Discuss Shakespeares Essay Example for Free

Discuss Shakespeares Essay The women of Shakespearean literature have been known to have a strong emotional complexity, where each of them find themselves subject to adversities based around the powerful men who influence them. From Lady Annes striking romantic confusion in Richard III, to Violas challenges in morality throughout Twelfth Night, such a Shakespearean signature in portraying women persists in Hamlet; through Gertrude, a Queen dealing with her questionable actions and Ophelia, who struggles with the pressures of male authority. It should come as no surprise that although being a 16th century play, the exploration of female issues of tradition, misogyny, romance and mortality allows Hamlets treatment of women to maintain a highly significant relevance in todays modern world. Elizabethan women held very little social rights and power, with strict roles in child bearing and household duties allowing them to have very little say even within their own lives. Despite clearly being set in Denmark, Shakespeare who was writing during this time, extended this traditional roles to Ophelia and Gertrude. Ophelia in particular displays the role more strongly, with critic David Leverenz noting [Ophelia] has no choice but to say I shall obey, my lord'. In this example of Ophelias compliant nature, after her father, Polonius orders her to not give words or talk with Lord Hamlet- (I. 3), the reader is able to view the customary relationship between a woman and the male figures in her life. Though Gertrude does not give any particularly submissive dialogue, even she as Queen reinforces this relationship in her minimal speech in scenes for which she is not only present, but concerned. It is important for modern critics like Leverenz as well as critical feminist readers to recognize that Ophelia and Gertrude are not necessarily weak and passive in personal character, but instead they are reflection of women (especially royal women) who were oppressed of empowering traits by the socially acceptable customs. Readers should instead appreciate this traditional treatment of women, in not only allowing the men in positions of power to be focused on for the sake of theatrical entertainment and drama, but for also extensively juxtaposing with motifs of insanity, revenge, sin, and violence associated with the powerful male leads; King Claudius, the Ghost of King Hamlet and Prince Hamlet. Though Shakespeare has been regarded as a feminist due to his relatively respectful treatments of women, the existence of this respect in Hamlet has been debated ever since the plays inception. As previously stated, the traditional portrayal of obedient women cannot be taken out of context, however as the play increases in intensity, as does its treatment of women. In his very first soliloquy for which he reveals his anger towards his mothers marriage to his uncle two months after his fathers death, Hamlet makes the striking universal comment Frailty thy name is woman (I. 2). In an example of Shakespeares unparalleled literary craftsmanship, he supports this quote through their actions, how upon her husbands death, Gertrude immediately marries his brother and how after her relationship with Hamlet is doomed, Ophelia begins to go mad herself. The quote is also infamously regarded as the establishment of the plays theme of misogyny, the quote indicates how Gertrudes traditionally incestuous marriage to her late husbands brother has ruined his faith in women and love all together. In an almost Freudian pattern, Ophelia then becomes victim to his misogyny with Hamlets refusal to continue their relationship. More analytical readers would then go beyond this basic evaluation and then find possible interpretations of Hamlets treatment, or as it seems, mistreatment of women. Those sympathetic to Hamlets negative attitude to Ophelia would perceive it as a defense mechanism, where between his grief of his father and desire to please his father through revenge, he must then resort to such discrimination to avoid further pain. In contrast to this sympathetic reception, quotes such as Frailty thy name is woman and [tis brief, my lord].. as a womans love (III. 3) may be seen as to defy fictional character and be the manifestation of Shakespeares own personal opinion, though evidence for this in his marriage with Anne Hathaway is not very strong. Through either interpretation, it is undeniable that so far in the play the women have yet to find themselves in a state of happiness. Another significant aspect of Hamlets treatment of women, is how the currently negative treatment is extended to how Shakespeare portrays their sexuality. For instance, after Ophelia is warned to not lose your heart, or [her] chaste treasure open by her brother Laertes, she gives her virginity to Hamlet. When Hamlet discards marriage, she says with in a particularly distressed tone Quoth she, before you tumbled me, /You promised me to wed. /So would I ha done, by yonder sun, /An thou hadst not come to my bed -(IV. 5). During Act 3, Scene 2 when the mouse-trap play is taking place, Ophelia must also be subjected to Hamlets sexual innuendos such as Thats a fair thought to lie between maids legs. for which she cannot reply in order to remain as a respectable lady. Again, Shakespeare indicates another aspect of Elizabethan women, with how female sexuality was highly conservative and their virginity very strictly only being lost with marriage with those not doing so being thought of as a disgrace. The readers sympathy for Ophelia is therefore increased substantially, where, who then later tells her to get the to the nunnery (III. 1) which shows her as an exploited figure. Gertrudes sexual behaviour, more specifically her decision to marry Claudius, has come under immense scrutiny not only by Hamlet who defeminised her by saying A beast would have mourned longer , but also by critics viewing her as sinful and in blunt Elizabethan terms, a whore. Critic Rebecca Smith commented on how this view is commonly translated to stage productions where she is often played as a sensual and deceitful woman. For a balanced view on Gertrude, it is imperative to note how she too is attempting to deal with her grief and there is a great possibility she is doing this for reasons of maintaining her families power. As for being deceitful, Carolyn Heilbruns 1957 essay Hamlets Mother defends Gertrude, arguing that the text never hints that Gertrude knew of Claudius poisoning King Hamlet. . As Hamlet progresses towards its conclusion, instead of the female characters developments becoming positive, the plot continues to prove devastating for them. Ophelia, upon the death of Laertes and Polonius, as well as Hamlets mistreatment seems to drive herself into madness and her death by drowning. Although truly saddening, the way in which Shakespeare presents her death reveals the beauty which has been overshadowed by tragedy. In expected Shakespearean style, the poetic announcement given by Gertrude uses beautiful naturalistic imagery to testament to Ophelias femininity, with When down her weedy trophies and herself/Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide;/And, mermaid-like, awhile they bore her up: /Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes;(IV. 7). From that point on she is referred to as beautiful and sweet by Hamlet and Gertrude respectively, further emphasizing her graceful nature. To directly juxtapose with this, is the death of Gertrude, who poisoned by her son makes her last words with grace, No, no, the drink, the drink! -O my dear Hamlet! /The drink, the drink! I am poisoned. (V. 2). Her elegant demise in the midst of the blood and violence could be seen as her true nature also obscured by the plays tragic events like Ophelia, where Shakespeare perhaps reveals the real personalities of the women upon their death. However Gertrude sympathetics, may acknowledge that the murder and negative perception of Gertrude by Hamlet whose state of mind is generally perceived as mad and insane, calling her a wretched queen may in fact be incorrect because of this therefore proving her relative innocence. Shakespeare in both their developments and deaths, shows a treatment of women where through the violence of their deaths they still maintain a pleasant feminine quality that is given a focus that was previously absent in the play. No matter the perceptive of the reader on the plays treatment of women, they should be able to appreciate Shakespeares realistic portrayal, where although he took creative liberties in some circumstances, he gave true Elizabethan indications of female traditional roles and sexual attitudes on women. It was through writing with conviction (not only through staying true to the context but in showing Ophelias and Gertrudes emotion and complexity) that the play attains its status of one of the best of his classics. The two women are thought to be superficial, but considering the devices such as tone, juxtaposition and imagery as well as analysing their character intentions and behaviour it should be extremely apparent that this is not true and that they obviously do display depth. Secondly, I feel that in the question of whether Shakespeare was a feminist or even a misogynist that the answer cannot be found in Hamlet where his treatment of women in Hamlet is actually neutral. The female characters were designed not for the reader to be focused on who they were, but for what they brought out in other characters. More specifically, Ophelia and Gertrude were therefore created to see how romance, affection and love can truly drive a man insane.

