English Year-2 (David Foster Wallace and Alice Munro)

How does he develop this thesis? What examples or evidence does he use?

How does this theory extend or relate to our inquiry question? How can literature develop empathy and emotional intelligence?

TASK: Considering the above, in what ways could Wallace’s theory about education be applicable to the writing of Alice Munro? Justify your conclusion. 

He uses an example of two fish's swimming together and is met by an oncoming older fish who says "Morning, boys, how's the water?" to the boys respond in confusion. His example is then clarified as he states that he is not the older wisdom fish who is going to present knowledge to the class. Instead, he starts to explain the hidden truth about society and the infuriating short moments that occur. His way of connecting with the audience is by offering an insightful analysis of adulthood. 

His theory of life being boring that it is portrayed as is coupled by his counter theory of "Perspective" he uses this as a tool to make better of frustrating situations. He states how thinking that someone is in more of a need than you can influence your perspective on the situation, this relates back to emotional intelligence as thinking differently of a situation can influence the idea in your head and this is due to the empathy. For example, if someone has cut you off on the road and you start to get infuriated then imagining the reason of this, is that the man's daughter is ill, can help calm you down as you display empathy. Emotional intelligence helps us be aware of situations and be less ignorant towards peoples needs. Literature helps us develop that as demonstrated by Alice Munro, it helps us connect with fictional characters with real-world problems making us more aware of the different types of situations people go through, thus improving our Emotional Intelligence.

His real-life image of a very dark and gloomy world where people are constantly infuriated by insignificant scenarios can be applicable to the style of writing Munro possess. Munro possess a unique style of writing as her books have a dark tone to them, however, her writing is not intentionally dark as she tries to mimic real-life experiences that are very possible in society. Her tone mostly accompanies her message of her books and makes the reader reflect on their personal life. Wallace's theory is very similar to that as he portrays the gloominess of adult life.

Thesis part 2

 With reference to Things Fall Apart, discuss how an understanding of gender influences how the text may be understood.

      Thesis: With the novel, Things Fall Apart, it is understood that the gender roles are not very diverse, as one gender is given much power over the other. This is important as it may interpret how the characters, Okonkwo, of Things Fall Apart are very "un-evolved" as today's age gender equality is something many views as a good thing.

Topic sentence: Why does the author from Things Fall Apart have a very backward impression of women in the novel?

Thesis

In the novel "Things fall Apart". The author Chinua Achebe represents Okonkwo as a "Tragic hero
archetype" This as well as having many foil characters in the book help shape Okonkwo's character and draw a comparison on the tragic hero and the sub-plot characters

Tragic hero

  In Chinua Achebe's novel "Things fall apart", it is made evident who the story is based around. Okonkwo a man with respect from his village is a very senseless and fearless leader who is made all the more arrogant after beating the great CAT. However, in an ironic turn of events, his arrogance lead him to his banishment as well as also leading a shameless warrior to a shameful death (hanging himself).
The death in which he kills himself is considered a tragic story, however, the audience doesn't feel sympathetic of his death. Okonkwo is known as a "tragic hero", a tragic hero is an archetype that makes a poor judgment leading to his/her own demise. In this case, it is Okonkwo with his mistreat of women which compromised a religious day, this leads to him accidently killing a boy which lead the citizens of the village to banish him. He then comes back to his home and finds that white colored people have taken over, which leads to his shameful death.
Chinua Achebe uses a tragic hero archetype in representing Okonkwo is because following Okonkwo a fearless leader it is hard to sympathize with him however when leading to his tragic death there is sympathy but it is quickly followed up by "well it's his own fault", and the author wants to put that thought in the readers mind. 

Persuasive Speech

I am honored to be speaking to the Royal Colonial Institue, I am speaking on behalf of Igbo culture. I am here to discuss on the colonization of the Igbo culture located in the newly built Nigeria. I believe taking colonizing the Igbo, may decrease the chances of a revolution, is a poor judgment as the culture has a unique background that is understandable to ours. If we decided to colonize this culture it may lead to us not understanding the science of human behavior as well as the big question asked by neuroscientist and psychologist as well as science in general, "Why are we what we are?" I believe that the Igbo culture may provide many answers we seek and may imposing a better way of governing by being inspired by their social and political structures.

