Author: Samuel

Arthur Miller presents the theme of tyranny within the crucible, through his use of the girls manipulating the courts to extract revenge. For example Abigail creates the ‘bird’ that wants to ‘tear’ her ‘face’ as well as stating that Mary is using a ‘black art’. The phrase ‘black art’ connotes the idea of dark magic and witchcraft, but also the use of subduction and manipulation to control peoples will. These connotations show that Abigail is manipulating the court to cover her tracks when Mary accuses her of lying and to extract revenge on Mary for betraying her. Miller uses the connotations of ‘black art’ to present how tyrannical Abigail’s rule in the court is. While in court figures of authority and reasoning, such as Danforth, are following the word of one person blindly. Danforth is following Abigail’ sword blindly as she is using a ‘black art’ to manipulate and bend the court to carry out her binding. Miller does this to show how tyranny can be manipulate to force people to, without knowing it to do your binding.

Arthur Miller is trying to communicate to the reader that hysteria swept the gentry up as well as ordinary people and fueled the communist hunts in America during the 1950s. For example in the third act of the play when the girls are wiping up hysteria Danforth demands that Mary must ‘confess this power!’ she is meant to have over the girls. The word ‘power’ connotes the idea of control and order which is ironic as it is said in the heat of hysteria.  The exclamatory phrase ‘confess’ is used by Miller to empathize the desperation Danforth has to uphold the law and force a confession, not matter how false out of Mary. But showing Danforth’s desperation brought on by the hysteria brought by the girls, Miller is using Danforth as an allegory to represent the pressure felt by the Judges in 1950s America to gain an accused person confession to maintain the appearance of strength in a society that is slowly crumpling around them.  The situation of the judges during the period of McCarthyism and the judges in Salem during the Witch hunts is the same. Both the judges are swept up in a time were hysteria is over ruling logic and reasoning. By creating this link Miller is communicating the role hysteria had in the slow destruction of logic and reasoning in both Salem during the Witch hunts of 1692, and America during the communist hunts of the 1950s.

The above statement is true for the first act and part of the second act but Reverend Hale breaks this typecast during the rest of the play. For example when the audience he is presented as a cocky ‘eager-eyed intellectual’. Hales ‘intellectual’ ability makes him cocky as he’s proud of his knowledge and feels the need to show it off. The word ‘intellectual connotes the idea of a person with a higher intelligence then that of the common man and someone with power of those less educated. Miller may have presented Hale in this way to personify the ego of the judges during the period of McCarthyism. But as Miller alters the typecast of Hale, Miller is showing pride is the only barrier between the judges and the falsely accused during this period. Through Hale miller is suggesting that a just and fair man like Hale will stand up against the damage he has caused through his action. This is shown by Hale standing there is ‘blood on his hands’. Hale did give the girls the stage they needed to cause the tragic events but did not mean for it to happen. Miller shows this as Hale tries to help the accused to clean his hands of the blood.

Thesis statement: both Caliban and Frankenstein’s monster are victims of circumstance that caused them to both be rejected and oppressed.

Overview

Intro: state thesis and explain how it will be explored

Para1 compare how in society they are both victims of circumstance include context on Shelley’s life, loving the married Peter Shelley and how slaves were treated use connotations language

Para2: compare how they were both oppressed based on their appearance. Include context on how the church oppressed science and how slaves were oppressed through no fault of their own, use metaphors language

Para3: compare how they were both rejected by the fatherly figure based on the circumstance of the monsters and Caliban’s birth. Include Caliban being mistreated by Prospero and the monster by Frankenstein, use sematic field to cover language and context. narrative

Para4: compare how both their one chance of acceptance was lost through no fault of their own and the circumstance of the meeting. De lacy for Frankenstein and Trinculo and Stephano for Caliban, use pathetic fallacy to cover language and context. narrative

Para5: compare the power of both the monster and Caliban have due to circumstances they had no control of. How this effect’s their dealings with the world and events in each of their texts. Use connotations of words to show their status in the relevant text. language