Operant Conditioning Paper Essay Example for Free

Operant Conditioning Paper Essay The theory of operant conditioning was thought of by B.F. Skinner. Skinner came up with this theory based on the work of Thorndike (1905). The theory of operant conditioning states that organisms learn to act or behave in a way which obtains or gets a reward yet avoids a punishment. It is an instrumental type of conditioning. Type R conditioning is also known as operant conditioning. Type R conditioning is shown by the response rate. Type S conditioning is determined by the amount of the conditioned response. Skinners R conditioning is similar to Thorndike’s instrumental conditioning, and Skinners S conditioning is very similar to Pavlov’s classical conditioning (Olson Hergenhahn, 2009). The focus in operant conditioning is on a behavior and the consequences surrounding that behavior. The organism must behave in a way to cause stimulus reinforcement. This is also known as contingent or dependent reinforcement because getting the reinforcement or reward is based on a particular behavior or performance by the organism. An example of this would be, if a dog wants a treat, he must do a new trick hew has been taught. Positive reinforcements are those which cause a behavior to be repeated. An example would be a child crying at night (when they should be sleeping) and knowing that when he or she cries someone will come. This may be a positive reinforcement for the young child or baby because the child is being comforted and getting attention like he or she wants whenever they cry. The positive reinforcement is the person coming. On the other hand it could be negative for the person getting awakened. They do not want to have to get up in the middle of the night. They may eventually just let the child self soothe. Then eventually the person, if he or she decided not to respond to the child would not come anymore. This would be a negative reinforcement for the child because they are not getting a reward or what he or she thought of as a reward any longer. If the child did learn to stop crying in middle of the night, then the person getting up would have the positive reinforcement of silence instead of noise in the middle of the night. I think the form of reinforcement that is most effective is the dependent or contingent reinforcement. I reward my children with doing things they like if they do well in their school since they are homeschooled. If they know ahead of time that they will get special stuff, be able to go somewhere, or do something they like, they are more likely to try harder on their school work and act better. I will try operant conditioning with our dogs. Training a dog with the reward system is a good way to start or stop a certain behavior. The dog will perform the behavior habitually for a long time, and if it ever has to have reinforcement, it is only once in a while. I will try this with my dogs when taking them outside every day for the next two weeks at least three times a day. I will let them go off leash, because we have a non-fenced in yard, and I am trying to get them to stay within their bounds without leaving our property area. I have decided that if I take treats outside with me for the three out of the five times a day they are taken out, and offer it to them when I call them as they start to go out of their area, while at the same time telling them no and calling their name, they will learn where their boundaries or parameter is in our yard. I will do it gradually less and less so the reinforcement, which is the treats, eventually does not have to be used. The behavior will just become natural to the dogs, and eventually they will know where they can and cannot go. References Olson, M.H. Hergenhahn, B.R. (2009). An introduction to theories of learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall

Nanotechnologys Impact on the Field of Catalysis

Nanotechnologys Impact on the Field of Catalysis   Mohammed Yusuf What is Nanocatalysis? The word Nanocatalysis is made up of two parts, nano and catalysis. Lets begin my tackling the first part. Nano, short for nanotechnology, is the study of extremely small things, and their applications to society. 1 nanometre is a billionth of a meter (Nano.gov, 2016). And as for catalysis, this refers to a chemical reaction bought about by a catalyst, with a catalyst being a substance that makes it possible for a reaction to be faster, by matching chemicals together quicker (Northwestern, 1999).   Nanotechnology and catalysis go together so well because in order for a catalyst to be as good as possible, it needs to have a large surface area. This allows the catalyst to interact with as much of the reactants as possible. Why I am researching Nanocatalysis? I decided to pursue this topic because the entire chemical industry is dominated by catalysts, nearly every product created via chemical reactions has been produced with the help of a catalyst. Furthermore, I chose this topic because of its futurology aspect its a well-known fact that global warming is slowly destroying our habitat, Earth. According to NASA, the carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have ever been in 650,000 years. This is contributing to the fact that our global temperature is up 1.4o F since 1880 (climate.nasa.gov, 2016). However, the scientists of this world arent just accepting this as our collective future, nanotechnology being used for catalysis has reinvented catalyst designing, and now catalysts can be designed to absorb harmful chemicals and gases that contribute to global warming. Because of nanotechnology, catalyst membranes can be modified to remove unwanted molecules from liquids and gases through the membrane design. (Nanowerk, 2010) What will this report be about?   Ã‚   This report will look into how nanotechnology is reinventing catalysis, Nanocatalysis real world applications, how it could be used to combat global warming, how Nanocatalysis is saving money and   how it is a safe alternative to ordinary catalyst. However, we will also dive into the problems that face the industry of Nanocatalysis, how it could pose health and safety issues to humans and how nanotechnology is very difficult to control. Efficiency: There are two types of catalysts, Heterogeneous and Homogenous. Heterogeneous catalysts are in different phases to the reactants, they are solid while the reactants are liquid. However Homogeneous catalysts are in the same phase as the reactants, if they are liquid, gas or solid so are the reactants. The key objective to making nanocatalysts work is making them as efficient as possible, stabilizing catalysts has been an issue for a very long time you need the catalyst to have a long lifetime, with a very high selectivity (more desired products formed). According toP. Nagaraju Rao, A good stabilizer is one that protects the nanoparticles during the catalytic process, but does not neutralize the surface of nanoparticles resulting in loss of catalytic activity. Catalyst stabilizers come in many forms, from metals to polymers. To increase efficiency as much as possible, scientists have used nanotechnology to create nanocatalysts supports. Through the discovery of a porous aluminium oxide powder, scientists have been able to improve efficiency. Dr Brian Woodfield and David Selck have used this porous material, with its huge network of pores, each 3 nanometres in length, and have filled each pore with expensive catalytic metals each pore 30,000 times smaller than a human hair. This may sound expensive, purchasing platinum and using it to fill holes, but it is on such a small scale that it is saving a huge amount of money. So, in theory, you are using less metal but each tiny piece of metal adds up to produce a huge surface area. In industry, clumps of platinum used to be used which is outrageous. Since it is a known fact that only the atoms on the surface that are exposed to the reaction are useful, this type of nanocatalysts saves so much time, money and effort. Dr Brian Woodfield and David Selck are wor king on producing tiny 1 nanometre crystals of these expensive metals and placing them in porous aluminium oxide, so every atom in the metal is being used. This streamlines production and therefore it improves efficiency. (Cougar Cosmos, 2011)[DS1] Improving reaction yield: Nanocatalysts are more efficient than normal catalysts, as I have established. This major advantage leads to a higher yield of the desired product in a chemical reaction. A real world example of this would be the production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil, where the Solid acid nanocatalysis of Al0.9H0.3PW12O40 nanotubes with double acid sites yield 96% of biodiesel from waste cooking oil as compared to 42.6% with conventional H3PW12O40 catalyst.   (P. Nagaraju Rao, 2010) Absorbing harmful gas emissions: By controlling the pore size of the catalytic membranes in nanocatalysts, you can alter them to remove unwanted molecules, such as harmful gases such as CO2 (global warming) and NO2 (ozone depletion), (Nanowerk, 2016). And through further experimentation by chemical engineers, leading nanotechnology research company Oxonica have produced a nano-diesel fuel additive which decreases fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful emissions. This rock solid research has gone through years of large-scale trials. The science behind this is truly staggering through the utilization of Cerium oxide nanoparticles in the early stages of combustion, the peak pressure of reaction is reduced. This has a knock on effect, because this reduced pressure results in less NOx emission. This prolongs combustion, which leads to a reduction in inburnt hydrocarbon and, ultimately, a decrease in fuel consumption of up to 9%. This research can be applied to nanocatalysts, the genius of the resea rchers behind this discovery used fundamental physics knowledge to manufacture a product that makes the engine do more work for the same fuel used which can be also be done with catalysts! (P. Nagaraju Rao, 2010) Global warming is a very pressing issue, with the 10 warmest years ever recorded being logged since 1997 its these small improvements in existing reactions that add up to something phenomenal. (Friends of the Earth briefing, 2010) Karine Philippot and Philippe Sers research paper into the concepts of nanocatalysis perfectly outlines the benefits of nanocatalysts, as opposed to normal catalysts. Figure 1. (Karine Philippot and Philippe Ser, 2013) Shows us how nanomaterials are more efficient than regular materials. Figure 2. (Karine Philippot and Philippe Ser, 2013) Shows us how smaller particles (nanocatalysts) have higher selectivity than larger particles. Figure 3. (Karine Philippot and Philippe Ser, 2013) Shows how nanocatalysts have larger surface area than traditional catalysts. Lack of support from investors: Although the future for nanocatalysts look bright, it needs funding and support from investors to kick off and dominate the chemical industry. Investors are not heavily investing in research of newer types of catalysts. Instead, they are only investing in commercially approved nanocatalysts such as industrial enzymes. This is very worrying, as research into newer types of nanocatalysts is vital for this field to continue to improve. This wont happen if well-established nanocatalysts continue to receive the lions share of funding and investment. Lack of support from market: Funding may be vital, but so is good commercial performance. Newer nanocatalysts have a hard time finding buyers, as corporations continue to buy commercially well-established nanocatalysts. Commercially well-established nanocatalysts such as zeolites take up 98% of all global sales, which is a staggering figure. Hopefully, through more academic research companies will begin to venture into newer forms of nanocatalysts. (P. Nagaraju Rao, 2010) The market will eventually embrace nanocatalysis: Global Industry Analysts, Inc. predict that nanocatalysis will receive huge interest in the future, as global warming becomes more apparent and companies are either forced to, or willingly embrace more environmentally friendly methods. The global market for nanocatalysts is expected to reach $7.2 billion by 2020 with nanocatalysts focused on removing harmful greenhouse gasses receiving the most attention. The strength growth of automobile production in India and China means the Asia-Pacific will emerge as the fastest growing market. They believe automobile production will be a huge revenue stream for this global market as nano-catalytic converters will be become the new norm for the automobile industry. This makes sense, with the astonishing rise of the electric car, fuel based cars will eventually be phased out of society due to global warming concerns nano-catalytic converters can add a breath of life to this dying business. (Strategyr.com. 2015[DS2]) Furthermore, Global Industry Analysts, Inc. also point to the growing focus on reducing emissions in coal-fired power plants, stringent emission control norms and increasing adoption in waste water treatment. Figure 4. (Global Industry Analysts Inc. 2016.) Nanocatalysts vs catalysts: Normal, expensive metal, catalysts have been used for a very long time this doesnt truly mean they are better. Lets take platinum as an example, which suffers from low efficiency, slow kinetics, high costs and a very short lifetime. Nanocatalysts are efficient, save money, durable and have a high stability. They are essentially the new generation of catalysts. But that doesnt mean that the old will be phased out. As Ive discussed previously, engineers and material scientists such as Dr Brian Woodfield and David Selck are using highly expensive metals such as platinum and putting them in porous nanocatalysts supports to the point where so little of the expensive metal is being used, that the actual cost is reduced extensively. (Karine Philippot and Philippe Ser, 2013) Therefore, it would be better to classify nanocatalysis as an evolution, drawing from the old norms of chemistry and material science and using the theory behind this to reinvent the standard. Through secondary research, I was able to gather information from a large number of sources. At the start of this research, I had many goals and vague ideas about what nanocatalysis had the potential to be. Through extensive research I was able to establish that nanocatalysts will be essential to solving large scale issues such as global warming by transitioning the world from large emissions of greenhouse gases to low emissions of these harmful gases. This will have huge effects on the world, with deals such as the Paris Climate Agreement put in place to ensure global warming isnt the end of the world, nanocatalysis will surely be a card government and corporations will be playing. I was also able to establish, through my research, that nanocatalysis is soon to be a very lucrative industry. Industrial predictions show that since nanocatalysts save money, improve efficiency, selectivity and yield it will grow to be a $7.2 billion dollar global market to put this into perspective, this is more than double the valuation of the Cyprus stock exchange. (Visual Capitalist, 2016) Nanotechnology may be the science of extremely small things, but it has a big future ahead of it. 2066 words including citations. YouTube, 2011. Nanocatalysis Smaller, Cheaper, More Efficient [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufVYz-dBJGA [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016] P. Nagaraju