Actually, Shakespeare's audience would not have liked the idea that fate is ultimately in control of one's destiny. Unlike the ancient Greek audience, who would have been much more comfortable with the idea of fate, Elizabethan audiences wanted to think of themselves as being in control of their lives. If one's choices are sealed by fate, then one cannot actually make any decisions other than the ones fate already determined; the individual really has no control over anything in his or her life. He or she is simply the pawn of fate, subject to whatever has already been predetermined. Shakespeare's audience very much wanted to believe their choices had meaning and impact in their lives, that they were ultimately in control of their decisions and were not influenced by some uncontrollable, unknowable force. Thus, they would not have wanted to believe Macbeth had to kill Duncan; they would have preferred to believe that Macbeth simply made his own terrible decision.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
How does Fiona from The Giver fit into a utopian society, a dystopian society, and our society?
Fiona is Jonas’s friend. By all accounts she has a big heart and is conscientious and intelligent. She is chosen to be Caretaker of the Old because she often volunteers at the House of the Old before turning twelve and has a knack for caring for the elderly there. She is thrilled with her appointment.
It is not until later that we find out more about Fiona. We learn she has red hair, which bothers the community. Red hair is different from what everyone else has. The community works hard to keep everyone the same.
The Giver chuckled, suddenly. "We've never completely mastered Sameness. I suppose the genetic scientists are still hard at work trying to work the kinks out. Hair like Fiona's must drive them crazy" (Chapter 12).
Other than her red hair, Fiona fits into a utopian society very well. She believes her community is a utopia. From most community members' perspectives, everyone is happy and everything is perfect.
The society in The Giver is actually dystopian. Jonas learns about this later when he finds out what release really means when he sees his father kill a newborn baby. It is at that point that he remembers Fiona is a Caretaker of the Old, and the Old are routinely released. He finds it difficult to imagine Fiona knows about this, but The Giver tells him she is.
"Fiona is already being trained in the fine art of release," The Giver told him. "She's very efficient at her work, your red-haired friend. Feelings are not part of the life she's learned" (Chapter 20).
Since Jonas does have feelings, and has experienced memories of death, it is difficult for him to imagine his friend killing old people, but this is part of her reality. As The Giver explains, Fiona doesn’t know better. No one but Jonas and The Giver actually understand or feel anything about death. This behavior in the community is what makes it a dystopia.
This does not make Fiona a bad person, though. If she were in our society, I sincerely doubt she would be going around murdering old people. She is a good person, and if she lived in a society where it was not okay to kill people, she would not be doing it. If Fiona lived in our world, she would not be a killer.
The author uses Fiona and Jonas's father to create shock and understanding in the reader and reinforce the concept of dystopia. Jonas's father and Fiona have no idea they are murderers. This makes the reader realize Jonas's society is very different from ours, as its members routinely practice what our society considers immoral behavior.
what leads to revolutions? what did it look like for France?
The question asks what leads to revolutions and what did “it” look like for France? Restated, this asks how those factors played out in leading up to the French Revolution.
In a very generic sense, revolutions occur when the governed feel that their expectations for government cannot be met through the established mechanisms of that government. All governmental systems (even dictatorial/despotic ones) have mechanisms for conveying popular desires to those in power, and for determining which of those desires will be addressed and to what extent. That being said then, the transition from social stability to revolution typically occurs when expectations change and the established governmental mechanisms prove unable or unwilling to adapt to those new expectations.
The change in expectations can come from many directions, and often more than one force is at work. Economic change often leads to changing views about proper political structure. In the case of the French Revolution, the key causes can be analyzed as follows:
The control of substantial economic productive capacity by an expanding middle class (bourgeoisie) which was not matched by control over policies affecting that production capacity (most importantly taxation).
The allocation of important institutional roles (military, clergy, senior bureaucratic) through birth and connection rather than a clear meritocracy.
The rise of enlightenment political thought regarding the role of reason rather than divinity in determining the proper course of human affairs.
The failure of the existing structure to provide for basic human needs when food production faltered.
Looking at these factors, one can see economic power shifting to those without political power, coupled with changes in political thought which taught that reason (accessible to all) should drive political decisions rather than divine right (as reflected in birth circumstances). When the existing system proved unable to meet basic needs, but recourse for those whom it failed was not available, the stage was set for rebellion.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
How much money did Henry VIII spend on foreign policy?
It's very difficult to put a precise figure on it, let alone adjust that figure appropriately for inflation since then; but the general consensus among historians is that Henry VIII spent a large amount of money on warfare and many of England's financial problems at the time were traceable to that.
Henry VIII fought a number of wars during his reign, chiefly against Scotland and France, and several wars he fought became costly wars of attrition with little success. The most precise estimate I was able to find for how much Henry VIII spent on his wars was 2 million pounds, 1.3 million from currency debasement, 430,000 from higher taxes, and 110,000 from forced loans along with 160,000 from existing taxes.
