Example of Argumentative Essay Essay Example for Free

Example of Argumentative Essay Essay History shows reiteratively throughout the recorded times that the mark set for students will be predominately that which they aim for and mostly stop therein. If students are not shown any higher level of knowledge the students should at no time be expected to aim for that which they did not perceive. Students will indeed float to the mark you set. History has shown us many valuable illustrations; one of them would be the vast comparison between students during the Ottoman empire and students in the reign of the Spartan empire, the Spartans were taught that knowledge is crucial, if it helps you to fight, whilst the Ottomans were taught that knowledge was imperative if it was beneficial in any way. Because Spartan pupils were finite to knowledge that did not pertain to warfare, they were infinitesimally limited in any other area, and to no degree were able to match the heights of knowledge of the Ottoman student body, the mark for these learners had been set considerably inferior than that for the under-graduates of the Ottoman empire, and so the students attained the mark that was set and were prescribed no reason to surpass it. Therefore it is clear to recognize that the objective a teacher sets for their pupil is all that their pupil will ever feel the demand to accomplish. Students are comparable to a kayak in the sea trying to reach an island to anchor on, and the teacher is the equivalent of the current, the stronger they push to try to reach and help the students, the closer they get to the island. Because students are reliant on their instructors to provide them with an objective to grasp, the supervisors specified a mark, and the students float to the mark that was decided. Therefore the students need only fulfill that which their instructor has itemized for them, and that would be the mark that was stipulated. Since pupils will only feel the need to do what was required in distinction to them, they will inevitably isolate themselves to the mark that was set before them.

Why Safeway Is Better Than Save a Lot Essay Example for Free

Why Safeway Is Better Than Save a Lot Essay There’s no place like Safeway that’s why Safeway is better than Save A Lots Safeway has a fantastic atmosphere were customers feel at ease, the friendly employees always had a smile they face on the other hand Save A Lot had a poor envirment were the shoppers were ignored workers didn’t have a pleasant attitude. I said to myself why have I shop at Save A Lot for so many years? Suddenly, I had an Oprah ,Aha! Moment which came over me, after that day I have not been back to Save A Lot First Safeway has quality luscious fruits the fresh vanishable are so scrumptious I can’t wait to get home to eat them. And endless variety of fresh fruit that never lacks quality that I am lookingfor Save A Lot did not have quality fruits the vanishable were brown and bruised and lacked freshnesss, fruit were always limed I was so happy that I switch stores because of that reason. Secondly Safeway has fresh meat which is top of line ,fresh tender meats also the quality of the the meats at Save A Lot lacked freshness. Most importantly the was not up par: refrozen, freezer burned and discolored. In addition, Safeway quality brand name products that I enjoy such as :Kellogg’s ,Special K and Progresso, just to name a few. Really make me feel good about safeway. Incontrast, I shopped at Save A Lot they lacked brand name products they did not have them in stock. Not only dose safeway have quality prices, but they have every prices. I save fifty dollars at Safeway and when I use my safeway card I always save. Also Safeway I spend only two hundred and forty dollars. Save A Lot the prices are extremely high; I spent over three hundrend dollars Also Safeway has a lot of women with there children, Save A Lot has college studans who think there saving . However Safeway has quality prices great coupons Save A Lot lacked quality prices ,coupons limed ,Safeway is the places for a girl like me who enjoys bargains In conclusion, most of all Save A Lot did not provide , and they did not have quality prices. And I said to my ,thank heaven for the Aha! Moment. That is when the light switch came on for me to start shopping at Safeway. My reason is simple, Safeway has quality prices and food.