Rao, 2010. Nanocatalysis: Applications in Chemical Industry. Nanotech, Volume 1 (Issue 1), Page 13-21 Friends of the Earth, 2010, Briefing: Climate Change Facts. [Online] Available at: https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/climate_change_facts.pdf [Accessed 12 Aug. 2016] Strategyr.com, (n.d). Nanocatalyst Market Trends. [Online] Available at: http://www.strategyr.com/MarketResearch/Nanocatalysts_Market_Trends.asp [Accessed 13 Aug. 2016] Nano.gov, (n.d). What is Nanotechnology? [Online} Available at: http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what/definition [Accessed 2 Aug. 2016] visualcapitalist.com, (2016). All of the Worlds Stock Exchanges by Size. [Online] Available at: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-stock-exchanges-by-size/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2016] Karine Philippot and Philippe Ser, 2013. Nanomaterials in Catalysis. Germany: Wiley-VCH, Page 25 Climate.nasa.gov, (2016). Global Climate Change: Vital Signs if the Planet. [Online] Available at: http://climate.nasa.gov/ [Accessed 4 Aug. 2016] Chemguide.co.uk, (2016). The Effect of Catalysts on Reaction Rates. [Online] Available at: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/catalyst.html [Accessed 4 Aug. 2016] Northwestern.edu, (1999). What is Catalysis? [Online] Available at: http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/northwestern/winter1999/winter99coverstoryside1.htm [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016] [DS1]This is not the format for Harvard referencing. [DS2]Good use of examples in this paragraph. [DS3]Should be in alphabetical order.   

The Ethics of Shopping at Wal-Mart Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive E

One has to work hard to consider their values in particular issues and how strongly they feel. This is the choice many people make when they invest in mutual funds, and have no idea where their mutual funds are invested. Many vocal opponents to shopping at Wal-Mart might discover they hold investments in the Wal-Mart. There are 1050 mutual funds that are invested in Wal-Mart, some of the largest mutual funds in the world. There are many people who have no idea where their investments lie. If you want to be true to your value against shopping at Wal-Mart, you need to be careful to remove yourself from investments that support Wal-Mart. You have to review your investments and find out where your money is invested. Let's consider the case of the prominent politician, John Kerry. John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz was a highly vocal critic of Wal-Mart. An investigative journalist discovered that she had one million dollars invested in the company. She held a lot of stock in a company of which she was critical. This provides insight into the idea that you have to work hard to consider your values in particular issues and how strongly you do feel. Regardless of what you think of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart is continually voted as one most admired companies in America by Fortune magazine. This is how Jerry Useem began the article he wrote for Fortune magazine: There is an evil company in Arkansas, some say. It's a discount store-a very, very big discount store-and it will do just about anything to get bigger. You've seen the headlines. Illegal immigrants mopping its floors. Workers locked inside overnight. A big gender discrimination suit. Wages low enough to make other companies' workers go on strike. And we know what it does to weaker su... ...oods they buy in order to have a saner, more livable lifestyle. 2 In conclusion, I agree with the noted shortcomings of Wal-Mart. But, I don't think people can argue that it's unethical to shop at Wal-Mart, that anyone who shops at Wal-Mart is unethical or believe it is ethical to point the figure at those who do shop at Wal-Mart. I suggest everyone first check their values and then their investments, and they'll discover they probably are supporting Wal-Mart, a company they believe is evil, via 401Ks or mutual funds. Works Cited Jerry Useem. Should We Admire Wal-Mart? Some say it's evil. Others insist it's a model of all that's right with America. Who are we to believe? Fortune Magazine February 23, 2014 From "No Place Like Home/Community and the Marketplace" (p. 191 - 193) How Cities Work by Alex Marshall, University of Texas Press Austin, 2013.

Harry Forster Chapin: Musician, Song Writer, Film Editor and Political

In the short thirty-nine years of the life of Harry Forster Chapin (1942-1981), he managed to distinguish himself as a creative genius in multiple fields, ultimately leaving a distinct mark on this world, though he received only moderate public recognition. Professionally, he was a musical performer and songwriter, a film editor, and a political activist and lobbyist, able to reach remarkable heights in all three fields. In the field of music, Chapin rose to stardom as a rock and roll performer and songwriter during the 1970's, introducing the world to a new style of music he created and popularized, the story-song. Within this new framework, Chapin was able to use his interest and proficiency in poetry to create song lyrics which told the story of a character or group of characters. He was able to weave wonderfully powerful tales of the lives of his characters in a few short stanzas, applying many traditional story-line techniques; a rising action which lead to a climax, followed by a falling action which usually revealed an unexpected twist, offering a recognizable message in the last few lyrics of the song. The subjects of these songs were generally based on Chapin's real life experiences and moods, and in this sense, he was able to express more honestly the feeling associated with the stories. Furthermore, Chapin went a step further by adding music to his stories, accentuating the changes in tone of the stories with musical accompaniments. His musical style contained many folk, rock and roll, jazz and blues elements, revealing his diverse musical background and familiarity with a variety of styles. The result was a remarkably popular style, which granted Chapin the ability to generate a strong connection to his audience during... ...o Gardner, another major milestone taking place around 1976, with the completion of perhaps his most comprehensive piece, an autobiographical song called "There Only Was One Choice". In it, Chapin mysteriously foretold of his tragic death at a young age: When I started this song I was still thirty-three. The age that Mozart died and Sweet Jesus was set free, Keats and Shelly, too soon finished, Charlie Parker would be And I fanaticized a tragedy be soon curtailing me. He also included in the song, the lyrics which have come to define his life more than any other: Inexperience - it once accursed me, but your youth is no handicap, it's what makes you thirsty. (From "Danceband on the Titanic" 1977) Bibliography: Coan, Peter M. Taxi: The Harry Chapin Story. New York:Carol Publishing Group. C. 1990. Http://www.littlejason.com/chapin/longbio.html

The True Hero of Homers The Iliad Essay -- Home Poetry Poem Iliad Ess