For starters, their belief is a topic at hand as many of us are devoted worshippers of the Christian Church and many of us are atheist but their unique interpretation of their god isn't something to be dismissive so quickly. Their religion talks about a supreme god who named Chukwu who created a family, man named Eze Nri, his wife, and children. The story goes that there Eze Nri was placed on earth before there was land, only water, he then asked for food and Chukwu gave him yams, from there he was able to establish his own agriculture. Although this may seem like rubbish to many of you, it is what they believe and looking into their culture in a more analytical standpoint it would be worth to study them and see how the conclusion of how was brought up.

Secondly, when looking at their political standpoint it is worthy to note how the lack of centralized political structures. The Igbo lived in autonomous villages and towns, ruled by their elders. Relationships were based on blood ties, each person traced his or her descent to three groups. the three were Uno (simple family), Umunna (an extended family), Obodo (a huge community in which everyone knew each other called a village). The would have a town meeting to discuss the important matter and when serious matter arouse the most senior elders where brought in. What's fascinating is that they established democracy with no previous knowledge of what it is. They do this with a and idea called "cross-cutting ties" where everyone would participate in the village. Furthermore, their elders would be the ones in charge of the town. This shows how they are respectful of there elder.
In conclusion, it should be noted that this is clearly a unique culture with its different style of thinking that makes it so unique. I hope you take into consideration of my proposal of not colonizing the culture.



  

Achebe's interview

1) What was the most meaningful takeaway from today’s discussion relating to the cultural or literary context of Achebe’s work? 

      Today's biggest takeaway was that Achebe's origins do not compare with any other writer, as he has faced a different test of his hardship and has fought by doing what he knows best, writing. His book "Things Fall Apart" was an inspirational piece done in the times where his country was fighting against people who thought of him as slaves, he did this by reminding the people of what had happened sparking anger in those who were able to read.

2) Select a specific quote from the interview or a general idea from the discussion and write a brief reflection.

         The question " You mentioned that literature was used to justify slavery and imperialism. What is this negative coverage of Africa being used to justify now?"

     Achebe's reply to this question stated that is that it will justify inaction, he follows this up by "Why bother about Africa? Nothing works there, or nothing ever will work. There is a small minority of people who think that way, and they may be pushing this attitude." 

I believe that what Achebe has stated is his belief of his work having a negative influence over the people after the uprising. Achebe states that there would be many Africans who would have grown accustomed to the style of living and reject his idea in the book.

Paper 1

Freedom Of Fear Paper 1

            Fear is thought to be an emotion that prevent people from accomplishing their dreams, however many greats overcoming their fear and making a difference in this world will forever will be appreciated, the likes of Mahatma Gandhi who overcame his fear of the oppressors and fought against them to achieve peace in his country. The famous speech by Aung San Suu Kyi, titled “Freedom of Fear” is a speech about her views on fear, she believes that the oppressors are motivated by fear, fear of losing their “power”. The true Uniqueness of this speech lies in the title as she talks about how fear, an emotion, plays a big role in oppression. She makes it very clear that she is talking about the oppressed people as she refers to freedom in men. Many interpret her speech in the wrong way to answer that question and give an opinion on the matter. What are the main contextual movements in Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech “Freedom of Fear?”

            Aung San Suu Kyi devotes her passion into freedom as she talks about the greats such as Mahatma Gandhi, it is made clear that she is trying to give a voice to the voiceless as she consistently mentions the corrupt society, that are oppressing her people. She try’s to appeal to the people that are in fear of the oppressors trying to give them confidence and courage. Her purpose for this is to inspire and persuade an uprising against the oppressors. Her appeal to them is made obvious as she talks about her people who have been oppressed, she is know well by her community so to appeal to them wouldn’t be a problem as she is a politician.

