Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Outline Difference between a syllabus and a curriculum. An account of the salient factors we have to consider for constructing a syllabus. 1. Introduction. 2. Syllabus and curriculum A. Definition of syllabus B. Definition of curriculum C. Difference between syllabus and curriculum a. Basic difference b. Differences in detail approaches 3. Factors to construct a syllabus A. Type A: What is to be learn B. Type B. How is to be learn C. Van EK's necessary component D. Selection of the content E. Organization of the content F. Components to design a syllabus a. Set A b. Set B c. Set C d. Set D G. McDonough about syllabus design H. Criteria for selection and grading a. Structural b. Topic c. Functional 4. The need for a syllabus A. Should a syllabus be explicit, and if so, to whom? B. Basic organizing principles 5. Creating and reinterpreting a syllabus 6. Conclusion Introduction: Throughout the 1970s while language teaching theorists and practititioners excited themselves with course design for Specific Purpose language teaching, and while needs of adult migrants and private sectors or industrial language learners were extensively examined, the majority of learners of English continued to struggle with large classes, limited text books, few contact hours, and years of unintensive study. The work of many teachers had either been ignored by syllabus or curriculum designers, or had been interfered with by insensitive and too rapid application of ideas from ESP theory or Council of Europe discussion by administrations who did not fully realize the implications of the innovations so proudly presented. As a result, several national educational systems have 'gone communicative' or 'gone functional-notional', and then retreated after a brief trial period whatever they had before. It seemed worthwhile, therefore, to convene a symposium at TESOL Convention in Toronto in 1983 specifically to examine the role of syllabuses in normal state education. And it is also seemed worthwhile not to rush too quickly into arguments about the detailed design of syllabuses, but to clear the ground first on the definition, function and purpose of the syllabuses, for many of the difficulties in discussion of for example Wilkins' influential 'Notional Syllabuses 1976' result from the enormously varying interpretations of the term syllabus. Since a language is highly complex and pervasive, all of it which can hardly be determined cannot be taught at a time. Moreover al the phenomena related to the language might not be relevant or necessary to be taught to the learner/group of learners. Therefore, successful teaching of the language evidently requires a selection and then an arrangement of the teaching items/materials depending on the prior definition of the objectives, proficiency level to be developed in the learner, duration of the program, and the like, on the one hand, and on the other, upon the consideration of the learner's needs, lacks, aptitudes, motivation, age, personality memory transfer of training, cognitive style, and so forth. The selection and the sequencing absolutely take place in the syllabus planning stage. With the advent of much complicate theories of language and language learning, as well as recognition of the diversity of the learners' needs, wants, and aspirations, the concept of syllabus for SL/FL teaching has taken on new importance. It has also become highly elaborated, and has been examined at length, particularly in the context of ESP programs, and generally ELT planning. Thus the syllabus is now viewed as an instrument by which the teacher, with the help of the syllabus designer, can achieve a degree of fit between the needs and aims of the learner as social being and as individual and the activities, which will occur in the classroom. A syllabus is required to produce efficiency of two kinds-pragmatic and pedagogical. The former is concerned with the economy of time and money. It needs the setting of instructions to be planned, and that not all learners are to be given the same treatment. So syllabuses differ according to the practical factors present in given situation. The latter kind of efficiency is related to the economy in the management of the learning process. Instruction provided in an institutional setting is assumed to be a more efficient method of dealing with learning than allowing the learner to proceed in a non-structured environment. It is then clear that the syllabus of any kind is viewed as providing a better control of the learning process, generally by the institution and/or the teacher, but in some instance control can be and should be exercised also by the learner himself/herself. The degree and the type of control that the syllabus exercises depend on the institution-as-society. That is, in a highly democratic institution, the syllabus has to be determined and constructed by consensus. Definition of syllabus: This term covers the teaching learning items, materials, equipments and the evaluation tools. A finished syllabus is an overall plan the learning process. It must specify what components, or learning items, must be available, or learned by a certain time; what is the most efficient sequence in which the are learned; what items can be learned simultaneously; what items are available from the stock, and the whole process is determined by consideration of how long it takes to produce or learn a component or item. The process is under continual scrutiny by means of stock checks, or tests and examinations. If we point out the main ideas of syllabus it comes as follows: 1. A syllabus is a specification of work of a particular department in a school or college, and it might be broken down into subsections, which will define the work of a particular group or class. 