An Analysis Of Shaffers Equus

An Analysis Of Shaffers Equus The play is in two acts, the first consisting of twenty-one; the second of thirty-five scenes. It is not realistic in that it includes flashbacks performed onstage (like a movie). However, it is an explanatory one with Shaffers notes while read. It is a play consisting of individuals rather than types. Each character has his/her individuality along with his/her own perspective of life. We learn about the characters from what other characters tell about them; from what they tell about themselves; as well as from Shaffers explanation about them within parentheses. Although it is an open ended play it goes far from the lineer plot structure with its amazing climax. The forward and backward action of the play makes it a different one. Moreover while the play has speech when the time is present, it contains action when it is backward. It is a symbolic play and can be called a journey into the mind of Alan Strang, a seventeen year old boy. It analyzes Alans religious obsession with horses which is based on his complicated feelings due to his religious background and his increasing sexual side as a teenager. This confusion of religion, in fact, is a consequence of some signals from his religious, middle-class mother and his atheist, working-class father. Alans perception of religion and sexuality is conflicted and his way of praying becomes a fear of a horse spirit named Equus. He ends up with blinding six horses in the stable because of the fact that they have watched him with a girl. Rosefeldt states that Equus is inspired by a real-life event of which the author had very little details. Someone told Shaffer about a boy who blinded horses (Rosefeldt 89). Equus, the horse gradually becomes a source of freedom and worship for Alan. As he worships Equus passionately, Alan goes away from being normal. There are two main characters in the play, Martin Dysart and Alan Strang, the protagonist. While the play is Alans story, it soon becomes Dysarts story, too. Dysart is a psychiatrist and is asked to treat Alan Strang. Dysart admits to treat Alan as a patient, believing his lawyer friend Hesther Salomon that the boy has something special. In Act I, the audiences learn that Alan comes from a Christian mother Dora Strang and an atheist father Frank Strang who have argument in agreeing how to raise Alan. Alans mother tries to impose religion on Alan and does not avoid talking about sex as well. As he grows up and becomes a teenager, his mothers words become confusing for him. Alans obssesion with the horses is actually a typical result of his mothers words: Dora. I used to tell him a funny thing about falling off horses. Did you know that when Christian cavalry first appeared in the New World, the pagans thought horse and rider was one person? Dysart. Really? Alan. (sitting up, amazed) One person? Dora. Actually, they thought it must be a god. Alan. A god! Dora. It was only when one rider fell off, they realized the truth. Dysart. Thats fascinating. I never heard that before . . . Can you remember anything else like that you may have told him about horses. Dora. Well, not really. They are in the Bible of course. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha. Dysart. Ha, ha? (Equus 11) Dora has also let Alan watch some Western films without his fathers knowledge (Equus 12). She is the one in the play introducing the word equus stating that it is a Latin word for horse by which Alan is fascinated since he has not heard a word with two Us (Equus 12). As for Frank, he has never approved of his wife teaching Alan Bible since he is an atheist. For Frank, Alans psychology has been corrupted because of Doras teachings of Bible. Alan has been having nightmares in which he keeps saying Ek! . . . Ek! . . .Ek! (Equus 14). Dysart first tries psychotherapy to learn the reasons for Alans problems. However, those therapies consequently reveal some interesting clues about Dysarts own problems. Alan is a clever boy and he tries to work on Dysarts psychology in the way Dysart does: Dysart. Do you dream often? Alan. Yes, do you? Dysart. Yes. Do you have a special dream? Alan. No. Do you? Dysart. Yes. What was your dream about last night? Alan. Cant remember. Whats yours about? Dysart. I said the truth. Alan. Thats the truth. Whats yours about? The special one. Dysart. Carving up children. (Equus 14) Shapiro who analyzes the play technically, suggests for the relationship between Dysart and Alan: [T]he symbolic aspect is in the phrases Dysart uses to set the scene in motion. What they symbolize is Dysarts dishonesty, as Alans symbolic event also revealsAlan is playing a symbolic event with an iconic, truculent aspect, the object of which is the audiences recognition of Dysarts dishonesty In this case the audience knows from the Nurses previous indexical event that Dysart knew about Alans nightmares. Thus, they should recognize that Dysart began the interview with a lie. Consequently, the interview cannot proceed until Alan turns indexical. He will do this once Dysart becomes truthful. Hence, Alan suggests that they interview each other. (Shapiro 111) In the tenth scene of the first act, the audience is again introduced to a flashback. During this second therapy, Alan goes back to the time when he was six years old: Horseman. Whoa! . . . Whoa there! Whoa! . . Sorry! I didnt see you! . . . Did I scare you? Alan. No! Horseman. (looking down at him) Thats a terrific castle! Alan. Whats his name? Horseman. Trojan. You can stroke him, if you like. He wont mind. (Equus 19) In this scene Alans parents arrive and warn the horseman. His father takes him from the horsemans shoulders and they get angry with the horseman. Frank who is strictly against riding horses is sad to see Alan hurt, however Alan is glad to have ridden a horse. He explains his act saying I wanted to laugh! (Equus 20). It is here clear that Alan as a boy, demands to have joy; no matter how his parents think. It is the passion destroyed by his parents. What Dysart really wants to learn is the reason why Alan blinded the six horses in the stable. As a psychiatrist, Dysart wants to go into the deepest places of Alans psychology in order to give some meaning to this act of Alan. However, Alan neither explains why he blinded the horses nor tells something that can help Dysart find some reason behind it. He continues playing with the psychiatrist. In the eleventh scene we are told that Alan, when he was twelve, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ insisted on buying à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ {the picture of Christ loaded down with chains} with his pocket money, and hanging it at the foot of his bed where he could see it last thing at night (Equus 21). However, Frank, the atheist father tore and threw it away. Instead of the picture, he put a photograph of a horse which made Alan happy. In the fifteenth scene, Dysart has finally managed to have more clues about Alans situation. He has learnt from Frank about a girl in Alans life and decided to ask some questions about the stable. Alan takes the audience to the previous year when he first talked to Jill a middle-class girl in her early twenties. At this time, Alan is working in a shop and Jill has come to the shop in order to buy some blades for a clipping machine to clip horses (Equus 29). Jill is working in a stable owned by Harry Dalton. She suggests Alan ride horses however Alan is here hesitant since he knows his parents would be against it. He finally agrees to go to the stable and meet Dalton. As soon as he arrives the stable, Dalton tells him about the horses and teaches him how to ride a horse. Here we are introduced to Nugget, a horse which will soon have an important part in the play. When Alan is left alone with the horses in the stable, his passion returns. What Dysart wants to learn is whether Alan ha d a date with Jill; however Alan is again escapist in his answers and he instead tries to question Dysart about his own dates. It is in scene seventeen where the audiences come to realize the inner conflict of Dysart. Alan tries to catch Dysart from his weakest point. Dysart has never had any sexual relationship with any women in his life, including his wife. He is nervous when he is asked why he does not have any children and suddenly needs cigarettes. His soliloquy in this scene is a clear evidence about this psychiatrists psychology: What am I, then? . . . Wicked little bastard [Alan] knew exactly what questions to try. Hed actually marched himself round the hospital, making enquiries about my wife. Wicked and of course, perceptive. Ever since I made that crack about carving up children, hes been aware of me in an absolutely specific way. Of course, there is nothing novel in that. Advanced neurotics can be dazzling at that game. They aim unswervingly at your area of maximum vulnerability. . . Which I suppose is as good a way as any of describing Margaret. (Equus 32) The next scene reveals Dysarts problems with his wife Margaret. Dysart explains Hesther why they did not have any children. He blames Margaret for this. He states that Margaret sits beside [their] salmonpink, glazed brick fireplace, and knits things for orphans; for him, his wife is a domestic monster who is the Shrinks Shrink (Equus 34). While Dysart likes to read about Ancient Greece, Margaret hates such things. Their marriage is including two different persons, being very similar to Alans parents marriage. Shaffer prefers to give this marriage from one point of view that of the husband. We never meet the wife. Dysart is unhappy and uncomfortable in his marriage. He tells his friend, Hesther: Do you know what its like for two people to live in the same house as if they were in different parts of the world? Mentally, shes always in some drizzly kirk of her own inheriting: and Im in some Doric temple clouds tearing throuh pillars eagles bearing prophecies out of the sky. (Equus 34) In this scene Dysart seems to cure himself; it is his confrontation with his own confused psychology. He is obsessed with the concept of normal. According to Hesther, Dysart is trying to restore Alan to a normal life and Dysart is confused when he thinks about the meaning of normal and being a normal person. For Hesther, it is the smile in a childs eyes (Equus 35), and for Dysart, [i]t is also the dead stare in a million adults (Equus 36). Rosefeldt explains Dysarts psychology as follows: More than any other character, Dysart is aware that he is trapped in a chain of substitutions. Dysart longs to reach the passion of pagan worship. His wife reduces the sacred acrobats to absurred [50] freaks and equates the heroes of the Iliad with ruffians [50]. He cries out, Oh the primitive world. . . what instinctual truths were lost with it [50]. Alienated and alone, Dysart knows he has lost contact with these primitive truths and is hopelessly trying to regain them. For communicating with the gods, Dysart substitutes the vicarious experience of reading books on the cultural shelf [50]. Instead of reaching up to the gods, he brings home Kodachrome snaps of Mount Olympus [50]. The power of the gods rests in the Hellenic pantheonAlso, Dysart touches a reproduction statue of Dionysus [50}. The power and essence of the god is replaced by the physical presence of the god, which is replaced by the statue of the god, which is replaced by a reproduction of the statue. (Rosefeldt 92) Dysart, in order to learn more about Alan, now chooses hypnosis technique and Alans problems are revealed as follows: Dysart. Now, Alan, youre going to answer questions Im going to ask you. Do you understand? Alan. Yes. Dysart. Good. Now I want you to think back in time. You are on that beach you told me about. The tide has gone out, and youre making sandcastles. Above you, staring down at you, is that great horses head, and the cream dropping from it. Can you see that? Alan.Yes. Dysart.You ask him a question. Does the chain hurt? Alan.Yes. Dysart. Do you ask him aloud? Alan. No. Dysart. And what does the horse say back? Alan.Yes. Dysart.Then what do you say? Alan.Ill take it for you. Dysart. And he says? Alan.It never comes out. They have me in chains. Dysart.Like Jesus? Alan.Yes! Dysart.Only his name isnt Jesus, is it? Alan.No. Dysart.What is it? Alan.No one knows but him and me. Dysart.You can tell me, Alan. Name him. Alan. Equus. (Equus 37) Alan is now unconscious with the effect of hypnosis. In his imagination, the horse is chained like Jesus. Now it is clear that Alans imagination has been influenced by his mothers teachings of Bible as stated before by Frank. For Alan, Equus lives in all horses and is chained because of the sins of the world (Equus 38). When Alan goes back to the time he was twelve, looking at the picture of Equus, Dysart asks him questions about the stable. The stable is the temple of Equus where Alan washes and brushes him. Equus wants to be ridden by Alan but he does not show Alan how to ride him: He showed me nothing! Hes a mean bugger! Ride or fall! Thats Straw Law (Equus 39). Equus is no pagan idol; he is unmistakably the Judeo-Christian God, born in the straw [39] (stable of Bethlehem) and wearing the