           

            The true statements she makes in her speech are known to be one of the best quotes in history, the quote “Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage acquired through endeavor, courage that comes from cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one's actions, courage that could be described as 'grace under pressure' - grace which is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.” Shows what her speech is meant for. As she twists the meaning of fear and uses to instill courage that once overcomes will never be a problem. “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” said by Friedrich Nietzsche, his quote relates to Aung San Suu Kyi’s quote that yes fear can be overcome the fear’s then there is nothing than can stop you. In summary of her speech, she talks about how power doesn’t corrupt people but fear corrupts people, this can be interpreted in one way that is that fear of people that they oppress people not because of hatred but because of fear of becoming the oppressed. She noticeably compares Aung San to Gandhi as she states how Gandhi was a peaceful protester who rose above the fear that was instilled in him. In summary, her inspiring speech is not meant mostly for freedom, but for fear, this because she try’s to give people courage, making them become fearless, and in her ideology shown in her speech this will lead to standing up against the oppression that the country has faced.

            Freedom Of Fear is an all-inspiring speech that has the tone of motivation and Philosophical. This can be seen in her quotes quoting Mahatma Gandhi “The greatest gift for an individual or a nation was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind.” This shows the philosophical nature of the speech. In the case of motivation it is the mood of the tone, the whole speech is riddled with lines of encouragement as she portrays fear in a new light, a light that which not terms precious is the courage acquired through endeavour”, her different take on the fear, this provides an inspiring and motivating speech which is made more interesting with her unique take on fear.

            “Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure.” This is one of the most memorable quotes of the speech, this because of her constant use of repetition, it mimics Martin Luther King Jr. use of repetition in the speech “I have a dream”. Allusion can be seen when she comes to her father Aung San to Gandhi, this can be seen as she talks about her father and Gandhi in the quote “Gandhi, that great apostle of non-violence, and Aung San, the founder of a national army”, this stresses the effect that both are the same when it comes to achieving freedom. To make your speech interesting it is important to have alliteration and it can be seen in the line “Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who go on trying” this creates a mood of rhythm making it more interesting to hear. To make herself seem more intellectual she uses jargon from the get go

in the opening line “the quintessential revolution is that of the sprit” she does to appeal to the audience and make herself seem more intellectual to the public.

           

             The structure of her speech Is made clear as she starts with an intellectual statement and follows it up by her view on the matter of fear and freedom. Her combination of text is done well as she makes her point and further expresses her point by using repetition to make it more memorable to the public. The title “Freedom of Fear” shows a new looking at freedom, which captivated the audience, as it is interesting to hear something so unique. She makes a remark on her Father a great politician in the Burma community, as she starts tot mention him immediately the tone shifts from her intellectual opinion to facts.

            When it comes to the speech, no doubt no one could have delivered it better than Aung San Suu Kyi as she makes an interesting statement about fear. The question most heard is what is this speech meant for freedom or fear, and it is made clear that her intention was to outline her view on the matter of fear, as she states that power doesn’t corrupt but fear of losing power. This can be seen in the second paragraph as mentioned about her doings in a direct way. The argument of “What are the main contextual movements in Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech “Freedom of Fear?”” can be put to rest as proven that her goal was to ignite courage in people by diminishing people’s fear of oppression.    

coriolanus IOC annotated/script/clean

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18MDlZmDHDvs5-XVGD4osxPzsY22DyeWEPhYET3D39Bk/edit

Annotated.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFve4sx3aR99KMFLjqN89DVuNc6DHxMDpvV7NClD93Y/edit

Script

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zZLuU_IGL74UFWlzlCWx34QX6e0fimu3Okr2af-ISto/edit

Clean version

Ioc link

https://soundcloud.com/hasan-khan-827635399/coriolanus/s-rr10w

Explaining Coriolanus in 250 words

  To the first start of the explanation of Coriolanus, it is crucial for us to know the characters and their purpose. Coriolanus is the play's protagonist who is brought as an arrogant yet noble warrior, this is partial to due to his mother, Volumnia, as she raised him such so she would be able to come into power through her son. The antagonist of the play was Aufidius a Volscian general who would eventually allied with Coriolanus to fight against his betrayed city of Rome. Menenius is a lesser character, however, is important in furthering the plot of the story, he is a very loyal friend of Coriolanus.

