Essay about Prospera, Thy Role Is Woman - 972 Words

William Shakespeare, in his play, The Tempest, tells the story of a fictional exiled Duke of Milan. In the original play, Shakespeare casts the duke as a man, Prospero. In a modern movie version of the play, writer and director Julie Taymor casts the duke as a woman, Prospera powerfully portrayed by the very convincing performance of Helen Mirren. The play, surprisingly, requires only a few very minor line changes to substitute a woman lead for the original male role. While the actual dialogue changes are minor, the impact to the play is substantial as it totally transforms the duke and an audience’s prospective of the character. With very few exceptions, having a woman as the Duke of Milan in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, makes the duke more†¦show more content†¦The first examples can be seen in Prospera’s ouster and exile starting with how apparently easily Prospera was usurped. It is clear Prospera had the support of her people when she tells Miranda, â €Å"so dear the love my people bore me† (Shakespeare 1.2.141). If the duke had the support of the people and magical arts to manipulate people and events, it seems unlikely a rightful ruler could so easily be usurped, but it becomes more plausible in Taymor’s version where the position was only assumed by Prospera upon her husband’s death. Given it was not originally her position to begin with and the predominant acceptance of male leaders at that time, it is much more realistic that a woman could be usurped by her brother. Similarly, the fact that Prospera was not killed outright and that she was aided by Gonzalo also becomes more believable with the duke being a woman. To kill an ousted rival would seem of little consequence at the time if that rival were a man, but it takes on a much less noble air if that rival is a woman, and Gonzalo’s actions to aid Prospera defying Antonio and the king become more believable as it is not only an act of kindness, bu t also a chivalrous act. In addition to Prospera’s ouster and exile, other examples of where having a feminine duke is more believable can be seen by her actions on the island. One of the first is Prospera’s treatment of Caliban. AfterShow MoreRelatedWilliam Shakespeare s The Tempest And Julie Taymor s Film Version Of The Play1424 Words   |  6 Pagescontract to the play, the film plot is the same however the audiences sees Prospera casted the magic when she was in her cave. She was casting magic with these science experiment jars and dropped a black feather into the jar to make Ariel visible to be seen by others as he is an air spirit that are only seen by Prospera and appeared in front of Alonso, Antonio, Sebastian and Gonzalo. This scene gives the peak of Prospera s arrangement. The audience saw what kind of harpy that he appeared as. Prospera’sRead MoreThe Tempest Adaptations and Transformations2100 Words   |  9 Pagesheightened by makeup, camera angles, casting, costuming and t he performances of the actors themselves. Taymor uses these visual techniques of film to her advantage, even adding in an extra scene at the end of the film. The transformation of Prospero into Prospera affects the way the reader views the judgement, treatment and release of Caliban. The parent-child relationship is also altered by the gender change, as is the protagonist’s interaction of Ariel. Taymor uses the sex transformation, the differenceRead MoreJulie Taymore ´s Film Interpretation of The Tempest by William Shakespeare1459 Words   |  6 Pagesmakes out. But does the role become weak now that its being playing played by a female? Or a thought that crossed my mind when Shakespeare was neither working writing this play did he consider whither nor not Prospero should have been Prospera? Another important ques-tion, does the ending of the play leave a lot of unanswered questions? During the Renaissance era when Shakespeare did his many of his writings and even in his plays males would play both the male and female roles. This brings up the question

The Things They Carried Vietnam War Novel - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 665 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/04/07 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: The Things They Carried Essay Vietnam War Essay Did you like this example? The author of this novel, OBrien recounts his experiences from the Vietnam war. Joining the war was a battle in itself for OBrien, as after receiving his draft notice in June of 1968, he almost fled because he was so opposed to the war itself. OBrien describes himself as too good for this war, too smart, too compassionate. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Things They Carried Vietnam War Novel" essay for you Create order This was an later realized flaw of the Vietnam war, lasting roughly 20 years, that of its questionable purpose. One of the main issues raised in this personal perspective novel is the act of peer pressure and embarrassment regarding the war. This is shown best in this quote from OBrien near the start of the book They carried the soldiers greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to. It was what had brought them to the war in the first place, nothing positive, no dreams of glory or honor, just to avoid the blush of dishonor. They died so as not to die of embarrassment. Within this chapter of the book, OBrien explains the emotional baggage that the soldiers carry, whilst risking their lives for their country. OBrien suggests that a barely hidden coward is common within the soldiers. He explores the idea that men go to war not to be heroes for their country, but to avoid embarrassment. They are almost forced, due to the cowar dly stereotype that accompanies not enlisting. These ideas are further strengthened early in the novel, within a particularly prominent chapter On The Rainy River, OBrien has fled his hometown and made it to a lodge just before the Canadian border. Here he resides for 6 days in total, doing odd jobs for the owner of the lodge, Elroy. On the last day Elroy takes OBrien to the border of Canada on a fishing trip and lets OBrien silently decide whether he stays or goes. OBriens inner turmoil is finalized by this quote. In my head I could hear people screaming at me, traitor, turncoat and pussy. He voices that the only thing that stopped him from fleeing the war, was the thought that the people from home would think of him as a coward, ignoring his moral conscience to dodge the patriotic ridicule. Further on in the novel, OBrien eventually kills a Vietnamese soldier. He seeks the help of his fellow soldiers, especially Kiowa, who helps him rationalize this act by saying no sweat man, what else could you do. By highlighting the normalc y of his action with a casual tone, Kiowa is implying that killing is the right thing to do. OBrien uses this rationalization to suggest that the soldiers commit acts of murder mostly in a simple reaction to peer pressure, therefore alluding to the fact that their greatest fear is not that of taking a life, but of embarrassment. I can relate to OBriens perspective personally, as there are many instanced in life where I have felt pressured into undertaking social norms so to avoid feeling outcast. One major example that I have most recently fallen victim to, is the act of attending college. In my home country of England, work placements and apprenticeships are just as viable and popular options to graduating young adults. However here in America I have felt such a large pressure from society to not only get into college, but a well respected, higher level name such as UCLA or Berkley. Often people use this as a platform for judgement, evoking feelings of shame and embarrassment for those such as myself who in fact could not attend such schools. The shame may pass but the guilt goes deeper, making it a much harder feeling to shake. Many feel that this is the only way to attain respect from employers and colleagues, which is a completely unfair assumption as one may hold great potential but have chosen a differ ent or more financially convenient path in life- therefore being subject to bias and a negative social subconscious.

Lexical Semantics Hyponyny Networks Free Essays

Question 2 Not all dictionary definitions contain classifiers, but many do, and in some cases when you look up the classifier itself, you find another even more general classifier within its definition. For example, you might like to think about the following definitions from the Collins English Dictionary. Colostrum is the thin milky secretion from the nipples that precedes and follows true lactation. We will write a custom essay sample on Lexical Semantics: Hyponyny Networks or any similar topic only for you Order Now It consists largely of serum and white blood cells. A secretion is a substance that is released from a cell, especially a glandular cell, and is synthesized in the cell from simple substances extracted from the blood or similar fluid. Substance is (1) the tangible basic matter of which a thing consists; or (2) a specific type of matter, especially a homogeneous material with definite or fairly definite chemical composition. Matter is (1) that which makes up something, especially a physical object; material. What are the classifiers in these definitions? (Why is this question hard to answer? Can you change the definition to make it easier? ) Draw a diagram to show the hyponymy chain you found in (a), with hyponyms shown below their classifiers. Can you think of any additional levels that you can put in the hyponymy chain above secretion? Add them. Sebum and saliva are co-hyponyms of colostrum. Add them to the diagram, along with two co-hyponyms for each level of the chain. Add distinguishers to your diagram, to differentiate each of the co-hyponyms you have added. On an intuitive level it would seem a simple task to select the different classifiers within each of the above definitions however, several problems arise which belie this. Colostrum is the easiest to deal with as it is the most specific of the four terms, although there is still potential for an error to be made. The only classifier in this