sandals [40] of Christ. As Christ suffered for mankind, Equus takes the punishment for Alans sake. The Ark of the Covenant symbolizing the contract between God and man becomes the Ark of the Manbit [41], which Alan holds in his mouth. The lump of sugar becomes Equus Last Supper [42]. Alan beckons Equus, Take my sins. Eat them for my sake [43]. Equus is Jesus, the Son of God, the Redeemer who takes away the sins of the world. Just as Christ launched his attack against the House of Mammon, Alan launches Equus against their mutual foes: The Hosts of Philco and The Hosts of Remington, the rulers of the shallow and materialistic world of substitutions. Equus is Alans redeemer, the Godslave [43]. (Rosefeldt 92) Alan rode Equus every three weeks in Daltons stable. He stole the stables keys and went there secretly to ride Equus. Dysart wants Alan to remember a scene in the stable: He throws out his arms and shows himself fully to his God, bowing himself before Nugget (Equus 41). Alan is pleased to touch Nugget but he is distressed when he remembers his eyes. He gives Nuggets sugar, the last supper before Ha ha. Here [Alan] whispers his Gods name ceremonially: Alan. Equus! . . . Equus! . . .Equus! (Equus 42), and he says: Stay, Equus. No-one said Go! . . . Thats it. Hes good. Equus the Godslave. Faithful and true(42). The Equus voice increases in volume Alan. (Shouting) WEE! . . . WAA! . . . WONDERFUL! . . . Im stiff! Stiff in the wind! My mane, stiff in the wind! My flanks! My hooves! Mane on my legs, on my flanks, like whips! Raw! Raw! Im raw! Raw! Feel me on you! On you! On you! I want to be in you! I want to BE you forever and ever! Equus, I love you! Now! Bear me away! Make us One person! He rides Equus frantically (Equus 44) The end of Act I is the climax, a strange combination of religion and sexuality. Equus is now the god that rules Alan. The word AMEN! ends Act I (Equus 44). In Act II, Frank is interestingly absent in the play. (That may be symbolic but we do not know why). Dora seems to realize her faults in rising Alan. She comes to see that it is not the child but the parent who is faulty. She sees Alan as a little victim who has done nothing at all (Equus 47). However in her speech to Dysart, she strangely puts the blame on Alan and blames Dysart for questioning her family as if they are guilty: Dora. (ignoring him; more and more urgently) Look, Doctor: you dont have to live with this. Alan is one patient to you: one out of many. Hes my son. I lie awake every night thinking about it. Neither of us sleeps all night. You come to us and say Who forbids television? Who does what behind whose back? as if we are criminals. Let me tell you something. Were not criminals. Weve done nothing wrong. We loved Alan. We gave him the best love we could. All right, we quarrel sometimes all pparents quarrel we always make it up. My husband is a good man. Hes an upright man, religion or no religion. He cares for his home, for the world, and for his boy. Alan had love and care and treats, and as much fun as any boy in the world. I know about loveless homes: I was a teacher. Our home wasnt loveless. I know about privacy, too not invading a childs privacy. All right, Frank may be at fault there he digs into him too much but nothing in excess. Hes not a bully . . . (Equus 47) This speech of Dora reveals both her and Franks faults although she typically insists that they have been good parents to Alan. Shaffer uses this technique for many characters in this play in order to be effective: The character is here revealing herself through her own words; that is to say Shaffer lets the character talk about herself in order to achieve objectivity. Dora, the religious mother lastly puts the blame on the Devil thinking that Devil came to Alan. She is portrayed as a typical irresponsible mother who is unaware of the process her son grows up: I only knew he was my little Alan, and then the Devil came (47). Both of the parents fail in dealing with their teenager son. It is a step of Alan for adolescence in which Alan is learning about life. Parents quarrelling is not something as trivial as Dora thinks. It really affects the child since he stays between two different versions of beliefs, two different truths those of the mother and of the father. Alans crisis has in fact begun when Jill Mason attempted to seduce him one night when Alans horse god, Equus was there in the stable. Alan blinds six horses with a metal spike (Equus 3) in the second act of the play and it is seen as a consequence of his guilt and shame. Although he does not want to remember anything about Jill, Dysart makes him tell about all at last. It is the most important flashback after the one about Equus. Dysart encourages Alan to remember it in order to get over it. Everything begins with Jills inviting Alan out. Although he has to go home, he accepts her offer and they go to the cinema. At the cinema, Alan tells Jill, there was no girl except for her. Soon, it is understood that the film is a pornographic one. Dysart asks him: Was that the first time youd seen a girl naked? and Alan says Yes! (Equus 58). Then suddenly, Alan realizes that his father is at the cinema, too. With the fear of being caught at such a film, he tries to hide himself. When he is caught, Frank shouts at Alan and the three leave the cinema. Outside, Alan tries to speak to his father: Alan. I I Ive never been there before. Honest . . . Never . . .(to Dysart) He didnt seem to hear. Jill tried. Jill. Its true, Mr.Strang. It wasnt Alans idea to go there. It was mine. (Equus 59) Alan. (to Dysart) The bus wouldnt come. We just stood and stood . . . Then suddenly he spoke. Frank. (stiffly) Id like you to know something. Both of you. I came here tonight to see the Manager. He asked me to call on him for business purposes. I happen to be a printer, Miss A picture house needs posters. Thats entirely why Im here. To discuss posters. While I was waiting I happened to glance in, thats allI had no idea they showed films like this. Im certainly going to refuse my services. Jill. (kindly) Yes, of course. Frank. So long as thats understood. (Equus 59) Interestingly enough, Frank explains why he himself is there instead of asking Alan why he is there. He has certainly come to the cinema for the same reason with Alan and Jill. Thus Alan and Frank are scared of each other. Frank leaves them and Alan stays with Jill. More importantly, Alan has been now introduced to the adult life with the film. He wants to make love with Jill. She takes Alan to the Stables because they cannot go to Alans or Jills house. Alan does not want to go