The True Hero of Homer's The Iliad The Iliad is a story in which many men should be recognized as great war heroes. They all show a tremendous amount of courage to fight in such a barbaric battle. But this paper?s main focus is between two great leaders of opposing sides. Achilles, who represents the Achaians and Hector, who represents the Trojans. Though both show their bravery during many different instances in the poem, it?s quite obvious to the reader who the better of the two is. The rest of this paper will prove why Hector is a greater hero in comparison to Achilles. The reader is introduced to Achilles in the first book of the poem. King Agamemnon and Achilles are having a conflict over a woman. But if you read deeper into the conflict it has more to do with honor. Honor seems to be the most important thing to all of the characters in the poem. In book two, after the argument between Achilles and King Agamemnon has come to a hault, Achilles has already decided not to defend his army. He feels the king has dishonored him, by refusing to give him Chryseis. So for about  ¾ of the war he did not help his fellow brothers in battle, instead he chose to pout for more than half of the poem. He knew that he was desperately needed at one point and still refused to assist in battle. He kept tabs on everything that was going on by sending out Patroklos to Nestor. Nestor would keep him up to date with the daily occurrences. There are three separate occasions where things weren?t going in favor of Achilles, and he would cry. His tears were so heavy and his cries so loud that his mother would come down from the heavens (She is a goddess) to offer her assi... ...his life. The battle was very intense and the poem gives a great description of the occurrences. The reader can easily get a mental image of the scene. Their final battle was described from the setting in the sky, all the way to Achilles? spear ripping through the flesh in Hectors neck.. I could almost hear the clanking of the weapons of the two warriors. In my opinion if Achilles would?ve been in battle for as long as Hector he wouldn?t have won. Hector died fighting for his country and that was believed to be the greatest honor of them all. If you take the two characters and hold them up next to one another there isn?t even a question in my mind as to who portrays the more heroic role. Achilles fought in the end because he blamed himself for the death of his friend. Hector fought for his country, his family, and for his honor.

How does Pinter exploit the verbal and the visual in the Birthday Party

The Birthday Party is a play in which the visual and the verbal are carefully put together to create certain effects in the spectators. Pinter exploits both the verbal and the visual to show the personalities of the characters as well as their relationships, often with much ambiguity as the visual and verbal do not always match. Indeed, the contrast between the visual and the verbal can at times be very disconcerting for the spectators, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and secrecy. Pinter also explores power, both verbal and visual, and how it is used to create fear and violence as well as the idea of secrecy. Obviously, the verbal and visual are very important for the characterisation, it is through what characters say and do that we are able to know more about them and the other characters. Petey is the first character that we see on stage, he is also probably the character that we doubt the least; for example, when he says that it is his chess night we are inclined to believe him. He is perhaps the only character, aside from Stanley, who is not taken in by Goldberg and McCann, which we see through his questioning their actions; â€Å"Where are you taking him?† He also is not seduced by Goldberg's speeches the way Meg and Lulu are, all he says after Goldberg talks about his childhood is â€Å"Well, we all remember our childhood†. Petey's blunt manner here shows that he is not really interested by the two newcomers, perhaps why he does not stay for the party. Petey is also quite blunt with his wife, Meg; he answers her questions but does not really elaborate what he is saying or take any interest in her, often just answering â€Å"yes† or â€Å"no†. The spectators get the impression that he would much rather be left alone, in fact the only things he seems to show any real interest in are the paper and his chess night, thus making it seem that he prefers the â€Å"outside† world to the community in the boarding house. Meg is almost the exact opposite to Petey. Unlike him, the boarding house community seems to be her world; the only time she leaves is to go shopping. She is also very proud of it, saying â€Å"this is a very good boarding house. It is. It's on the list† to Petey. Meg seems to be quite simple, asking stupid questions and making obvious statements such as â€Å"But sometimes you go out in the morning and its dark†. She also seems to believe everything people tell her, for example, she believes that Stanley is a concert pianist despite this being very unlikely. She is a trusting character who latches on to others, perhaps because her own husband does not seem to care for her. She admires Goldberg and listens to what he says; it is he who suggests that she throw a party for Stanley's birthday and she asks him what she should drink and whether she looks nice; she seems to want his approval.Sentence and Verbal Communication She also cares for Stanley, saying â€Å"he's [her] Stanley now†, and despite the fact that he sometimes bullies her; she still cares about what he thinks, for example, on page 21 after he menaces her she says in a small voice â€Å"Didn't you enjoy your breakfast Stan?† The audience gets the impression from what she says, and perhaps the nervous facial expressions we could imagine her to have at this moment, that she worries a lot about pleasing Stanley, an idea emphasised by her panic when she realises she has nothing to give him for breakfast on page 70. Overall, verbally and visually, Meg seems to be a simple and trusting character that cares a great deal about her guests and what they think. However, her last words, â€Å"Oh, it's true I was. (Pause) I know I was.† perhaps show that she is not so trusting as she seems as the pause and repetition could mean that she is trying to convince herself that what she says is true while she knows that it is not. Meg's uncertainty also appears at other points in the play where the stage directions say that she is uncertain or uneasy, such as on page 54. Perhaps this uncertainty is simple because she is not comfortable in social situations or maybe she thinks the others are making fun of her, for example, when Goldberg asks her to make a speech. The audience can get the impression that she chooses to believe the others because it is easier than confronting them, which could cause her whole world to fall apart. A lot of Meg and Petey's characterisation is done through their relationship with each other. Indeed, Pinter exploits their dialogues to add humour to the play. The fast rhythm created by the short sentences shot back and forth can remind the audience of a tennis game while Meg's constant questioning can make the audience laugh, for example on page 11: â€Å"Petey: Someone's just had a baby Meg: Oh, they haven't! Who? Petey: Some girl. Meg: Who, Petey, who? Petey: I don't think you'd know her. Meg: What's her name? Petey: Lady Mary Splatt. Meg: I don't know her.