It's very difficult to make a precise inflation adjustment, but the figures I have say that pound fell in value by about a factor of 267 from 1550 to 1997, and then official UK inflation figures say that it fell in value by about a factor of about 1.7 since then; so that's about a factor of 450 over that whole period. So that 2 million pounds would have been about 900 million pounds in today's money, which is still a small fraction of modern UK military spending.
It was, however, a large portion of England's wealth at the time. Henry VIII was not popular by the end of his reign, in large part due to the high taxes and inflation he imposed to pay for his endless wars.
I didn't have room for all the sources I consulted in the usual place, so here they are:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/henry-viii-and-foreign-policy/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/majesty_menace_01.shtml
http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-06.htm
https://militaryhistoryblog.wordpress.com/tag/wars-of-henry-viii/
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/history/henry-viii-foreign-policy.html
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=409
https://prezi.com/majolaxdtr9y/henry-viiis-foreign-policy/
http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-06.htm
Why is the glove cleaner/ life cleaner more expensive than the love potion in "The Chaser"?
The old man in the story uses the terms "glove cleaner" and "life cleaner" as euphemisms. Obviously, he doesn't want to use the word "poison" too openly, so he uses circumlocutions to hint to his customer that he might want to use something to get rid of his beloved in the future. The reader learns in the course of the narrative that the love potion only costs one dollar, while the "chaser," the "glove cleaner" or "life cleaner," costs five thousand dollars. The old man is confident most of the young men who buy his love potions will be back to buy his poison at some time in the future. He explains to Alan Austen:
"I look at it like this," said the old man. "Please a customer with one article, and he will come back when he needs another. Even if it is more costly. He will save up for it, if necessary."
"And how much," said Alan, "is this wonderful mixture?"
"It is not so dear," said them old man, "as the glove-cleaner, or life-cleaner, as I sometimes call it. No. That is five thousand dollars, never a penny less. One has to be older than you are, to indulge in that sort of thing. One has to save up for it."
In other words, the old man makes all his money off the poison, and his young customers who buy the love potion will not be able to afford that lethal "chaser" until they have reached middle-age. The old man obviously has a very cynical view of love. He seems to believe that love leads to marriage and marriage—for many people—becomes so unpleasant that they will do almost anything to get out of it.
In "The Canterville Ghost" by Oscar Wilde, why does Sir Simon become disappointed and start to think about his existence?
In Chapter Five of "The Canterville Ghost," the ghost admits to Virginia that he wants to enjoy eternal rest in the Garden of Death:
"For three hundred years I have not slept, and I am so tired."
The ghost's sudden interest in death is a result of two factors, the first of which is his treatment by the Otis family. Since taking possession of Canterville Chase, the family has thwarted his attempts to frighten them and reduced him to a state of depression, as described in Chapter Four:
His nerves were completely shattered, and he started at the slightest noise.
Secondly, as a result of his depressed mood, the ghost is no longer able to fulfil his supernatural obligations. As the ghost of Canterville Chase, for instance, it is Sir Simon's duty to frighten the family by appearing in the corridor every week and "gibbering" from the window twice each month. Suddenly unable to complete these tasks in earnest, Sir Simon experiences a crisis of identity. In his mind, the only solution to this problem is to die and be permanently freed from the Otis family and his ghostly duties.
What is the The Icarus Girl about?
The Icarus Girl, by Helen Oyeyemi, explores the strange and sometimes frightning life of eight year-old Jessamy "Jess" Harrison, a sensitive and alienated girl with a Nigerian mother, Sarah, and an English father, Daniel, who meets another equally (if not more) strange young girl on a family trip to her mother's former home in Nigeria.
Once in Nigeria, Jess continues to feel out of place, but is drawn to the presence of an odd girl, Titiola (or "TillyTilly"), who appears to have mysterious powers and who Jess catches drawing a frightening picture of a woman with long arms that reach to her ankles. Although they part ways, TillyTilly assures Jess, "You'll see me again."
Jess returns to London and finds it no more hospitable to her quirks than before. TillyTilly shows up shortly, claiming that her family has moved her to London. This is when things begin to get very scary: TillyTilly behaves wildly and irrationally the longer she is around Jess, and Jess eventually comes to realize that she is the only one who can see the girl. TillyTilly informs Jess that she had a stillborn twin named Fern, a story that is corroborated by Jess' parents; her parents then share the Nigerian belief that twins may exist in the real world, the spirit world, and the Bush, and that a wooden carving should have been made to represent the dead twin and to protect the living one (an action which Jess' parents failed to appropriately take).
TillyTilly begins to injure people and threatens to take over Jess' body and mind completely; her actions and desperation escalates until the inconclusive ending of the book, in which Jess is thrown into a coma after a serious car accident and finds herself wandering around, unable to distinguish between or wholly reach the "real world" and the "Bush" lands that twins have access to.
This ending--as well as the continued conflict between Jess and TillyTilly throughout the book--suggest a crisis of identity and double consciousness that cannot quite be resolved.