to the Stables; he prefers a home. Alan. Why not your place? Jill. I cant. Mother doesnt like me bringing boys back. I told you . . . Anyway, the Barns better. Alan. No! Jill. All that straw. Its cosy. Alan. No! Jill. Why not? Alan. Them! Jill. Dalton will be in bed . . . Whats the matter? . . . Dont you want to? Alan. (aching to) Yes! Jill. So? Alan. (desperate) Them! . . . Them! . . . Jill. Who? Alan. (low) Horses. Jill. Horses? . . .Youre really dotty, arent you? . . . What do you mean? He starts shaking Oh youre freezing . . . Lets get under the straw. Youll be warm there. Alan. (pulling away) No! (Equus 62) Alan does not want to be seen by the horses since he thinks it would be a shameful act according to his religion. Although Jill shuts all the doors in order not to be seen by the horses, he is not comfortable. Alan cannot help but think of Equus and he sees Equus instead of Jill. Thus, his attempt to make love with Jill fails. Angrily, he shouts at Jill: Get out! (Equus 65). His psychology in this scene is horrible: Alan. (to Dysart) He was there. Through the door. The door was shut, but he was there! . . . Dysart. Laughing? Alan. (to Dysart) Mocking! . . .Mocking! . . . Standing downstage he stares up towards the tunnel. A great silence weighs on the square. (To the silence:terrified) Friend . . . Equus the Kind . . . The merciful! . . .Forgive me! . . . Silence. It wasnt me! Not really me. Me!. . . Forgive me! . . .Take me back again! Please! . . . PLEASE! (He kneels on the downstage lip of the square, still facing the door, huddling in fear) Ill never do it again. I swear . . . I swear! . . . Dysart. And He? What does He say? Alan. (to Dysart whispering) Mine! . . . Youre mine! . . . I am yours and you are mine! . . . (Equus 67) Equuss Nuggets eyes are rolling and Alan is sure that he has seen them make love. Eyes! . . . White eyes! . . . never close! Eyes like flames coming coming! . . .God seest! God seest! . . . NO! . . . (Equus 68). Alan stabs out Nugget and other five horses eyes. He yells in hysteria as he collapses on the ground (Equus 68). Dysart is about to finish his process of normalizing Alan. However he does not know whether he should be happy to have this patient cured. He calls it madness (Equus 68). In the end, Dysart appears to have cured him. {Equus is a] troubling play about a psychiatrists struggle to understand the passionately conceived but torturous personal mythology of Alan, a disturbed adolescent. If a psychologist of religion had gone after the young mans associations to G-o-d, he or she might have retrieved references to the pallid secondhand God of Alans parents, but would likely have missed Alans dramatic psychic creation of a personal diety he called Equus. Although it might be argued that this is the kind of exceptional case that falls more into the psychopathology of religion and is no basis for generalization, I am more and more struck by how distinctive and sometimes quite original are the spiritual formulations of individuals. (Mc Dargh 90) The play really includes the idea of passion versus reason. It is about a psychiatrist who thinks he can solve everything by reason and at the same time about an adolescent who is filled with passion but forced by his family to leave his passion. The battle of passion and reason in the case of Alan seems to end with the defeat of passion; however, Shaffer certainly prefers a combination of two. It is not only Alans but also becomes the inner conflict of Dysart. While the horses represent freedom and sexuality, Martin Dysart represents reason as a doctor. During the play, the two characters have difficult times. Dysart shows a change in his attitude towards passion. As for Alan, he is treated by the psychiatrist to become normal. Alan is caught up between his own creation of religion and what is expected by him. He has to feel himself acceptable (Equus 68) since reason rather than passion is what is accepted by society. Dysart lacks passion and is jealous of Alan (Equus 50); he is u ncomfortable in this process of normalizing. He gradually gets worried that he should not cure Alan because this would be the end of Alans passion, so he does not want to give an end to that passion which he lacks but desires. Dysart confesses to Hesther, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that boy has known a passion more ferocious than I have ever felt in any second of my life. And let me tell you something: I envy it (Equus 50). Dysart is thus obsessed with passion saying Passion, you see, can be destroyed by a doctor. It cannot be created (Equus 69). It is a disturbing play in which Shaffer makes use of sound effects to make it psychologically effective. The horses are performed by actors who wear horse masks. As for the scene props, Shaffer makes use of light in order to emphasize his themes (Innes 228). Light is used in the play as an indication of Alans psychology. There are dream sequences, and a scenic structure that cuts across the logic of time as well as cause and effect following the irrational associations of the subconscious, plus ritual chanting, stylized masks and mythic archetypes (Innes 228). Shaffer ignores the three unities of Aristotle; there are scenes belonging to different places and different times; and there is no unity of action. However, Shaffer directly connects the past action of the play to the plot of present events; and the scenery connects more with the psychological life of the character than to the surface plot. As for the setting, it changes from scene to scene it is both internal and external; even in a single scene being both internal and external. It begins when Alan is seventeen years old and goes back to the previous years. The point of view is also variable; Shaffer lets the audience see the things from each characters point of view and Shaffer uses the omniscient narrator in order to emphasize each point of view. The play is about an adolescent who has deep complicated conflicts in his relationships with his parents and his first flirt Jill. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ {The play is not only} an extremely useful source book for an understanding of madness and family processes, it is also an affirmation of the dramatherapists long-held credo: that art can tell us things that science cannot (Davis xiii). Shaffer is successful at portraying the psychology of characters and Equus is a good work of drama in which the themes of passion, reason and worship and the idea of normal and abnormal are linked by Shaffer in order to make his audience question their beliefs and society.

