Nations, a term that was first discussed at an Imperial Conference in London during the war.

            Borden also introduced the first Canadian income tax, which at the time was meant to be temporary, but was never repealed.

            Borden was convinced that Canada had become a nation on the battlefields of Europe, he demanded that it have a separate seat at the Paris Peace Conference. This was opposed by British and the Americans who would say it would be a extra British vote. Borden responded to that by pointing out that since Canada had lost more men than the U.S. in the war, they at least had the right to the representation of a small minor power. After that the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George relented, and convinced the  Americans to accept the presence of separate Canadian delegation. Borden also won a separate representation in the League of Nations for the Dominion.
             Borden was the last prime minister to be knighted after the House of Commons discontinued to  grant any future titles to Canadians in 1919 with the adoption of the Nickle Resolution.

 After the War

That same year the Winnipeg General Strike was stopped when Borden approved the use of troops to put it down which was feared to be the result of Bolshevik ideology from the Soviet Union.

Retirement

            Robert Borden retired on the 10^th of July 1920 and passed the Prime Ministers role to  Arthur Meighen, He hoped he would have a nice and peaceful retirement but that did not happen. The next year he was called back to be Canadian delegate at the Washington Naval Disarmament Conference of 1921-1922, and in 1930 he was Canada's representative at the League of Nations in 1930.

            He was the Chancellor of Queen's University from 1924 to 1930 and also was Chancellor of McGill University from 1918 to 1920 while still Prime Minister. At his death he stood as president of two financial institutions Barclay's Bank of Canada and the Crown Life Insurance Company.

Death

            He died on 10 June 1937 in Ottawa at the age of 82 and is buried in the Beechwood Cemetery marked by a simple stone cross.

Honors

            Sir Robert Laird Borden received many great honors. He was the last Canadian Prime Minister to be knighted (in 1915) since, due to The Nickle Resolution, no others have been. Sir Robert Borden is pictured on the Canadian $100 bill. Sir Robert Borden was honored by having a high school named after him in the Nepean part of Ottawa, Ontario. Sir Robert Borden was also honored by having a junior high school named after him in Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia. The town of Borden, Saskatchewan was named after him. and the town of Borden in Western Australia was named after him.

            He also published several works including Canada in the Commonwealth and Robert Laird Borden: His Memoirs (1938), edited by his nephew Henry Borden.

Bibliography:

wikipedia .com

awnsers.com

about.com

thecanadianencyclopedia.com

biography.com

Problems Russia has encountered in the transition from a command economy to a market economy

February 22^nd 2012

Problems Russia has encountered in the transition from a command economy to a market economy

            Since the collapse of Communism in the early 1990s, Russia has experienced many difficulties in making the transition from a command economy to a market economy. In a command economy, all production decisions are made by a group of political leaders who have the power to enforce their decisions throughout the entire economy. A market economy is an economy that is coordinated by many individuals who make independent decisions in a free market-place. The transition form a command economy to a market economy was a huge step for Russia that created many problems such as: economic collapse, hyperinflation, privatization, corruption, price drop for oil, and many more.

            The collapse of Soviet Russia was the underlining cause of the economic crisis in Russia. Newly elected President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, announced that he was going to proceed with “shock therapy”, which refers to the sudden release of price and currency controls and immediate trade liberalization within a country, to help the transition for Russia from command economy to market economy. Sadly, this policy did not work and resulted in an economic collapse, which millions of people to become poor.

            Hyperinflation was caused in Russia by the removal of price controls which was part of shock therapy. In 1998, the Russian financial crisis caused hyperinflation.

            The privatization of state-owned industrial assets took place in the 1990s. In communist times, private enterprise had been illegal. Privatization was part of the Russia transition to a market economy. But things did not go the way it should have. The enterprises were supposed to be equally owned between all the citizens but they fell into the hands of some oligarchs. Many Russians consider these  "oligarchs" to be thieves. Through their great wealth, the oligarchs wielded significant political influence which created major corruption.