Para6: compare how both endings are left opening with the monster intending to commit suicide and Caliban left alone on the island because of their circumstance at the end of the novel and play. Use connotations and perfect felicity. narrative

Con: round up of points and finish any lose statements

Frankenstein quotes: ‘ I processed no money, no friends, no kind of Property’, ‘over look my deformity’, ‘I am solitary and detested’, ‘ I had selected his features as beautiful’, “Slave,I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master; obey!”

tempest quotes: ‘a freckled whelp hag-born’, ‘not honour’d with a human shape’, ‘this blue-eyed hag[…] did litter here’, ‘a most ridiculous monster’, ‘his body uglier grows’, ‘slave’, ‘and seek for grace’, ‘yet my needs must curse’

Miller presents the theme of empowerment in the crucible through the character Mary Warren. Miller does this using both her language and reactions.

Miller uses Mary Warren’s language to present the theme of empowerment. For example ‘I saved her life today!’ is used to snatch power form proctor. Mary Warren uses the pronoun ‘I’ to make herself closer to the statement and increase her hold on proctor which increases her status. Mary warren also uses the pronoun ‘her’ to show she does not need to refer to Elizabeth by name as she is less powerful and a lower status then Mary Warren. Before the Salem witch trials began Mary Warren was a serving girl with little power, but the trials gave her a chance to grab main stream power, so she can now stand up to the Proctors. Another way Mary Warren is empowered is that she uses hyperbolic language of ‘saved’ to inforce the idea that Proctor needs her more than she needs him. By doing this Mary Warren shows that proctor needs her. This empowers Mary warren as she now has a strong hold on Proctor and can forcing him not to whip her.

Miller presents the theme of empowerment by showing the change in status suffered by Mary Warren. For example Mary Warren starts off empowered ‘I am an official of the court’ and then loses this new found power ‘Dissatisfied, uncertain of herself’. The word ‘official’ connotes the idea of power and a high status person. This connation is reinforced by the word ‘court’ which suggests the power giving by the word ‘official’ is backed up by the law. The law at the time of the Salem witch was ruled by theocracy. Theocracy is when religion and politics mix, this suggested that Mary Warren’s power is God giving which causes her to believe she has an absolute right to a higher status. This is a stark contrast to her fall from grace. The word ‘uncertain’ is used to show that Mary Warren is rescinded her new found power and has returned to her original status. ‘Uncertain’ also connotes the idea of confusion and a low status character not sure how to behave or respond to events in the play.  The word ‘dissatisfied’ connotes the idea that she does not like her new found power and is unsure of the implications of angering Proctor. It also suggests that Mary Warren has dreamed of the power she has obtained, but now she has the power; it does not thrill her like she thought it would.

In conclusion Miller shows that empowerment can be important in the fight for equality, but in the hands of those too young to understand its implications.

Arthur Miller uses detailed descriptions of the setting to make symbolic and religious connections between place and the traditional and religious ideologies held within it. For example, Miller describes the ‘candle’ that ‘still burns’ in the room. The image of the burning ‘candle’ gives the room a strong religious feeling. The ‘candle’ burning connotes the idea that religion was the guiding force for the people of Salem, but as it ‘still burns’ during the day suggest religious ideas are unless in some aspects of society. The burning ‘candle’ is wrongly guiding the individuals of Salem into make decisions that are not always logical, such as holding back societal change in the communities. The ‘candle’ burning almost appears symbolic of the ideology of the people of Salem. The people of Salem believed they were the burning light that would guide the rest of the new world. Salem was a theocracy which means both politics and religion were intertwined with each other. By having the ‘candle still’ burning during the day Miller is suggest that this ideology the people of Salem is becoming out dated, as religion should not rule the judiciary system.