Claudius of Shakespeares Hamlet Essay -- Essays on Shakespeare Hamlet

Claudius of Hamlet  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚   A close second in nobility to the protagonist in Shakespeare’s Hamlet is the incredible King Claudius. His superior qualities render him a worthy antagonist capable of a plummeting downfall at the climax.    G. Wilson Knight in "The Embassy of Death" interprets the character of Claudius:    Claudius, as he appears in the play, is not a criminal. He is - strange as it may seem - a good and gentle king, enmeshed by the chain of causality linking him with his crime. And this chain he might, perhaps, have broken except for Hamlet, and all would have been well. But, granted the presence of Hamlet - which Claudius at first genuinely desired, persuading him not to return to Wittenberg as he wished - and granted the fact of his original crime which cannot now be altered, Claudius cannot now be blamed for his later actions. They are forced on him. As King, he could scarcely be expected to do otherwise. (n. pag.)    The drama opens after Hamlet has just returned from Wittenberg, England, where he has been a student. What brought him home was the news of his father’s death and his uncle’s accession to the throne of Denmark. Philip Burton in â€Å"Hamlet† discusses Claudius’ sudden rise to the Danish throne upon the death of King Hamlet I:    A strong new king was immediately needed; the election of Claudius, particularly in the absence of Hamlet, was inevitable. What is more, it was immediately justified, because Claudius manages to dispel the threat of invasion by appealing to the King of Norway to curb his nephew, Fortinbras; the ambitious young soldier was the more ready to cancel the projected invasion because the object of his revenge, Hamlet’s father, was now dead, and in ret... .../ham1-col.htm    Faucit, Helena (Lady Martin). On Some of Shakespeare's Female Characters. 6th ed. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1899.    Jorgensen, Paul A. â€Å"Hamlet.† William Shakespeare: the Tragedies. Boston: Twayne Publ., 1985. N. pag. http://www.freehomepages.com/hamlet/other/jorg-hamlet.html    Knight, G. Wilson. "The Embassy of Death." The Wheel of Fire. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1954. p. 38-39. http://server1.hypermart.net/hamlet/wheefire.html N. pag.    Mack, Maynard. â€Å"The World of Hamlet.† Yale Review. vol. 41 (1952) p. 502-23. Rpt. in Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996.    Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1995. http://www.chemicool.com/Shakespeare/hamlet/full.html No line nos.      

Villalve Qualitative Article :: Article Review

I had some trouble determining which of the two articles that I read would be most beneficial for the class to read. The quantitative piece on Chinese learners of English fit very well with the course. It exemplified the word recognition view of reading that we have discussed and addressed themes and theoretical frameworks (common underlying proficiency, contrastive analysis, the monolingual perspective) that have come up on many occasions in our class. In the end however I chose the qualitative article from Villalve. My primary justification for this is that the article is so different from the readings we have done in class that I feel it has something more unique to contribute. The primary focus of the article was to consider diverse literacy practices in detail and also to look at approaches to inquiry, learning, and meaning making. In order to do this, Villalve took a case study approach to look at two 17 year-old bilingual Latina students during their last year of high school. These students were involved in an ongoing senior writing project that entailed collecting information from a diverse set of resources, collaborating with other students and school faculty, and finally submitting a thesis and making a final presentation. From this it is clear that one of the primary ways that this article differs from much of what our class has read so far is the age of the students involved. Relatively little data seems to exist on literacy practices of high school bilinguals and this is one reason I feel this article has something to offer the class. Another somewhat unique feature of this article relative to much of the other work we have looked at is the research paradigm and theoretical framework for the work. In terms of Mertens research paradigms, this article fits both into a constructivist and transformative frame. The reliance on the work of Fairclough (2001) and others and the concern with broad societal level discourse practices set this article apart from other pieces we have read. Also, in terms of the theoretical frames, Villalve utilizes an ecological approach to frame her data collection and analysis. For this she makes use of Barton (1994) in particular to define her 3-part framework for data analysis. Her 3 levels of analysis are hierarchical and start from the level of language as artifact (physical samples of writing etc.) From this she moves up to 2 larger frames of interaction and imagination and finally systems and contexts.