            Corruption also was a great factor in the transition. Stocks of the state-owned enterprises were issued, and these new publicly traded companies were quickly handed to criminal bosses. For example, the director of a factory during the Soviet era would often become the owner of the same enterprise. Government officials become corrupt and Under the government's cover they were manipulating others. Many took billions in cash and assets outside of the country in an enormous capital flight.

            Lower prices for Russia's major exports like oil and minerals and a loss of investor confidence due to the Asian financial crisis worsened their financial problems. The result was a rapid decline in currency, loss of foreign investment, delayed payments debt and the threat of runaway inflation.

            These were some of the the problems Russia had encountered in the transition toward a Market economy.

Milton Friedman

March 2012

Economics ISU

Milton Friedman

Table of Contents:

1. Background

2. Life

3. Ideas

4.Criticisms

5. Conclusion

6. Bibliography

1. Background

            Milton Friedman enrolled in his first economic class in 1930 when the most important issue at that time was the Great Depression. He believed that economists could help solve the Great Depression. This led to the rest of his career as an economist.

2. Life

            Milton Friedman was born on July 31^st, 1912 in Brooklyn, New York. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Hungary and they worked as dry good merchants.

            He was a very talented student and around his 16^th birthday he graduated from Rahway High School. He attended Rutgers University in New Jersey. He studied mathematics and economics and earned his bachelors degree there. He became influenced by Arthur Burns and Homer Jones, two economic professors, who convinced him that modern economics could help end the Great Depression.

            Friedman pursued his economic studies at the University of Chicago where he earned his masters degree in the year of 1933. He was further influenced by his economic professors, Jacob Viner, Frank Knight, and Henry Simmons. He earned his PhD at Columbia University in 1946. Milton met his future wife, Rose Director, while studying in Chicago.

            In 1935, Friedman moved to Washington D.C where he worked with the Natural Resources Committee large consumer budget survey. Two years later he received a job with the National Bureau of Economics Research to work with Simon Kuznets in his studies of distribution of professional incomes. They helped explain the higher incomes of physicians compared with other professionals.

            Milton Friedman married Rose Director in 1938, as soon as he got a steady income. Their first daugether, Janet, was born on Februruary 26^th 1943, She beacme a lawyer. Their first son was born on February 12th, 1945. They named him David, who became an economist, author, and right wing Libertarian theorist.

            During World War Two, Friedman was appointed as an assistant professor teaching economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison but he left due to the antisemitism that he encountered at the economics department. He returned to government service and started working at the Department of Treasury in the Division of Tax Research and he helped develop the federal withholding tax system for the United States of America. He and his colleagues created the economic term, “ sequential sampling” which meant “the standard analysis of quality control inspection”.

            Toward the end of the war, Friedman worked as a mathematical statistician at Columbia University. He was involved in focusing on problems of weapon design. He helped develop a new fuse for anti-aircraft projectiles and making sure that the fuse in the bomb wouldn’t go off unless it was near the object it intended to destroy. 

             In 1945 Friedman submitted his PhD thesis to Columbia, Incomes from Independent Professional Practice, which he co-authored with Simon Kuznets. In 1946, he accepted a position in the Economics Department at the University of Chicago, in which he stayed for the next 30 years. He helped build a community of intellectuals, known as the Chicago School of Economics. Many Nobel Prize winners graduated from there. During the same period of time, Friedman was asked by Arthur Burns, the head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, to rejoin them and he accepted the offer. He would be working at the Economics Department at the University of Chicago and at the National Bureau of Economic Research, at the same time.

            In 1963, Friedman collaborated with Anna Schwartz and they published a book called, Monetary History of the United states, 1867-1960. From 1966 to 1984, he started writing weekly columns for Newsweek Magazine, which were very influential among political and business people. From 1968 to 1978, he and Paul Samuelson together created a biweekly, half hour show where they would discuss the economic issues of that time.

            In 1976, Friedman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics “for his achievements in the field of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy”. In 1977, at the age of 65, he retired form the University of Chicago and he and his wife moved to San Francisco.