2. In practice, it is often linked to time semesters, terms, weeks, or courses, which are tied to these. But this link is not essential, and may be counter productive in that the time is teacher based rather than learner based. But a syllabus must specify a starting point, which should be related to a realistic assessment of the level of beginning students, and ultimate goals, which may or may not be realized by the end of the course, depending on the abilities of the learners and their progress in a particular course. 3. It will specify some kind of sequence based on- a. Sequencing intrinsic to a theory of language learning or to the structure of specified material relatable to language acquisition; b. Sequencing constrained by administrative needs, materials. 4. A syllabus is a document of administrative convenience and will only be partly justified on theoretical grounds. Hence it will be negotiable and adjustable, enshrining the most useful experience of the past in order to ease the workload of the present. 5. A syllabus can only specify what is taught; it cannot organize what is learnt. It can, methodologically, allow for opportunities for acquisition and/or learning, but such opportunities cannot spelt out in detail as they will reflect the personalities of learners and continuing relationships established as the class progresses. 6. Not to have a syllabus is to refuse to allow one's assumptions to be scrutinized or to enable different teachers to relate their work to each other's. It is consequently an essential feature of work in a democratic profession or as part of democratic education. Definition of curriculum: It is considered to be a broader term used in a institution to cover politics, plans, teaching, learning items, materials, equipments, logistics everything. The first view of curriculum shows a concern with objectives and content, which are two of four elements in the traditional model of the curriculum. The second view of adds methods to the model. The methods are the means by which the ends-the objectives-are to be achieved and this forms the basis of a process view of a curriculum. The third perspective adds a fourth and final element evaluation. This brings to us the situational model of curriculum. Evaluation, as feedback, will also form a component of the construction systems model, since quality control will be an important element of any production system. It is through monitoring and feedback that planned and actual outcomes can be compared and appropriate remedial action taken to repair failures or deficits. Thus feedback will have a formative effect on action. The third perspective may represent a more realistic approach, since it takes accounts of existing systems before initiating proposals for change. The systematic changes and the installation of the new elements will, of course, require planning and the effective use of systems in order to realize new objectives, so that each of the first two approaches will make important contributions to an overall process of curriculum development. Difference between curriculum and syllabus: Some confusion exists over the distinction between syllabus and curriculum, since the terms are used differently on either side of the Atlantic. Curriculum is a very general concept, which involves consideration of the whole complex of philosophical, social and administrative factors, which contribute to the planning of an educational programme. Syllabus, on the other hand, refers the subpart of curriculum, which is concerned with a specification of what units will be taught. The European term 'syllabus' and its North American counterpart 'curriculum' often seem to be very close in meaning and sometimes further apart, depending on the context in which they are used. In a distinction that is commonly drawn in Britain, 'syllabus' refers to the content or subject matter of an individual subject, whereas 'curriculum' stands for the totality of content to be taught and aims to be realized within one school or educational system. In the USA 'curriculum' tends the synonymous with 'syllabus' in the British sense. Curriculum should not simply be seen as a kind of super syllabus because there is a qualitative difference between the two. On the one hand, curriculum may be viewed as the programme of activities, the course to learn by pupils in being educated. On the other, curriculum may be defined as all learning, which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. That is one school of thought regards the curriculum as a plan, while the other views it as activities. Allen distinguishes at least six aspects of levels of curriculum: 1. Concept formation 2. Administrative decision making 3. Syllabus planning 4. Materials design 5. Classroom activities 6. Evaluation Shaw confidently makes a line of distinction between the curriculum and the syllabus