† Their dialogue is full of pointless questions, obvious statements and vague words such as â€Å"nice† which is repeated 15 times throughout the dialogue. It seems obvious to the audience that they are speaking simply for the sake of it, to fill the gap created by silence, as Meg often asks a question after a lull in the conversation to try and keep it going. The way some of the dialogue is repeated in the third act also emphasises the routine of Meg and Petey's lives as a married couple. Their actions also seem quite stereotypical, for example Petey, the husband, reads the paper while Meg, the wife, makes him breakfast, tidies the room, darns and goes shopping. Thus both the visual and verbal come together to show Meg and Petey as a comedic, stereotypical, old married couple. Lulu is a neighbour; she is the character who seems to care about visual appearance the most. The first time we see her in the play she starts putting on makeup and tells Stanley to take more care over his appearance. However, despite her saying that he looks â€Å"terrible† she still asks him to go for a walk with her. Thus showing that what she actually says is not always what she thinks as if she attaches so much importance to appearance she would not want to go out with him. Lulu is also attracted to Goldberg because of his verbal power, indeed she says â€Å"That was a wonderful speech† and â€Å"you're a marvellous speaker† to him. Therefore we can assume that speech is important to Lulu. The audience only finds out what happened between Lulu and Goldberg the next morning, although we are made aware that they are attracted to each other at the party when they embrace, by what they say. However, neither character says exactly what happened; we have to guess through hints that are made. Whereas the night before the two were physically very close, Lulu sitting on Goldberg's lap, in the morning Lulu keeps away from him, it says in the stage directions that she backs upstage left and retreats to the back door, thus creating a visual reminder of their separation. What is actually said is quite ambiguous; Lulu insists that Goldberg is the one at fault, comparing him to Eddie, her â€Å"first love†, saying â€Å"he wouldn't come into my bedroom at night with a briefcase† and â€Å"you made use of me by cunning when my defences were down†. However, Goldberg replies â€Å"Who opened the briefcase, me or you?† and â€Å"Who took them down?†, thus implying that Lulu can only blame herself for what happened. Despite the seriousness of this scene and Lulu's being obviously upset there is also humour when Lulu says â€Å"You taught me things a girl shouldn't know before she's been married at least three times!†. This adds some humour to the otherwise serious dialogue but makes Lulu lose her credibility. The ambiguity remains about whether Goldberg did use Lulu against her will as in previous scenes Lulu has acted in a quite experienced manner. Lulu does seem like a character who is quite sure of herself at other times; she doesn't mind saying what she thinks, for example she criticises Stanley, saying â€Å"you're a bit of a washout, aren't you?† As well as this, at the end she leaves the house without giving in to McCann and confessing. Indeed, she actually says â€Å"I know what's going on. I've got a pretty shrewd idea.† it's not certain whether this is true but either way it shows that she does possess a certain amount of intelligence as she knows Goldberg won't want people finding out what they did to Stanley. Overall, Lulu shows through what she says that she is an intelligent character but her relationship with Goldberg shows that she may act in a more experienced way than she is. Stanley is another character who shows a lot of pretence, the way he speaks and acts changes depending on the characters he is with. Throughout the entire play we wonder who he really is and what he is doing in the boarding house. In a way he plays many different roles in the play. With Meg he is a son, a boarding house guest or a angry lover, with Lulu he tries to be a â€Å"real† man, with McCann and Goldberg he tries to be strong but he soon breaks down. Indeed, it is hard to work out exactly who Stanley is without looking at each of his relationships with the other characters. When we first see Stanley, he is dressed in pyjamas and is unshaven; he could seem like a stereotypical lazy teenager, especially as he has slept in. Indeed, before we see him Meg and Petey talk about him and Meg continually calls him â€Å"the boy†. She also says that she'd rather have a boy when Petey tells her that a Lady Mary Splatt has had a baby girl. This could lead the audience to believe that Stanley is their son. When Meg goes to wake him up we do not see what happens, we simply hear laughter from Meg and shouts from Stanley, and it is not certain exactly what is happening. Perhaps Meg is tickling Stanley (something that she later threatens to do), perhaps she is taking his covers or perhaps she is doing something of a more sexual nature as when she returns she is panting and her hair is messed up. The first dialogue we see between Meg and Stanley involves Meg continuing to treat him like a child, saying he can't have his second course until he's finished his first. However, Stanley does not act like a child; he threatens to leave Meg, saying â€Å"I'll have to go down to one of those smart hotels on the front†. Later on, Stanley morphs back into a child, teasing Meg when she tells him to say sorry first, replying â€Å"Sorry first† instead of sorry, while Meg says he deserves the strap before becoming flirtatious, speaking â€Å"coyly†. The speed in which Meg changes both verbally and visually from treating Stanley like a son to a lover is quite startling, one second she is ruffling his hair and the next she is sensually stroking his arm. However, one thing remains constant, and that is Stanley's reaction to her touching him, every time he recoils or pushes her away. He also criticises her verbally, saying she isn't a good wife and doesn't know how to make tea. It is due to all this changing that the audience does not know for certain what their relationship is, we do get the impression though that they have had a sexual relationship is the past as Meg says â€Å"I've had some lovely afternoons in [your] room† and asks him to give her a kiss on page 36. It seems as though Stanley is ashamed of what happened though, which is why he treats her so badly. Stanley's relationship with Lulu is quite different. He tries to talk to her, talking about the weather in a way which echoes Meg and Petey's conversation. This makes it seem as though he has very little contact with anyone else as this is the only way he knows how to talk, an idea emphasised by Lulu asking him if he ever goes out. He also lies to her, saying he went swimming â€Å"all the way to the headland† that morning, which we know to be untrue, and asks her to go away with him but does not know where to. This dialogue shows that Stanley is socially inept as well as emphasising his lack of contact with the outside world. Stanley's relationship with McCann is hard to ascertain, we can not even be sure whether they knew each other before coming to the boarding house. Although, at the beginning of the second act McCann asks Stanley if they've met before and Stanley replies that they haven't, Stanley later goes on to say that he's â€Å"got a feeling† they've met before. They both whistle the same song, making it seem as though they do have a link. Stanley tries to act verbally powerful with McCann, mimicking Goldberg; he talks about his past and business, a theme which Goldberg made a speech about in the first act. However, Stanley soon falters in his speech, pausing and ending with the words â€Å"Do you know what I mean?