description is ‘secretion’ as, according to Hudson (1995: 26) â€Å"the classifier †¦ is the first common noun that follows is†[1]. Although this syntactic relationship is useful as a method of identification, it is not the reason ‘secretion’ is a classifier of ‘colostrum’. Syntactic relationships exist between lexemes, not senses, and are governed by the relationships between senses, thus it is the latter that hyponymic networks represent. The classifier (C) is the concept that is superordinate to the ense in question (S1) in that S1 must possess enough characteristics of the classifier to make it a type of that concept, even if not a typical one, as well as distinguishers that serve to differentiate it from the classifier and any other co-hyponyms. More simply, S1 is a hyponym of C iff all S1 are a type of C, but not all C are S1 (op cit. 16). Furthermore, classifiers for common nouns will always capture what S1 is, not how or why it is. In the case of ‘colostrum’ only ‘secretion’ performs this function: we can say that colostrum is a type of secretion. It is important, however, to refine the concept of ‘what it is’: if this is taken to include a material concept as well as a typical one, i. e. , what it is made up of or consists of, there is more scope for what can be considered a classifier. Under this description both ‘serum’ and white blood cell’ can be considered as classifiers of ‘colostrum’. This does not seem to be correct though, as ‘colostrum’ is not a type of serum or white blood cell, nor does it possess enough of the characteristics of either to qualify as a hyponym. Therefore, in such cases we can eliminate concepts about the material of which a referent of the given sense consists as candidates for classifiers. Having established the criteria for identifying classifiers it should now be easier to identify those for the remaining senses however, there are further difficulties. It is safe to say that ‘substance’ is the classifier of ‘secretion’ according to the above rule but the use of ‘substance’ twice in the definition provides potential for confusion: according to the definition for ‘secretion’ above we can make the following statement: (A) a secretion is a substance1 made up of substances2. The difficulty seems to lie in SUBSTANCE being polysemic (Palmer 1981: 100), a fact apparently proven by its having two definitions. This implies that SUBSTANCE1 represents one of the given senses of ‘substance’ whilst SUBSTANCE2 represents the other, but neither fits with sense (1) as both are a specific type of matter. Therefore, both must be the concept in sense (2) but if SUBSTANCE1 and SUBSTANCE2 do have the same sense statement (A) has no useful meaning, for it to do so SUBSTANCE requires an additional sense. The solution is provided in the definition of ‘secretion’: SUBSTANCE1 is istinguished from SUBSTANCE2 by the addition of ‘simple’ to the latter. In this way it can be seen that SUBSTANCE1 refers to sense (2) whereas SUBSTANCE2 refers to a different sense that is related to, but more specific than (2). To avoid such confusion replacing SUBSTANCE2 with a different lexeme could prove useful, e. g. , COMPOUND, although this is not necessa ry so long as we understand that SUBSTANCE is polysemic and we know which sense each refers to. As ‘substance1’ has the sense (2) in the definition we shall refer to it as ‘substance (2)’ and it is this sense that is the classifier for ‘secretion’. The definition provided for ‘substance (2)’ makes identifying the classifier here straightforward as it begins by telling us that it is a â€Å"specific type of matter† (my emphasis), which is the central criteria for hyponymy. So given that ‘matter’ is the classifier for ‘substance (2)’ we can now find the next classifier in the chain. It could be assumed that the brevity of the definition makes this task even more simple however, the definition is a â€Å"consists of† statement which rules out any concepts it contains as a classifier. It is thus the case that not all concepts have a superordinate concept. As such we can say that ‘matter’ sits at the top of the hyponymy chain and is the broadest sense of ‘colostrum’. Given this information we can now represent all of the relationships above in the following diagram: Fig. 1) Initial hyponymy chain for colostrum. This chain is based solely on the definitions given above however, the claim can be made that this diagram does not contain a complete set of classifiers for ‘colostrum’. There are facts about ‘secretion’ that are not contained in ‘substance (2)’ but that cannot be considered as unique to it, in particular those about its relationship with organisms and organic matter. This claim is based on the fact, as given in the definition, that ‘secretion’ is a substance particular to cells, which are the constituent parts of an organism. All of this information is unrepresented within the chain as it is because the relationship ‘secretion’ has with ‘cell’ is not due to a shared nature or type. When the hyponymy test is applied the mismatch is more evident: ! a secretion is a type of cell. This does not deny