as he defines 'syllabus' as a statement of the plan for any part of curriculum, excluding the element of curriculum evaluation itself. And he concludes that the syllabus should be viewed in the context of an ongoing curriculum development process. Therefore, the terms are synonymous in USA, but in Britain a syllabus is a part of a curriculum made of many parts. But I should take the term syllabus as a part of a curriculum when the language is learned or taught as an integrated or supporting subject with others, or in a department of a different subject for example, Business Administration or Drama and Dramatics. And I would like to consider the 'syllabus' as an independent framework when an SL/FL is taught or learned autonomously as a subject in a department or an institution. Here any syllabus is most typically a plan of what is to be achieved through teaching and students' learning. Factors to construct a syllabus: The distinction and association occurs in the sector of syllabus are important to explain the factors of syllabub designing. The syllabus is a form of support for the teaching activity that is planned in the classroom and a form of guidance in the construction of appropriate teaching materials. It is concerned, from this point of view, with what is to be done in the classroom, not necessarily with what is perceived to be taught or learnt thereby; its role is essentially to make it possible of one teacher to draw the experience of another. All these important aspects come when we have to design a syllabus with the necessary materials. And certainly there is a process to design a syllabus in a proper way. The two main approaches of syllabus, which are considered for constructing it, are summarized below that are suggested by Davies 1976: Type A: What is to be learnt? Interventionist External to the learner Other directed Determined by authority Teacher as decision maker Content = what the subject is to expert Content= a gift to the learner or teacher or knower Objectives defined in advance Subject emphasis Assessment by achievement or by mastery Doing things to the learner Type B: How is to be learnt? Internal to the learner Inner directed or self-fulfilling Negotiated between learners and readers Learner and teacher as joint decision maker Content= what the subject is to the learner Content= what the learner brings and wants Objectives described afterwords Process emphasis Assessment in relationship to learner's criteria of success Doing things for or with the learners Several different factors related to the networks of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pedagogy claim to be taken into consideration for framing a syllabus. The syllabus is indeed concerned with the specification and planning of what is to be learned, frequently set down in some written form as prescription for actions by teachers and learners. It is also concerned with the achievements of ends, often, though not always, associated with the pursuance of particular means. It is necessarily, though not obviously, imbued with particular educational philosophies, views of the subject matter, and how it may best be learned, beliefs about the relationship between the teachers and learners, all of which underpinned by particular definitions of a desirable social order and world view. Now it is patent that the factors, which are considered for constructing a syllabus, are manipulated by the syllabus and vice-versa. Van Ek lists the following necessary components of a language syllabus: a. The situation in which the SL/FL will be used, including the topics which will be dealt with; b. The language activities in which the learners will be engaged c. The language function which the learner will fulfill d. What the learner will be able to do with respect to each topic e. The general notions which the learners will be able to handle f. The specific topic notions which the learner will be able to handle g. The language form which the learner will be able to use h. The degree of scale with which the learner will be able to perform Here the social, psychological and pedagogical factors are confidently advocated as preconsiderations for syllabus construction. That is, the selections of the teaching items, and then their sequencing are obviously affected and even controlled by the social and psychological factors of the learner as a social being and as an individual. And the factors ultimate relate to the pedagogical factors and the overall concept of the syllabus planning. Selection and Organization: In the account of syllabus the focus is also on selection and organization of content, whereas, as we firmly consider, there are other approaches to syllabus which shift attention to methodology and evaluation. As a consequence of the foregoing review and discussion, it is obvious to propound a collection of typical components actively considered in designing a syllabus. Typical Components: Set A 1. Statements about the learner: a. Age, sex, motivation, attitude, aptitude, learning style, educational level, type of institution, previous attainment etc; b. Specific features- derived, elite, mono/bi/multi-lingual/cultural. 