† which McCann answers with an abrupt â€Å"No†. This shows the audience that McCann is not really interested in Stanley's words, and perhaps that he is not taken in by his lies. The power of speech does not seem to work well with McCann as he refuses to answer Sta nley's questions about why they are here, thus making Stanley seem quite weak, especially compared to the threatening and violent Stanley we saw with Meg in the first act. It seems that Stanley knew Goldberg, or at least of him, prior to his arrival at the boarding house as he seems afraid of him before he has even spoken to him: In act one when Meg tells him Goldberg's name he does not reply, just stays sitting still, the audience could think that this is because he is afraid as if he didn't recognise the name he would've perhaps said so when Meg asked him. He also asks McCann questions about him, although he does not say Goldberg's name but simply refers to him as â€Å"he†. Goldberg however says that he â€Å"hasn't had the pleasure† when Meg asks him if he's met Stanley, this fits with McCann's refusing to acknowledge that Stanley may have known him before: the two characters try to hide any links they may have with Stanley. Stanley also tries to make Goldberg leave, again showing his fear of him, either because he is from some kind of organisation that Stanley has run away from or because Stanley is simply afraid of â€Å"outsidersà ¢â‚¬ . Thus, Stanley shows his fear through what he says, despite never stating that he is actually afraid. Stanley's relationships with Goldberg and McCann revolve around secrecy and power. Indeed, the characters of McCann and Goldberg themselves seem to be defined by their power as well as their origins, which are shown verbally and visually McCann is a typical Irish name, and the two Christian names he is called by in the play, Dermot and Seamus, are also typically Irish. As well as this we could imagine that the character speaks with an Irish accent. There are also certain humorous things to do with McCann's â€Å"irishness†. Firstly, when Stanley asks him where he is from he replies â€Å"Where do you think?†, this could seem funny to the audience as it is plainly obvious that McCann comes from Ireland. Secondly, McCann refuses to drink Scotch whisky, pouring himself Irish whisky instead. McCann is also characterised by his physical power. It is always he who carries out physical actions, such as breaking the glasses, bringing Stanley downstairs and fighting physically with him. McCann's physical power is easy to see but this power also causes him to act like a servant as he has to carry the suitcases and the alcohol. This is a visual reminder of Goldberg's superiority to him, which is shown verbally by both characters in the play as well. For example in the first act McCann asks Goldberg many questions and needs assurance from Goldberg, making it obvious that it is he who is in charge. Unlike McCann, Goldberg is a Jewish character. He does not seem to take so much pride in his roots as McCann as he never actually mentions that he is Jewish. However, Goldberg and Simon (Simey) are typical Jewish names and throughout the play we are reminded of his origins through the use of Jewish words such as â€Å"gefilte (fish)†. His religion is also used in a humorous way when McCann says â€Å"You've always been a true christian† and Goldberg replies â€Å"In a way†, this could make the audience smile as the fact that Goldberg is Jewish is very obvious. Goldberg seems to try hard to show that he is integrated in the English â€Å"way of life†. He uses many idiomatic expressions and also creates an image of a cosy family life in the past. Goldberg is characterised by his verbal power instead of physical power. Indeed, except at one point in the play, when he tries to strangle McCann, he seems to be completely physically incapable of action; he is almost always sitting down and cannot defend himself when Stanley kicks him in the stomach during the interrogation scene. Goldberg's physical inability is contrasted with his verbal ability. Whenever Goldberg speaks in the first two acts, whether it is about Stanley, the past or something else, the other characters are in his thrall. They cannot help but listen to him, and the results of this depend on how he uses his power, for example he causes Stanley to break down by interrogating him and seduces Lulu through his speeches. Sometimes when he speaks he uses complicated words, making it hard for the other characters to understand him, such as when he â€Å"explains† to McCann what they are going to do he says â€Å"The main issue is a singular issue and quite distin ct from your previous work. Certain elements, however, might well approximate in points of procedure to some of your other activities†. It is unlikely that this explanation has helped McCann to understand. This complicated sounding explanation, however, would probably make Goldberg seem even more important to both McCann and the audience. Goldberg also uses idiomatic expressions such as â€Å"You're getting on her wick† or â€Å"I gave her a peck†; he also changes a vulgar expression into a more polite version: â€Å"You're getting on my breasts†. These expressions are used quite often in his long speeches with the occupants of the boarding house and Lulu which makes it seem that Goldberg is trying to make his language suitable for these people, while still keeping his verbal power. Goldberg's manipulation using language is particularly obvious when the lights all go out as he stops using long speeches to make people do what he wants and instead gives plain orders, such as â€Å"Everyone quiet! Help him find the torch.† He is also very capable at questioning characters, as shown by his vio lent interrogation of Stanley but also the efficient, softer interrogation of Meg on page 31. However, in the last act, Goldberg seems to lose his power: He keeps pausing and seems unsure of what he wants to say, this uncertainty climaxes with the lines: â€Å"Because I believe that the world†¦ (Vacant.)†¦.Because I believe that the world†¦ (Desperate.) †¦ BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD†¦(Lost.)†¦.†. It is as though he has used up all his verbal power the night before and has none left. We also notice that Petey, unlike Lulu and Meg, talks back to Goldberg, telling him to do things, thus emphasising his loss of power. In order to get his power back, Goldberg orders McCann to blow in his mouth on page 79. This shows how despite being a powerful character, Goldberg relies on McCann to act for him and to keep him in power. Goldberg and McCann have used their verbal and visual powers not only to control Stanley but also to â€Å"break† him. By the end of the play he is incapable of speech and his appearance is completely changed. He â€Å"is dressed in a dark well-cut suit and white collar and â€Å"he is clean-shaven†. This change in Stanley's visual appearance is a sign of his inner change. Another sign of this change is his lack of comprehensible verbal reactions to Goldberg and McCann's goading him. Indeed, he simply makes noises such as â€Å"Uh-gug†¦uh-gug†¦eeehhh-gag†¦Caahh†¦Ã¢â‚¬  before visually showing his resignation by shuddering and dropping his head. Thus, the power struggles in this play, and perhaps also in real life, are shown through the verbal and the visual aspects of the play and its characters Violence and fear are two very important themes in the play that are linked to power. Pinter exhibits these themes through the verbal and the visual. Indeed, there is a sort of crescendo of violence and fear in the play involving dialogues, language and images. In the first act, the violence is kept minimal until the end, and the majority of this violence is directed from Stanley towards Meg. There are many exclamations and Stanley swears, saying â€Å"Not the bloody table†, he also â€Å"throws her arm away† when she goes to ruffle his hair. These small things soon become larger, with Stanley menacing Meg: â€Å"Tell me, Mrs Boles, when you address yourself to me, do you ever ask yourself exactly who you are talking to?† and scaring her by talking about a wheelbarrow. The last image from the act involves Stanley and Meg again, in the stage directions it says â€Å"beating [the drum] regularly, he begins to go round the table a second time. Halfway round the beat becomes erratic, uncontrolled, Meg expresses dismay. He arrives at her chair, banging the drum, his face and the drumbeat now savage and possessed.