            Friedman advised Richard M. Nixon during his presidential campaign in 1968 and he also served on the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board for the Ronald Reagan Administration until the end of his presidency. During 1988, Friedman received the National Medal of Science and Ronald Reagan awarded him the the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

            Friedman and his wife, began a television program a request of The Free To Choose Network in which he presented his economic ideas. The completed this project and during 1980 his 10-part series called, Free to Choose, was broadcast by PBS. This project inspired him to write a book called, Free to Choose, which was the 3^rd bestselling non-fiction book of 1980.

            Milton Friedman died at the age of 94 on November 16^th, 2006 . His death was announced at a conference of the Cato Institute in Washington by James A. Dorn, the institutes Vice President. All the attendees observed several moments of silence in honor. He died of heart failure after being brought to a hospital near his home in San Francisco.

3. Ideas

                        Monetarism

            Milton Friedman was known for his opinion that the government should run according to the quantity theory of money, which is that money supply has a direct, proportional relationship with price level. Monetarism is the economic belief that the most effective way for the government to influence the economy is by regulating the money supply in circulation. It aims to control inflation and the national output. Modern day monetarism was formulated by Friedman who said that too much money in circulation causes inflation and that monetary authorities should focus on maintaining price stability.

            Friedman rejected the Keynesian Theory whch was created by John Maynard Keynes who said that the government should spend more and lower taxes to stimulate the economy. Friedman held that if the government taxed more, the citizens would have less to spend.If the government borrowed to spend more, that money would not be available for private borrowers. Also if the government tried the reverse fiscal policies (which is spending less and cutting either taxes or borrowing), it would leave more for citizens to spend.

                      Laissez-faire Capitalism

            Friedman believed that free markets would resolve their own economic problems more effectively if they are left alone rather than being controlled by government intervention. He argued that governments should stop controlling their currency rates because the invisible hand would control it.

                        School Vouchers

            Friedman believed that governments should give parents vouchers equal in value to a childs education. They would use this voucher to choose the most appropriate school for their child. The good schools would attract students and the schools that did not get enough students would automatically be  closed. Thereby, there would only be good schools and the education market would take care of itself.
                        Conscription

            Friedman was against military conscription and he stated that the military draft was "inconsistent with a free society”, but he did agree that they could force military training as a reserve in case of war. He played a large role in the elimination of the draft in the United States in 1973.

                   General

            Friedman was a Liberationists who supported cutting taxes, lowering government spending, and the decriminalization of drugs. He wanted to abolish the government instituted laws that limit the economy and the minimum wage law.

4. Criticisms

                      Keynesian criticism

            Several Keynesian economists like James Galbraith and Joseph Stilgtz blamed the free market philosophy of Friedman and the Chicago School for the economic turmoil and the financial crisis of 2008. According to the  Keynesian theory made by John Maynard Keynes, the government should increase spending and even borrow money to create more employment. Then, those people who had money would spend it and stimulate the economy once again. Friedman was known to oppose this theory.

                        Great Britain Failure

            Milton Friedman was known for his belief in monetarism. It was tried in Great Britain during the 1980's. His theory was a huge disaster there and did not work. The Bank of England tried its best to make it work but the economy sank into more of a depression. Though inflation went down, the unemployment rate soared form 5.4% to 11.8%. In 1986, the Bank of England decided to abandon monetarism. At that time Friedman was an adviser for Ronald Reagan. He convinced the President to try monetarism out. This time some people said it was a success, others not. At the end of Reagan's Presidency the United States,  the national debt had risen over 3 trillion dollars due to the government spending and borrowing.

5. Conclusion

            Milton Friedman was known as one of the most influential economists of the 20^th century. He  become a very public person and even advised governments overseas (as well as in North America) and had an enormous impact on economic policy. He wrote many influential economic books such as, Capitalism and Freedom, A Monetary History of United States, 1867-1960, Free to Choose and many more. Since his death and the financial crisis of 2008, his ideas on government regulation have been greatly debated but his teachings still are being supported by economists throughout the world.