Both “The falling leaves” and “Futility” each present death as the underlying theme throughout the course of the poem. For example in the “The falling leaves”, “brown leaves dropping from their tree” is used as a metaphor for the soldiers dying. The leaves falling from the tree represents the soldier’s deaths and compares the amount of the soldiers dying to the falling of the leaves in autumn. The tree represents a country which is losing its men to unnecessary violence which is similar to a tree shredding its leaves. I believe Margaret Postgate Cole created this extended metaphor to show the extent of all the deaths and the effects felt on a country. As Margaret Postgate Cole was a young woman during the war years, she was not allowed to fight for her country. She was left with the important job of maintaining the country or looking after the injured but she would have still suffered the effects of the war.  This is similar to “Futility” which is about trying to revive a dead soldier. For example “if anything might rouse him now” is used by Wilfred Owen to suggest that there is a chance the soldier might be alive. However, both the reader and Wilfred Owen know that the soldier is already dead. Owen is creating the image that the sun gives life but because of the horrific act of war the sun is giving up on humanity as the sun will not “rouse” the soldier. Owen is showing the extent of the damage caused by war and the devastating effects it has on the world.  Both Postgate Cole and Owen are presenting the effects of death on a country in each of their poems.

Both “The falling leaves” and “Futility” each present death in their poems by using conations of the cold. For example in “The falling leaves”, “like snowflakes falling on the Flemish clay” is used to create the idea of snowflakes falling and covering the ground then fading away. This is because a single snowflake will fall then fading from memory which suggests that the bodies of the fallen will fall and fade into history and be forgotten. “Snowflakes” also connotes the idea of bodies littering the fields of Belgium. Postgate Cole is suggesting that there are so many bodies that both light and hope are being blocked out. This creates a cold and bitter tone in the poem which shows Postgate Cole’s hatred of the waste of life the war causes. This is similar to “Futility” which uses the cold to connote the hopelessness and emptiness war causes. For example “and this snow” is used to create a shift in tone that indicates hope might be lost and the soldier is dying. “Snow” also mimics the language of doubt and is a metaphor for hopelessness. Owen does this to emphasize hopelessness of the soldier’s conditions on the front. Owen uses the metaphor of “snow” to connote the amount of soldiers falling and the emptiness this leaves behind. Both Postgate Cole and Owen are presenting the effects of death and the cold numbness this leaves.

Both “The falling leaves” and “Futility” each present death in their poems by using the absences of a personality. For example in “the Falling leaves”, “they fell” is used to represent the fallen soldiers and create an absence of personality. Postgate Cole may have done this to show the extents of the fallen or to show their names are a part of a massive group not an individual.  Postgate Cole is suggesting that the extent of death throughout this period is a waste as it has become impossible to distinguish a single name. The absence of a name and personality also could be an extended metaphor to show that death is indiscriminate and will claim both the young and old. This is similar to “futility” which also has the absence of a personality in the poem. “Him” is used throughout the poem to suggest an absence of personality and create a sense of the unknown. “Him” also suggests that the person in question has passed away. Owen may have done this to suggest to the government of a country that they do not require people, just machines to do their bidding or that the absence of personality makes the reality and brutality of war more bearable. Both Postgate Cole and Owen are presenting the effects of death and suggest war cause an absence of personality.

Both “The falling leaves” and “Futility” each present death by using oxymoron’s to present ideas about death. For example in “the falling leaves”, “beauty strewed” is used to show the beauty of life and the beauty of the fallen. The oxymoron of beauty and strewed exists as a mess cannot be beautiful. “Strewed” is used to represent the mass of bodies which are scattered across the fields of France and Belgium and “Beauty” is used to represent the beauty of life and that the fallen are quite young and beautiful. Postgate Cole is showing that the young are fighting and dying in the war and becoming part of the huge number of fallen and yet the individuals remain beautiful. Postgate Cole dose this to show that the soldier’s love ones will always remember the soldier as beautiful amongst the backdrop of a terrible mess. This is similar to “futility” which also contains a powerful oxymoron. For example “clays of a cold star” is used to show that the sun and humans are turning their backs of each other. The oxymoron of cold and star exists as a star cannot be cold. Owen uses cold to connote the idea that both the humans and the sun are giving each other the cold shoulder. The humans by killing one another and the sun by not revive the fallen. By doing this Owen creating a sad and bitter tone of hatred, as humans will not end the suffering and as the sun cannot bring back the body back. Both Postgate Cole and Owen are presenting the effects of death on a loved one and other soldiers.