† The crescendo of the drumbeat could represent the crescendo of the violence in the play itself and this v iolent image also sets Stanley up to commit violence later on in the play. The second act opens with a menacing image; McCann tearing up strips of newspaper. We can imagine a violent tearing sound to accompany his actions. After this threatening image McCann and Stanley's conversation soon turns violent, with Stanley grabbing hold of McCann's arms and McCann speaking â€Å"savagely [and] hitting his arm†. Stanley is obviously afraid, asking McCann questions such as â€Å"Has he told you anything† in a â€Å"hissing† voice. Their dialogue ends when Goldberg enters with Petey however the violent and menacing atmosphere starts up again once Stanley is alone with Goldberg and McCann. The violence starts verbally, with many questions asked quickly and exclamations, with accusations such as â€Å"He's killed his wife!† The violent dialogue soon becomes visual as shown by the stage directions, â€Å"[Stanley] looks up slowly and kicks Goldberg in the stomach, Goldberg falls. Stanley stands. McCann seizes a chair and lifts it above his head. Stanley seizes a chair and covers his head with it. McCann and Stanley circle.† This shows how the fight with words (the interrogation) has become a physical fight. It is obvious, however, that Stanley has lost the fight as he is incapable of speech, he can only grunt and make animal sounds. It is also McCann who has the last word, shouting, â€Å"The bastard sweat pig is sweating† before the scene calms down abruptly due to Meg's arrival. The violence of the act is kept at bay for a while; however, there is a disconcerting image, which can remind us of the interrogation scene. This is when a toast is made to Stanley with the lights off and a torch shining into his face, just like a stereotypical interrogation scene. The violence of the act is continued in the game of blind man's buff; this violence is visual and is only punctuated by the characters' asking questions and their fearful exclamations. It involves Stanley, who is playing the â€Å"blind man†, first McCann breaks his glasses and Stanley treads on the drum, he then tries to strangle Meg when the lights all go out. The darkness of the stage creates more fear, both amongst the characters but also perhaps among the audience. The sounds that are heard; grunts, a drumbeat, whimpers and then a scream add to this fear and alarm. The act ends with Stanley seeming to try to rape an unconscious Lulu and then Stanley backing away against the wall while everyone else walks menacingly towards him. This is the climax of the violence and menace of the play and this image emphasises how Stanley has had a break down, while also showing his inner feelings: he hates Meg, so tries to kill her; he is attracted to Lulu but the only way he can show his â€Å"manliness† is to rape her. In the last act, there is a lot less violence than in the second. However, there are reminders of the violent second act in the broken drum and glasses. There is also a scene between Goldberg and McCann in which we see Goldberg act violently for the first time, instead of speaking violently: he yells murderously â€Å"Don't call me that! NEVER CALL ME THAT† and seizes McCann by the throat†¦ McCann also yells at Lulu â€Å"savagely† to confess. The audience can notice that the violence perpetuated in this act seems to have less meaning than in the first and second. In the first, the violence helps to characterise Stanley and make us understand what he is capable of whereas in the second it is part of McCann and Goldberg's â€Å"breaking† Stanley, but in the third act it seems to be more associated with the anger of the characters and have less of a real aim. The only violence that does have an aim is the violence that happened upstairs; this violence is mentioned by McCann and Goldberg without referring to it directly. We understand that McCann and Goldberg are actually afraid of what happened through what they say, for example McCann says on page 73 â€Å"I'm not going up there again†. This non visual violence that we are left to imagine seems worse than the violence we saw on stage because of our lack of knowledge of it. All of the visual violence in the play seems quite serious, however at times this is contrasted with humour in the characters' speech. A good example of this is during the interrogation scene in which serious questions and accusations are interspersed with comic lines and expressions, such as McCann saying â€Å"Mother defiler† followed by Goldberg asking why Stanley picks his nose. Stanley himself joins in with this humour at times, saying â€Å"No hands† when Goldberg asks him how many fingers he uses to play the piano. The verbal humour placed alongside violence and seriousness can be quite disconcerting for the spectators and could cause them to take the violence a little less seriously. Much of the characters' fear is caused by the violence of other characters, however, it is also caused by the unknown or secrecy which is shown through verbal communication, or lack of verbal communication, between characters. Stanley's fear in the first act is the main example of this, when Meg mentions the two men that are coming Stanley shows fear, through his actions and his words. He repeats things such as â€Å"It's a false alarm. It's a false alarm† and paces the room, which indicates worry. Stanley is also afraid because he doesn't know why the two men are there, something which is shown by his frantic questioning of McCann. McCann himself also worries about the unknown. We see him question Goldberg about what the job will involve and what he will have to do, his worry is shown particularly through Goldberg ‘s mentioning it. He tells him first to stop worrying and then to stop being so nervous. This shows that fear of the unknown is not simply limited to weaker characters such as Stanley but also physically strong ones; an idea which could also apply to real life. The audience itself never finds out who Goldberg and McCann are and why they are here. Indeed, much of what we know about Goldberg and is past is what he has decided to tell the other characters and we find it impossible to believe him. This is for several reasons: Firstly, he paints a picture of a good, family life which is hard to connect with his seduction of Lulu and his behaviour towards Stanley. Secondly, the way he describes his mother is almost identical to the way he describes his wife; the echoes in his description of them make it seem as though he is almost making them up. Lastly, we know Goldberg lies, for example he tells Petey that McCann is called Dermot and later on in the book he calls him Seamus, he also tells Petey that Stanley is alright. Lies seem to be quite important in this play, especially when talking about the past. Many of the characters lie to each other or at least say something which we could think was a lie. Stanley talks about being a concert pianist and his business, Goldberg talks about his family and Meg talks about hers, while Petey lies to Meg at the end about Stanley still being upstairs. Many of these lies do not seem to do any harm; in fact they seem to make the characters feel better about themselves as they become nostalgic and reflective. However, they add to the level of uncertainty which we find in the play and make it even harder for the audience to know what is going on. To conclude, Pinter takes advantage of both the verbal and the visual to emphasise certain things and explain them completely, such as the characters and their relationships, while also using them to show the themes of the play: Power, violence, fear and secrecy. He also uses it to relax the tension at times through humour but most of all it is used to create ambiguity. The audience can be sure of very few of the things that are said in this play which leads to many varied interpretations of the events and the characters. Perhaps this is what Pinter was hoping for.