6. Bibliography

            wikipedia.org

            reason.com

            achievement.org

            google.com

  

  

Lord of the Flies

November 10, 2011

Lord of the Flies

The Fair Boy

            In Lord of the Flies, a pod of boys is ejected from a plane on to a inhabited island near the Indian Ocean. One of the main character's names is Ralph. He is described as being, “twelve and a few months” and “the boy with fair hair”. Ralph blows on the conch and gathers all the surviving boys at the platform they decide to have a vote on who should be the chief. Piggy, who has asthma, finds a conch and explains to Ralph how to blow it. This shows us the roles of Piggy, who is realistic, and Ralph, who tries to keep everyone together, together make a perfect survival group. They elect Ralph as chief on account of him being the one who was able to blow “the conch”.

            In the beginning, Ralph is discovering the island with his new, friend Piggy: “This is our island. It's a good island. Until the grownups come to fetch us we'll have fun” (35). When Ralph arrives at the island he wants to have fun and he is relying on the grownups to find them. Later in the day Ralph realizes that if they wont do anything the wont be rescued as he tells the boys:

            There's another thing, We can help them find us. If a ship comes near the island they may not       notice us. So we must make smoke on top of the mountain. We must make a fire.                   (35)

This is the exact opposite of Jack's thought development. He was the first to bring up the subject of being rescued at the assembly and later he makes his descent into fun and savagery. Jack and his hunters were given the task of keeping the fire going. Ralph sees a ship pass the island and he runs to the top of the mountain to find a burnt fire. Ralph asks Jack and the Hunters: “Don't you all want to be rescued?”(102)

            Things start to deteriorate between the objectives of Ralph and Jack. Ralph wants to be rescued and Jack wants to hunt and have fun. Jack has got enough of Ralph: “I'm not going to play any longer. Not with you”(127), and starts his own hunting clan by the castle rock. The rivalry between Jack's clan and Ralph's group continues to escalate. The stealing of Piggy's spectacles was first event that marked the complete change in Jack's clan into savagery. Ralph and his group went over to Jacks group to ask for the spectacles back for their fire in which caused a physical fight between Jack and Ralph which lead to the shattering of the conch and Piggy's death.

            Jack and Roger forced Sameric to join to their group to make Ralph be all alone. Jack starts to plan to kill Ralph and Sameric tell Ralph that: “They're going to hunt you tomorrow”(188). Ralph dreading for his life finds a thicket, where Jack would not be able to get to him, and stays there throughout the night. In the morning Jack and the Savages find Ralph and are unable to force him out of the thicket. Jack lights the thicket on fire so Ralph would have no choice but to get out. Ralph run out towards the beach where he bumps into his rescuer, a Naval Officer.

            Ralph breaks out into a cry. He mourns for his dead friends and realizes that mankind is cruel and that their war is similar to the one that the Naval officer was participating. Ralph notes the irony of the fire when the Officer said: “We saw your smoke”(201). The whole time Ralph's been on the island he was trying to make smoke to bhe rescued when Jack lit the fire to kill Ralph and made the recue happen.

Elastic Erasers

Chemistry ISU

THE EARLY HISTROY AND THE MANUFACTURING

OF

Elastic Erasers

What is an Eraser?

            A eraser is an object that is used to remove marks from paper. Most erasers are designed to remove pencil marks. There are some special pens that have erasable ink that can be removed by special erasers.

How Do Erasers Work?

            Erasers pick up graphite particles (pencil marks), and remove them from the surface of the paper. The molecules in erasers are 'stickier' than the paper, so when the eraser is rubbed on top of the pencil mark, the graphite sticks to the eraser over the paper. Some erasers damage the top layer of the paper and remove it as well. Erasers attached to pencils absorb the graphite particles and leave a residue which needs to be brushed away. Soft vinyl erasers are softer than the erasers attached to pencils, but are otherwise similar. Art gum erasers are made of soft, coarse rubber and are used to remove large areas of pencil marks without damaging paper.

            Kneaded erasers absorb graphite and charcoal without wearing away. Kneaded erasers may stick to the paper if they are too warm. They eventually pick up enough graphite or charcoal that they leave marks rather than pick them up, and need to be replaced.