Both “The falling leaves” and “Futility” each present death within the structure of their poems. For example in “the falling leaves”, “on the Flemish clay.” is the only line in the poem with a full stop; this suggests that the poem is one sentence. Postgate Cole may have decided to structure her poem like this, as a good poet will keep the structure tight to show the poet is considering a serious point. As Postgate Cole has used this structure feature in her poem it shows the reader that the war and the massive loss of life is an extremely serious point. I believe Postgate Cole wanted to stress the seriousness of her poem, as her poem is an extended metaphor. This is similar to “futility” as Owen uses half rhythms to create a structural feature. For example “sun” and “sown” are half rhythms, Owen included half rhythms as a regular rhythm scheme would have made the poem sound pleasant and upbeat. However as Owen used half rhythms the poem sounds broken and replicates the bullets, guns and explosions that would have been heard at the front. Owen did this as the sounds of the front were unpredictable and suggests that home life is broken as the men are dying needlessly because of war. Both Postgate Cole and Owen are presenting the theme of death through the structure of their poems.

Imagine that a known criminal is holding your family hostage. They are tied up with guns pointing at them.  One of the known criminal’s accomplices is sitting in the same room as you and is gloating rather than concealing their guilt. The accomplice will not tell you where your family is and how to help them. This means the only way to save your family is to torture the accomplice in front of you. By torturing that person you can obtain the relevant information to save your family. The use of torture is the only and best way to insure your family’s safety. Surely you would want to torture the accomplice and save the lives of your family? Or would you prefer to do nothing and let them die, a slow and painful death? Could you live with yourself knowing you did not do all you could to save them? The situation above is a personalized version of the ‘ticking-bomb’ case.

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified use of torture. The original ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city and the culprit is in front of you. Do you torture him, locate the bomb and save many lives? Or do you allow thousands of innocent people to die? Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that you could have prevented the bombings? But despite the immense guilt of not acting, most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information. Without this information, the bomb would inevitably  go off and potentially a lot of people would die. Is this more immoral than torturing one psychopath who is willing to kill innocent people without the slightest hint of remorse?

These are the very same people who would be willing to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. Their innocent victims will die or at the very least be severely mutilated. They will remain forever ‘name less’. In contrast  torture victims hold on to their names. This is unjust. While torture is up close and personal it is a necessary evil to protect mankind and the lives of the innocent.

During a war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is perceived as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person, but has tortured people to gain vital information to save soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different levels of culpability. The torturer, who took actions that went against the Geneva Convention, will be viewed as a villain as though it was a necessary woe. Torture is viewed as immoral as people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Although this is the only way to save lives with the absolute minimal loss of life. Torture is the only way to truly protect a country from the threat of terrorism, nuclear war and cyber attacks.Torture must be used to save innocent lives. Instead we allow millions to die at the hand of a lunatic and terrorist organisation. Torture is viewed as barbaric, immoral and unjust. People believe the practice of torture has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to murder others is viewed as a hero. This is because people view his actions as an unavoidable act of violence, in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective, however his actions are clearly more immoral.  So, how can a murderous bomber pilot who slaughtered innocent women and children be a hero, and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

The philosopher, Jonathan Glover once said ‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’. This  is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed; bombs which cause mass collateral damage are permissible and torture is an infringement of justice. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in unprecedented human suffering. If one is accepted surely the other should be as well?  Both actions are equally dreadful acts.