that the two are related however, only that they are not the same kind of thing, so instead n alternative way must be found of including and representing this relationship. As ‘cell’ is the missing concept there must be some sense it shares with ‘secretion’. According to my definition of ‘cell’ many together make up an organism and because any substance that is a ‘secretion’ is the product of a cell, it can also be considered the product of an organism. We can go a step further and state that both are types of substance particular to organisms, which allows the statement a ‘secretion’ is a ‘substance particular to organisms’. This can be further refined when the concepts ‘glandular’ and ‘blood’ are considered as these relate specifically to ‘body’, not just to any organism in general. We can thus replace ‘organism’ and instead state that a ‘secretion’ is a ‘substance particular to a body’ or, more concisely, it is a ‘bodily substance’. A second gap exists between ‘bodily substance’ and ‘substance’ for the same reason as above: arguably, a ‘bodily substance’ has characteristics shared with other types of particular substance that together constitute a more general type of substance. As mentioned above ‘organism’ bears a relation to ‘organic material’ in that all of the substances of which an organism is composed are organic. Given that a body is a kind of organism any bodily substance must also be organic but not all organic material is of the body hence, ‘organic material’ is a classifier of ‘bodily substance’. These new facts can be added to Fig. 1) to provide a more complete sense network: Fig. 2) Full hyponymy chain for ‘colostrum’. When considering potential co-hyponyms there are two criteria that must be met: the co-hyponyms must share most if not all of the sense of the shared classifier but they must be differentiated by at least one distinguisher (Hudson 1995: 27). Each of the co-hyponyms in Fig. 3) meets these criteria but this does not mean to imply it is a simple task. Take ‘matter’ and ‘substance (1)’: the two could initially be considered to be co-hyponyms. This, however, is not the case. Essentially, the definitions for ‘substance1’ and ‘matter’ are the same: we could give a definition of matter s ‘that of which a thing consists’ because CONSISTS OF and MAKES UP have the same sense. Nor does there appear to be any fact about either concept that serves to differentiate them so we must accept that rather than ‘matter’ and ‘substance (1)’ bearing a hyponymic relationship they are actually synonyms. As such, SUBSTAN CE (1) is nothing more than an alternative lexeme that can be used to represent ‘matter’ and so can be omitted from the network. Fig. 3) shows that although many of the co-hyponyms do not bear a direct relation to ‘colostrum’ they are part of a conceptual network that illustrates how senses are related. It also displays the fact that the further up the chain a concept is the broader is the range of its hyponyms because the sense becomes more generalised at each level. Furthermore, it also shows how concepts can share multiple classifiers and hyponyms. Fig. 3) Hyponymy network for ‘colostrum’. Distinguishers can be concise or generalised providing they serve as differentiators between the senses. When selecting appropriate facts to include the notion of prototypes should be accounted for in that any potential distinguisher should ideally describe a prototypical referent of the given sense (op. it. 20). Take ‘glandular’ it appears in the definition of ‘secretion’ but it has been omitted from the network. This is because it is not a prototypical characteristic in that not even the majority of secretions are from glandular cells, it is only provided as an example of the kind of cell involved. A further difficulty in selecting distinguishers is deci ding what kind of information to include. Definitive information serve to provide the minimum data needed to clarify a concept whilst encyclopaedic information attempts to provide all of the facts about a concept. The danger with the latter is that information may be included that does not serve to differentiate that concept from another. I would argue that both kinds of information should be included provided that each fact is part of the sense it iff that fact is relevant to the function of differentiation. Fig. 4) includes information of both kinds and, although I have removed the referent and lexeme classifier for the sake of clarity, it can be considered as the most complete network of senses that relate to colostrum’. Fig. 4) Complete hyponymy network for ‘colostrum’. Bibliography Hudson, R. (1995). Word Meaning. Padstow: Routledge. Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Bath: Cambridge University Press. Stevenson, A. (ed. ) (2007). Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th edition). Italy: Oxford University Press. Word Count 1693 not including diagrams. 1799 with diagrams ———————– [1]I have used â€Å" â€Å" for quota tions rather than ‘ ‘ to prevent confusion between quotes and senses. How to cite Lexical Semantics: Hyponyny Networks, Papers