2. Statement about aims and needs: a. Reason for SL/FL learning/ teaching; b. Skill- all or two or "¦.. to be taught; c. Specific features, if any. 3. Starting and target level needs, and the determination of deficiencies, if any. 4. Information about duration/offer: a. Length of courses, number of classes per week, total duration; b. Homework, self-study; a. Qualification; b. Training; c. Competency; d. Seriousness, punctuality, honesty, sincerity, regularity and the like; e. Friendly, polite, sympathetic, humorous, democratic etc. Typical Components: Set B 1. Content: a. Specification of content; b. Grammar, vocabulary and others. 2. Time Terms/ semesters/courses/years 3. Sequence of teaching items Which to be taught, which second/next. Typical Components: Set C 1. Methodology: Which method to apply-Direct method or Audioligual method or Communicative Language Teaching Approach or eclectic method. 2. Aids and equipment: Chalk board, market board, OHP, VCR, TV, computer, cassette player and the like. 3. Books and material. Typical components: Set D 1. Examination 2. Other Educational levels The relation between preceding and following courses. 3. Relation to teacher training: Short or long-term training. According to McDonough the syllabus designers seem to have a relatively homogenous idea of the order of difficulty of various grammatical devices of simple English. Some kind of empirical validation of this, or empirical challenge is required, because despite gradual replacement of structural criteria by communicational criteria of sequencing in recent textbooks, the presentation of grammatical construction is still ordered according to intuitive ideas of relative difficulty. An early attempt to work out the implications of such findings of organizing language syllabuses was made by Valdman 1974, who discussed whether the process of pidginization could be used as a basis for grading teaching materials. But there is a problem that a little language would contain stigmatized forms, which could become fossilized. To avoid this Valdman proposed the 'Focus Approach' which Pieneman summarizes as follows: 1. The learners are allowed to use reduced and deviant forms in communicative activities. 2. However, these forms will not be brought in focus in the syllabus. 3. The learners are exposed to a fully formed input filtered only by the application of pedagogical norms. 4. The syllabus will be graded according to what is easy to acquire. Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens have noted a surprising lack of published guidance on syllabus grading, a number of criteria have been proposed and have become accepted through use and these are listed below according to focus: structural, topic and functional. Structural: Frequency, coverage ability, simplicity/complexity, learnability/ teachablity, combinability, contrast, productiveness, generalizability, natural order of acquisition. Topic: Interest and activity, need, pedagogic merit, relevance, depth of treatment, practicality, utility. Functional: Need: immediate and long-term, utility, coverage and generalizability, interest, complexity of form. Alternatives Priorities in Design: The predesigned content syllabus captures the designers selection form, and organization of the target language and its use in certain situation. The designer draws the map beginning at the destination. The result being that the whole of the rest of the map- the route through the new language and performance- is most often shaped and constrained by its own objectives and predetermined outcomes. An alternative orientation would prioritize the route itself: a focus upon the means towards the learning of new language. Here the designer would give priority to the changing process of learning and the potential of the classroom-to the psychological and social resources applied to a new language by learners in the classroom context. One result of this change of focus would be that the syllabus would be the plan for gradual creation of the real syllabus of the classroom, jointly and explicitly undertaken by teachers and learners. Such a plan would be about designing a syllabus, and therefore, a guide for the map-making capacities of its users. The need for syllabus design: Since language is highly complex and cannot be taught all the time, successful teaching requires that there should be a selection of materials depending on the prior definition of the objectives, proficiency level, and duration of the course. This syllabus takes place in syllabus planning stage. It is the appropriate strategy of presentation. It is the natural growth hypothesis, then, which appears to constitute the most serious challenge to traditional concepts of syllabus planning, and for this reason, it is worthwhile to exploring it in a little more detail. In assessing the role of the non-analytic growth model it is convenient to consider it first in the context of informal task-related programme where there is a serious commitment to the achievement of fluency in a rich target language environment. The principle of organizing a general syllabus can be structural, functional, experiential, or some combination of the three. We need this form to make the students able to communicate properly with the subject they are assigned to. The control over the text material should be exercised in a more subtle and flexible way than can normally be achieved by means of a traditional structural syllabus. Creating and reinterpreting syllabus: Although, we