The use of torture is a necessary evil to protect lives as it is the most effective method to obtain the relevant information in scenarios similar to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. Torture is the safest, best and only way to protect the interests of a country and save innocent lives.

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

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified use of torture. The original ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city. The culprit is in front of you, do you torture him and locate the bomb, saving many lives?. Most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information on where the bomb is and without this information potentially a lot of people will die.

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

If a torture pill was created that subjected the user to both mental and physical punishment that could not be resisted; but to the torturer, the victim appears to be asleep, would this type of torture become more socially acceptable to use?  By using a torture pill no visible signs of pain are seen therefore creating a level of naivety similar to that of a bomber pilot. Whereas both would know that their actions would result in suffering as the victims pain is unknown and they cannot see the damaged caused they can live guilt free lives. Even though innocents were essentially murdered.

During war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is perceived as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person but has tortured people to gain vital information to save soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different levels of culpability. The torturer who took actions that went against the Geneva Convention will be viewed as a villain as although it was necessary, people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Torture is viewed as barbaric; immoral and has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to murder others is viewed as a hero. This is because people view his actions as necessary in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective.  So how can a bomber pilot who murdered innocent women and children be a hero and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’ (Jonathan Glover). This quote is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed, bombs which cause mass collateral damage are ok and torture is wrong. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in human suffering, if one is accepted surly the other should be as well, as both actions are equally bad.

The use of torture is a necessary evil but the only way to protect innocent lives form violent threats. This is because it is the most effective method to obtain the relevant information in scenarios similar to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. Torturing someone is also equally immoral to bombing another country.

Dear Ms Kerr

I agree with your article ‘Twerking, selfie and unlike? Young people don’t speak like that –I should know’. Slang words are just fashionable trends which are constantly changing and adapting.  An example of this is the word ‘groovy’; a slang word that was used in the 1960s. This word has now fallen out of fashion and no longer used in conversation.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with slang, but like you I believe that slang has no place in the Oxford on-line Dictionary. I believe this because these words are not an accurate representation of all young people. The majority of the younger generation are not obsessed with their image, reputations and sex, as these slang words now included in the dictionary would suggest. Secondly, these words could fall out of fashion and may then become obsolete. I believe that the Oxford on-line Dictionary should only include slang words which have stood the test of time, and therefore become part of the general idiolect. This would allow obsolete slang words like ‘groovy’ to live only in the memory of the generation who used it, thus not restricting the evolution of the English language.

Additionally, people do not say ‘init’, ‘JK’ or ‘LOL’ in a job interview, as they want to make a good impression to their potential employer.  However if the Oxford on-line Dictionary includes these words before they have been accepted by society, it could make the interviewee seem illiterate. Nevertheless this person could be a valuable asset to the company, but as they cannot express themselves to all audiences they could lose the chance to work for the company and stand out from the crowd.

Additionally many young people only speak slang to their friends and not to figures of authority who they respect and trust. Slang is a form of jargon between youths and their friends when they talk, text or use social media. They are using slang words on these platforms for quickness and so older generations do not know what they are saying; lol!

As you mentioned in your article Shakespeare would be turning in his grave as, although It could also be argued that Shakespeare was the greatest inventor of slang, as he created hundreds of new words like ‘sanctimonious’ and ‘assassination’ for his plays. These words created by Shakespeare are used to further a person’s understanding of the world they live in. At first these words were unfamiliar, causing people to condemn them. But over time these words have become accepted and have earned their place in the English language. It has taken generations of people using these words before they became acceptable.  I believe the same will eventually happen to some slang words but hopefully not any abbreviated ones. But unlike Shakespeare, my generations is not creating imaginative new words to further our understanding of the world, it is just shortening perfectly good words.

Seriously there is really no need to shorten ‘seriously’ to ‘Srsly’. If you are going to revolutionise the English language at least be original and not alter the already eloquent English language.

yours faithfully

Samuel Garner