Functionalist and Interactionalist Perspective on Illegal Drugs Essay

Functionalist and Interactionalist Perspective on Illegal Drugs The war on drugs in our culture is a continuous action that is swiftly lessening our society. This has been going on for roughly 10-15 years and has yet to slow down in any way. Drugs continue to be a problem for the obvious reason that certain people abuse them in a way that can lead to ultimate harm on such a person. These drugs do not just consist of street drugs (marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy), but prescription medications as well. Although there are some instances where drugs are being used by subjects excessively, there has been medical research to prove that some of these drugs have made a successful impact on certain disorders and diseases. One of the most obvious reasons why drugs are still around is because it is such a profitable business. In our society, marijuana, cocaine, xanax, and ecstasy are convenient and readily available to purchase almost anywhere you go. Those who sell drugs can make anywhere from five hundred to three thousand dollars a day. This income is tax-free and requires little to no labor efforts whatsoever. Those involved in this lucrative trade are taking somewhat of a risk, but because dealing drugs is so common in our society the chances of getting caught aren’t as high as expected. Drug trafficking alone serves for about 40 percent of all organized crime activity with this number increasing everyday as drugs become more and more popular. With the economy being so bad most find it easy to turn to selling drugs as an acceptable mean of income. Although drugs are used in an illegal aspect for the most part, there are accounts of medical research to prove the positive effects on some patients with long-term diseas... ...f actual reality. They are no longer able to face day to day activities without having that drug in their life. Many factors contribute to the reasons why drug use still exists in America today. It provides needed job titles, it is an on going process for medical research, and acts as a contribution to help certain people in their own personal ways. Drugs have been around for nearly two decades and as the years progress, the war on drugs seems as if it has no intensions of slowing down. This problem will only continue to intensify in an inferior situation. In using both the functionalist and interactionist perspectives, several imperfections such as addiction and the fact that people use drugs in illegal ways are identified. Ultimately, it is only us as a society as a whole who can take the responsibility and can change this issue †¦ for better or for worse. Functionalist and Interactionalist Perspective on Illegal Drugs Essay Functionalist and Interactionalist Perspective on Illegal Drugs The war on drugs in our culture is a continuous action that is swiftly lessening our society. This has been going on for roughly 10-15 years and has yet to slow down in any way. Drugs continue to be a problem for the obvious reason that certain people abuse them in a way that can lead to ultimate harm on such a person. These drugs do not just consist of street drugs (marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy), but prescription medications as well. Although there are some instances where drugs are being used by subjects excessively, there has been medical research to prove that some of these drugs have made a successful impact on certain disorders and diseases. One of the most obvious reasons why drugs are still around is because it is such a profitable business. In our society, marijuana, cocaine, xanax, and ecstasy are convenient and readily available to purchase almost anywhere you go. Those who sell drugs can make anywhere from five hundred to three thousand dollars a day. This income is tax-free and requires little to no labor efforts whatsoever. Those involved in this lucrative trade are taking somewhat of a risk, but because dealing drugs is so common in our society the chances of getting caught aren’t as high as expected. Drug trafficking alone serves for about 40 percent of all organized crime activity with this number increasing everyday as drugs become more and more popular. With the economy being so bad most find it easy to turn to selling drugs as an acceptable mean of income. Although drugs are used in an illegal aspect for the most part, there are accounts of medical research to prove the positive effects on some patients with long-term diseas... ...f actual reality. They are no longer able to face day to day activities without having that drug in their life. Many factors contribute to the reasons why drug use still exists in America today. It provides needed job titles, it is an on going process for medical research, and acts as a contribution to help certain people in their own personal ways. Drugs have been around for nearly two decades and as the years progress, the war on drugs seems as if it has no intensions of slowing down. This problem will only continue to intensify in an inferior situation. In using both the functionalist and interactionist perspectives, several imperfections such as addiction and the fact that people use drugs in illegal ways are identified. Ultimately, it is only us as a society as a whole who can take the responsibility and can change this issue †¦ for better or for worse.