The History of Erasers

            The first erasers were pieces of bread. It was the best substance for removing pencil marks until rubber was available in the Europe. Rubber was known to the inhabitants of Central and South America before Europeans came to the Central and South America. As early as the 11^th century, it was used to coat clothing and to make balls. It was also used to make footwear and bottles by pouring the liquid form on earthen molds and allowing it to dry.

            In 1735, the French scientist Charles de la Condamine discovered a substance known as caoutchouc and sent samples to Europe. Caoutchouc came from a fluid under the bark of a tree found in tropical areas of Central and South America. This milky liquid, known as latex, is still used to make natural rubber. Caoutchouc was first suggested for use as an eraser in the Proceedings of the French Academy in 1752. In 1770, the English scientist Joseph Priestley suggested that caoutchouc should be called rubber, because of its ability to rub away pencil marks. Until the late 19^th century, pencils and erasers were always separate. In 1858, Hyman Lipman of Philadelphia patented a pencil with a groove in the tip, into which an eraser was glued. By the early 1860s, the Faber company made pencils with attached erasers.In 1858, Hymen Lipman received a patent for attaching erasers to the ends of pencils, though the patent was later invalidated since it combined two products rather than invented a new one.

Raw Materials

            The most important raw material in an eraser is rubber. The rubber may be natural or synthetic. Natural rubber comes from latex produced by the rubber tree. Synthetic rubber exists in a wide variety of forms. The most common synthetic rubber comes from the chemicals styrene and butadiene. Styrene is a liquid derived from ethylbenzene. Ethylbenzene is usually made from ethylene and benzene, both of which are derived from petroleum. Butadiene is a gas, derived either directly from petroleum or from substances known as butanes and butenes, which are derived from petroleum.

            Other ingredients that are added to rubber include pigments that change the color of the eraser. Zinc oxide and titanium oxide make the white color. Red can be produced by iron oxide. Many other colors can be produced with various organic dyes.

            Sulfur is a very  important ingredient added to almost all rubber. Sulfur allows rubber to be vulcanized. Charles Goodyear invented this process in 1839. It uses heat and sulfur to make rubber more durable, resistant to heat, improve the strength and resiliency. Vegetable oil is added to the rubber to make the rubber softer and easier to shape and pumice, a natural mineral, is added to make the eraser more abrasive.

Making Erasers

            When the rubber arrives at the eraser factory it is mixed with pigments, vegetable oil, pumice, sulfur, and other ingredients that modify the properties of the final product. Synthetic rubber is easier to mix because it usually arrives as a powder or a liquid. Natural rubber usually arrives in bales and must be pulverized (mashed up) into powder or dissolved in a solvent before it can be mixed.

            The mixture is heated, causing the sulfur to vulcanize, making the mixture more stable. To make plugs, which will be attached to pencils, an extrusion process is usually used. The mixture, in the form of a soft solid, is forced through a die to form a long cylinder. The cylinder is repeatedly cut as it emerges, forming plugs.

            To make flats, which are not attached to pencils, an injection molding process is usually used. The mixture, in the form of a warm liquid, is forced into molds and allowed to cool into a solid. The flats are then removed from the molds.

            The plugs are shipped directly to pencil manufacturers where they are attached to pencils by small, cylindrical, metal cases known as ferrules. Ferrules are made of plain aluminum for less expensive pencils, or painted brass for more expensive pencils. The ferrule is attached to the pencil with glue or with small metal prongs. The plug is inserted into the ferrule and clamped around it.

            The flats may be marked with the name of the manufacturer or other markings. This may be done by stamping or by screen printing. Three-dimensional markings can be made by embossing—cutting into the eraser with a sharp die. The completed flats are packed into cardboard boxes and shipped to retailers.

The Future

            Erasers have remained mostly unchanged for many years. Improvements in eraser technology are likely to be made in the way rubber is produced. New chemical formulas are constantly being developed to produce synthetic rubber in ways that are more efficient, less costly, and which result in products with more useful properties. Genetic engineering may result in rubber trees that produce more latex, or trees that produce latex with physical properties that would make natural rubber production more efficient.