Coriolanus was banished by the city of Rome he later acted revenge and allied with Aufidius, however after showing mercy to the city of Rome Aufidius killed him. Menenius goes to Coriolanus to pleading for mercy for Rome, however, is rejected by Coriolanus and since kills himself.

Shakespeare is trying to communicate with the audience by showing how the people have control over the government, not the government having control over the people. It is made evident that Coriolanus is banished out of Rome by the people, so when Coriolanus is compared to an evolving England it is made more obvious that as England evolves the laws begin to change and the people start to have a voice of who they want them to lead.

 

Coriolanus act 1

Genre- The play is a political play that relates to the real life ruling of Gaius Martius. The story was reviewed as one of the worst play's by Shakespeare due to its political nature, however, in recent years it has revived itself as a one-of-its-kind kind of play.

Setting- The setting of the story of Coriolanus takes place in ancient Rome, King Tarquin has just been overthrown and replaced by a government official run by elected. taking place in a war between the Romans and the Volscians. The scene starts with a room of people rebelling against  Coriolanus. It then progresses to a riot which takes place outside a military base where Coriolanus is approached. He then goes to war against the Volscians in the city of Coriolis. Coriolanus then fights his enemy (Aufidius, leader of Volscians) in a battle between the Roman's and the Volscians. He enters back to Rome to claim his prize of promotion and a new name, Coriolanus, The people rebel and banish him out of Rome.

Conflict- The conflict was mainly between Coriolanus and Aufidius and progress to Coriolanus vs the People of Rome. The seed is planted of the uprising of the people of Rome. as the scene open's with the people of Rome discussing to riot against Coriolanus, the reason behind this is because the people of Rome are poverty asking for grain. Coriolanus is approached as an arrogant leader who shows his superiority off and backs it up with his leadership. Coriolanus is then sent to battle against the Volscians who are trying to take over Rome. While this is happening his wife, mother and son are introduced, while his wife is worried about his well being his Mother tries to put Coriolanus wife at ease. Back to Coriolanus, he is fighting off his enemies as he approaches Aufidius who is ready to battle against him. They engage in a battle in which ultimately Coriolanus wins. He returns home to see himself greeted with becoming a promotion but is denied due to the outraging people of Rome. The people of Rome are lead by Brutus and Sicilius who took charge in banishing Coriolanus from his country of Rome. Coriolanus approaches his enemy, Aufidius, with a proposition he would help the Volscians take Rome and Coriolis. The reason for this is because Coriolanus wanted to take revenge for his banishment over Rome. 

Dying languages podcast

https://soundcloud.com/hasan-khan-827635399/podcast-double-h27s/s-aQFOz

Speaking in tongues

 Prompt: What did medieval linguist Antonio de Nebrija mean when he told Queen Isabella that: “language is the perfect instrument of empire?” How has language contributed to colonial power? Focus on a specific example.

What I think when Antonio de Nebrija meant when he told Queen Isabella "Language is a perfect instrument of empire?" is that a language is a powerful tool that can closely resemble as an army and can be used for the purposes of winning a war. How might this be possible? Well, Max Weinreich once said that "Language is a dialect with an army and a navy." This helps further prove my point that any battle can be won through speech, the right motivation given to soldiers or manipulation used is a classic way in which people have won wars. Most notable people who use the power of language to win battles are politicians they succeed by convincing the public to side with them rather than against, this causes an advantage that can only be caused by the skill of language. Take for example Hitler an infamous leader who conquered most of Europe, he was notorious for his public speaking his speeches were heartfelt and always were a convincer for the public, with his talent to be able to connect with the public with his speeches he rose to power. So when Antonio de Nebrija says "Language is the perfect instrument of empire?", he truly means that with language is notable key to which leads to victory.