Ozone Layer

IntroductionWhat is Ozone?The chemical formula for ozone is O3. The molecule of ozone constitutes three atoms of oxygen. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen and is less stable than the diatomic species O2. Ozone is highly reactive form of oxygen. Ozone in the upper layer of the atmosphere protects the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth surface on the other hand ozone in the lower layer of the earth surface causes respiratory problems in living organisms. About 90 percent of ozone is present in the stratosphere (15 to 50 km altitude). Ozone has two vital functions. First, it is responsible for filtering out large wavelength band of ultraviolet solar radiation, radiation which would be lethal to the creatures of the earth if it arrived, the earth surface in full intensity. Second, ozone warms the upper layer of the stratosphere, which is an important part of the mechanism of the weather phenomena of the earth atmosphere. The presence of ozone in the upper atmosphere was first recogni zed by Cornu in 1879 and Hartley in 1880.Formation of ozone layerThe formation of ozone layer is photochemical mechanism. The ultraviolet rays strike the oxygen molecules splitting the oxygen molecule into two independent unstable atoms of oxygen. These unstable oxygen atoms in search of stability combine with the unbroken oxygen molecules to form less stable ozone. Since ozone is less stable, ultraviolet rays further split it yielding oxygen molecule and oxygen atom. This process forms a chain and gets repeated again and again. This is a never ending process. Ozone is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Even in the stratosphere where it is most concentrated, it forms only a few parts per million of the local atmospheric composition.Discovery of ozone holeThe Antarctic ozone hole was discovered in 1985. A team of scientists from the British Antarctic survey reported a very larger seasonal fall in ozone values measured over their station at Halley Bay in Antarctica. Every year in Septembe r and October, ozone levels were falling significantly, by about 25 percent but sometimes by as much as 60 percent. The decline probably started around 1976. Data showed no significant changes during 1957 and 1975 but there were apparent changes from 1977 to 1984. When scientists reported the Antarctic Ozone hole and, more importantly, that the impact of ozone depletion would include increased risk of cataract and skin cancer and of reduced body immunity, the public, especially in the north, became worried.Depletion of ozone in the stratosphereThe debates point towards the oxides of nitrogen and water-vapor from the exhaust of high flying aircraft. This was followed by a widely published argument that inert chlorine containing compounds might significantly deplete stratospheric ozone. By 1985, the concerns about nitrogen oxides were largely laid to rest.The Montreal Protocol to the 1985 Vienna Convention for the protection of Ozone layer, signed on September 16, 1987 is one of the s mall numbers of international environmental agreements that have had rapid and concrete impacts on the actions of the nations and other groups responsible for the quality of environment.While the 1985 Vienna Convention only urged States to adopt measures to reduce their consumption of harmful chemicals, Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to reduce consumption, of key Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to 50 percent of 1986 levels by 1988. Through the effort of industry, government and public interest groups, and motivated by improvements in scientific understanding, technical capability and a willingness to overcome social and economic barriers, reductions in use and phase-outs have progressed further and faster than expected while the list of controlled chemicals has expanded. At meetings in London in 1990 and Copenhagen in 1992, Parties accelerated the original reduction schedules and added the new substances to the list. Three years later, at the seventh meeting of the Parties in Vi enna, Parties agreed to phase-out methyl bromide.Incremental CostsMany actions that help protect the global environment incur incremental costs. For example, the choice of more expensive (but non-ozone-depleting) technologies and chemicals to provide a given level of refrigeration yields a global environmental benefit in the form of protection for the ozone layer in the Stratosphere. This global benefit has not been valued monetarily but had been judged implicitly to exceed the costs of phasing out ozone depleting substances (ODSs). Incremental costs are being incurred to protect global biodiversity, reduce the risk of climate change, and prevent the pollution of international waters. Benefits of protecting the global or regional environment accrue to many nations, rather than only to the country that incurs the cost of action. To minimize the global incremental costs, that is to achieve a given level of ozone-depleting substances phase out at the lowest cost to the world community. Future impactsThe negotiations concerning Ozone between 1982 and 1992 have launched and developed a new type of diplomacy, which can rightly be called global environmental diplomacy. While it is certainly true that the Montreal Protocol involved many countries with strong views on what should be done, there was always a willingness to take one step at a time. The phasing out of CFCs are could not be agreed upon in 1987, it was accepted 50 percent. The agreement to phase out methyl chloroform by 2000 was not agreed upon in London, it was accepted in 2003. Of course, countries agreed to the interim steps because they believed they could come back another time and make the step more stringent, which is what happened at every stage. But, the spirit of compromise was critical to the success of the Protocol.Likely, future demand for each ODS use was projected to the year 2010 (2015 for 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane) in the absence of any limitations imposed by the Montreal Protocol. The resulta nt unconstrained demand forecasts provided the baseline estimate of the quantities of the ODSs to be substituted if demand for products is to be fulfilled, thus maintaining the domestic benefit. Given the uncertainties associated with forecasting, especially so far into the future, the projections were only indicative of likely future trends.The future state of the ozone layer will remain still because it will be controlled not only by chlorine and bromine loading but also by the atmospheric abundance of nitrous oxide, methane, sulphate particles, carbon dioxide and water vapor and by the climate of the earth. It is essential to clarify the mechanisms potentially delaying the recovery of the ozone layer. Such work should be followed by research for predicting the future of the ozone layer, as well as risk assessments and countermeasures, taking into account the above mentioned uncertainties. It is also important to study the possible impacts of ozone layer destruction on human healt h and ecosystems.Works CitedDr. Christie Maureen. The Ozone Layer: A Philosophy of Science Perspective.Cambridge University Press (2001)Mohan Munasinghe. King Kenneth. Ozone Layer Protection: Country Incremental Costs.World Bank Publications (1995)Le Preste, Phillipe G. Reid, John D. Morehouse Thomas E. Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, Models and Prospects.Springer (1998)