Bibliography:

Wikipedia.org

Google.com

Media available by Discovery Channel's, How it's Made.

A Tale of Two Cities Book 3, Chapter 12

A Tale of Two Cities

Book 3, Chapter 12: “Darkness”

156. Carton gives his traveling papers to Mr. Lorry: “It is a similar certificate, enabling him and his daughter and her child, at any time, to pass the barrier and the frontier” (333). He tells Mr. Lorry to arrange a coach traveling to the English border and to wait until his place his filled in the coach before leaving.

157. Carton instructs Mr. Lorry to prepare to leave the next day because he is worried that Madame Defarge will try to denounce the entire family very soon and then their papers would become void: “They are in great danger. They are in danger of denunciation by Madame Defarge” (333). I think that Carton plans to switch places with Darnay, so that Cartons would die and Darnay would go free with Lucie.

Book 3, Chapter 13: “Fifty-two”

158. Charles writes in his “last” letter several things. He sends his love and blessing to Lucie and Dr. Manette and he tells Lucie to “devote herself to their dear child” (337), little Lucie. He informs Lucie that he did not know anything about Dr. Manette’s imprisonment and he finishes off by thanking Mr. Lorry of their grateful friendship.

159. Carton knew that there was no easy way to get Charles to go along with his plan. Carton enters Darnay’s cell and starts exchanging his clothes with him. Darnay understands what’s happening but thinks that it won’t work. “Carton, there is no escaping from this place; it never can be done. You will only die with me. It is madness” (339). That’s when Carton drugs him.

160. Carton enters the Darnay’s cell and exchanges his clothes with him. He then drugs Darnay and tells Barsad, who was with him, to carry him outside leaving Carton in the jail instead of him claiming that he was sick.

161. In Book 2, Chapter 13, Carton said to Lucie: “For you, and any dear to you, I would do anything. If my career were of better kind that there was any opportunity or capacity of sacrifice in it, I would embrace any sacrifice for you and for those dear to you” (147). He says that is would give up his life to save anything dear to her. Carton is keeps his promise to Lucie by dying at the hands of the guillotine instead of Charles Darnay, her husband.

A Tale of Two Cities Book 2, Chapter 15

ENG 4U

October 17, 2012

A Tale of Two Cities

Book 2, Chapter 15: “Knitting”

78. Defarge learns that Marquis’s killer had been arrested and hung by the gallows in the town: “On the top of the gallows is fixed the knife, blade upwards, with its point in the air. He is hanged there forty feet high—and is left hanging, poisoning the water” (165). The mender of the road reports the fate of the Marquis’s killer to Defarge.

79. After hearing the fate of the Marquis’s killer, Defarge and his compatriots sentenced all of Marquis’s family to be put to death: “The chateau and all the race,” returned Defarge [to one of the revolutionaries concerning the Marquis’s family condition]. “Extermination” (166).

80. The sentencing of the Marquis family by Mousier Defarge and his compatriots was recorded secretly in Madame Defarge’s knitting. “Knitted, in her own stitches and her own symbols, it will always be as plain to her as the sun. Confide in Madame Defarge. It would be easier for the weakest poltroon that lives, to erase himself from existence, than to erase one letter of his name or crimes from the knitted register of Madame Defarge” (166).

81. Defarge compliments his guest for cheering the king and queen because he believes their efforts to destroy aristocracy will be much easier if the noble’s continue to think that the common people still hold loyalty to them.

A Tale of Two Cities Book 2, Chapter 21

ENG 4U

October 17, 2012

A Tale of Two Cities

Book 2, Chapter 21: “Echoing Footsteps”

96. The "Echoing Footsteps" are foreshadowing the French revolution and the footsteps of the mobs that will be rampaging through the city.

97. During this time period, Charles and Lucie lose a son. “Even when golden hair, like her own, lay in a halo on a pillow round the worn face of a little boy, and he said, with a radiant smile, “Dear papa and mamma, I am very sorry to leave you both, and to leave my pretty sister; but I am called, and I must go!”” (202).         

98. Over the years, Carton became less of an alcoholic. When he visited Lucie, he was never drunk. “He never came heated with wine” (203). Mr. Stryver became a rich, successful lawyer and married a widow with property and three sons. Stryver shoved his way toward success, dragging Carton along with him: “Mr. Stryver shouldered his way through the law, like some great engine forcing itself through turbid water, and dragged his useful friend in his wake, like a boat towed astern” (203).

99. July 14, 1989 is known as Bastille Day. On this day, in Paris, people stormed into the Bastille prison: "Come, then!...Patriots and friends, we are ready! The Bastille!” (207). This marked the start of the French revolution.

100. Defarge demanded to be taken to 105 North Tower: “Show me the North Tower!...Quick!”(208). This was the jail cell where Dr. Manette was held when he was in prison. Defarge, Jacques, and the Guard examine the room and find the initials “A.M.” scratched in the wall. This was the cell of Alexander Manette. They later search everything in the room and in frustration Defarge command the others to burn all the items in the room: “Let us collect them together, in the middle of the cell. So! Light them, you!” (210).
101.  Madame Defarge shows her merciless strength by cutting off the governor's head: “Suddenly animated, she put her foot upon his neck, and with her cruel knife—long ready—hewed off his head” (211).

Lennie’s True Nature

ENG 4U

December 1^st 2012

Lennie’s True Nature

One of the main characters in Of Mice and Men makes the reader sympathize with him. Lennie Small is “A huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, with sloping shoulders” (2). He is traveling with George Milton, his friend and companion, in the days of the Great Depression in search of work. Lennie is mentally challenged, plans to have a great future; his innocence makes the reader feel sorry for him. His character and his sympathetic nature are shown through his child-like actions during the novel and contribute towards his harsh end.

From the onset of the novel, Lennie seems to be mentally challenged. He is portrayed as being retarded and as having the mind of a child. We first meet Lennie at a pool of water when he starts gulping water without making sure it is safe. George, his companion and friend, starts reprimanding Lennie for drinking the water: “Lennie, for God’s sakes don’t drink so much” (3). This indicates Lennie’s lack of common sense. George has been taking care of Lennie since Lennie’s Aunt Clara had died. When they both arrive at the ranch, George is the one who answers for both of them. Their unique friendship casts a shadow of suspicion about them by their new boss, but he lets it roll by. In the days of the Great Depression it was unusual for two men to travel together, they would fear each other. George describes Lennie to Slim, a fellow co-worker: “He ain’t no cuckoo. He’s dumb as hell, but he ain’t crazy” (43).  After Lennie’s incident in Weed, George warns Lennie to stay away from Curley, the boss’s son, and his wife. One of Lennie’s mental problems is his inability to listen to George’s advice. In the beginning of the novel, George’s frustration is shown when Lennie asks him, for the second time, what they were going to do: “So you forgot awready, did you? I gotta tell you again, do I? Jesus Christ, you’re a crazy bastard” (4). This leads to Lennie disregarding George’s warning of not talking to Curley’s wife, which ultimately leads to their downfall. All of George’s and Lennie’s actions show how George had taken the responsibility of being a parent to Lennie.

                George and Lennie envision a great future. In chapter one, George introduces their dream. They plan to save enough money to purchase a farm and live off the “fatta the land”. George describes their dream:

We’ll have a big vegetable patch and a rabbit hutch and chickens. And when it rains in the winter, we’ll just say to hell with goin’ to work, and we’ll build up a fire in the stove and set around it an’ listen to the rain comin’ down on the roof – Nuts!                              (16)  

This entices Lennie because George tells him that he can have as many rabbits as he wants. Their dream acts as an instrumental part of their future as they realize they have something to live for. It falls apart when Lennie is killed and George goes back to thinking about the American dream and loses his passion for a bright future. This creates a sad feeling for Lennie and George as they will never be able to attain their dream.

                The book portrays Lennie to be innocent, naïve, and vulnerable. He enjoys playing around with George, petting soft things, and is unable to comprehend the consequences of his actions. Lennie is a large man but has the innocence of a little child. He has an immense strength that he doesn’t fully understand. In the beginning, Lennie pets a mouse and kills it. After which, he plays a game with George:

George looked sharply at him. “What’d you take outa that pocket?”
"Ain’t a thing in my pocket," Lennie said cleverly.
"I know there ain’t. You got it in your hand…"                     (5)

Lennie plays a childlike game with George and thinks that George can’t see the mouse that’s in his hand. He can’t even comprehend what he had done to it. The same happens when Lennie kills a pup by his harsh petting that Slim had given to him. When Curley’s wife approaches Lennie and starts talking to him, Lennie disregards George’s warning and continues to talk with her. When he starts petting Curley’s wife’s hair, the reader gets a feeling that something bad is going to occur. In fact, Lennie’s urge to pet soft hair is so big that he doesn’t let go. She starts creaming but Lennie does not let go. Instead, he covers her mouth and nose so that she would stop screaming. Unknowingly, he twists her neck and kills her. He does not understand the way of the world, and thinks like a child that everything is alright and irreversible. After killing her, Lennie acknowledges that, “I done a bad thing. I done another bad thing” (100). Then Lennie thinks about the puppy he had killed before and decides to, “throw him away… It’s bad enough like it is” (100). Lennie is innocent in the sense that he can’t differentiate between right and wrong. He only thinks about what will make George mad. He doesn’t recognize that one thing is not like the other and proceeds covering up the puppy, even though he had just killed this woman. This shows us of his innocence and makes us sympathetic to Lennie as a murderer. In essence, Lennie is an uncontrollable child in a body of a man.

                Lennie’s somewhat careless actions bring him to his demise. Whether Lennie is the one at fault for how he is, or not, George had the need to kill him. George’s last words to Lennie were about the rabbits in their dream. He had made sure that when Lennie would leave this world he would do it in a peaceful state. John Steinback produces sympathy towards Lennie in his book in a variety of ways. Through this tragic novel the reader, can sympathize with Lennie, as a child and as a human being.

Work Cited:

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men. Bantam Books: New York, 1975.

Oedipus Rex

ENG 4U

September 6, 2012

Oedipus Rex: Ode І

            In Oedipus Rex, Ode I appears after Oedipus had been arguing with Teiresias, the blind seer, after being asked by the priest of the city to find the reason for the plagues occurrence in Thebes. There are three cases where the Ode provides us with extra information regarding, the plague, the murder of Laïos and Oedipus’s rule. Kreon, after visiting the Temple of Apollo tells Oedipus that the plague occurrence is connected with the murder of Laïos. The Ode interprets the situation that occurred in Scene І:

The Delphic stone of prophecies

Remembers ancient regicide

And a still bloody hand                                  (451-454)

This interprets the Oracle’s prophesy to mean that the plague would stop if the murderer of Laïos would be found and prosecuted. In Scene 2, Teiresias was arguing with Oedipus and he accuses him of murdering Laïos. The Chorus reflects the thought of the elders of the city in this Ode: “Shall I believe my great lord criminal/ At the raging word of a blind old man let fall?”(484-485). This clarifies the thoughts of the characters in the play as they are thinking whether they should believe Teiresias to be a blind seer and fool, or that their king, Oedipus, killed Laïos. Before Oedipus becomes king of Thebes, he arrives at the city shortly after Laïos had been murdered. The Ode also provides commentary of Laïos being related to Oedipus: “And never until now has any man brought word/ Of Laïos dark death staining Oedipus the King” (478-479). This is explaining for the first time in the play that the murder of Laïos had been connected with Oedipus, which could ruin his reputation in the land. Throughout the play, the Odes and the Parodos come to fill in commentary and inner workings, as well as missing information in the play which the audience has not yet understood or heard.

Work Cited

Sophocles. “Oedipus Rex.” The Heath Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alice S. Landy & Dave Martin. Canada: D.C. Heath Canada Limited.1982.363-406.