may follow a predesigned syllabus, every teacher inevitably interprets and reconstructs that syllabus so that it becomes possible to implement it in the classroom. Similarly learners create individual learning syllabuses from their own particular starting points and their own perceptions of the language, learning and the classroom. We may regard learners either as people who are trying to redraw the predesigned plan, or we may see learners as uncovering the route for the first time in a sense, discovering the new language as if it had never been explored. The classroom is therefore, the meeting place or point of interaction between the predisgned syllabus and individual learners syllabuses. This interaction will generate the real syllabus- or the syllabus in action-which is jointly constructed by the teachers and learners together. In the lesson-to-lesson reality of language teaching, we are continually concerned with three syllabuses: the teacher's version of the predesigned plan, the individual learner syllabuses, and the unfolding syllabus of the classroom- this last being the synthesis of the other two. One important implication of this for syllabus design is that a 'good' predesigned syllabus is one, which is positively amenable to the alternative interpretation and open to reconstruction through interactive in the classroom. Conclusion: More recent research into SLA has indicated a natural acquisition order, thus giving rise to the possibility of developing structural selection and grading principles in tune with this natural order. Pieneman has suggested modifying grading to bring the two in line, though without requiring learners to produce correct forms before they are ready to do so. To construct a syllabus the designer has to have adequate experience of the social, psychological and educational factors directly or indirectly related to the teaching program. Here is no scope for adopting any arbitrary or notional matter. As the rationale behind designing of the syllabus transforms into component part, the syllabus designer becomes bound to follow the established criteria for selecting and ordering the content, choosing the methods, prescribing the material and equipment, recommending the teacher's qualifications and determining the assessment system. When it is done the syllabus might be approximate or result in the expected or required success. While, non-deviate input will be provided, focus on current forms in learner output will be planned to coincide with the learner's stage of readiness to produce such forms. As yet, however, the kind of detailed evidence on which to base such a progression is lacking, although the accumulation of research may result in the evolution of new criteria for organizing language input to learners to avoid some of the learning problems, which appear to have arisen from syllabuses planned according to traditional criteria for structural sequencing. Anyway, a proper designed syllabus, followed by the accurate process, is the right path for the learners.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 4022 Views: 675 Comments: 0
Outline Difference between a syllabus and a curriculum. An account of the salient factors we have to consider for constructing a syllabus. 1. Introduction. 2. Syllabus and curriculum A. Definition of syllabus B. Definition of curriculum C. Difference between syllabus and curriculum a. Basic difference b. Differences in detail approaches 3. Factors to construct a syllabus A. Type A: What is to be learn B. Type B. How is to be learn C. Van EK's necessary component D. Selection of the content E. Organization of the content F. Components to design a syllabus a. Set A b. Set B c....
will be provided, focus on current forms in learner output will be planned to coincide with the learner's stage of readiness to produce such forms. As yet, however, the kind of detailed evidence on which to base such a progression is lacking, although the accumulation of research may result in the evolution of new criteria for organizing language input to learners to avoid some of the learning problems, which appear to have arisen from syllabuses planned according to traditional criteria for structural sequencing. Anyway, a proper designed syllabus, followed by the accurate process, is the right path for the learners.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Shelley began writing 'Frankenstein' in the...Shelley began writing 'Frankenstein' in the company of what has been called 'her male coterie', including her lover Percy Shelley, Lord Byron and his physician John Polidori. It has been suggested that the influence of this group, and particularly that of Shelley and Byron, affected her portrayal of male characters in the novel. As Ann Campbell writes: '[The] characters and plot of Frankenstein reflect . . . Shelley's conflicted feelings about the masculine circle which surrounded her.' Certainly the male characters in 'Frankenstein' are more developed that those of the females. Elizabeth Fay has suggested that the female characters are 'idealised figures' in much of Shelley's work, particularly in the descriptions of Caroline and Elizabeth, the two mother figures in the novel. Caroline is, on surface value, a perfect parent, together with her husband, which renders Victor's irresponsibility in abandoning the creature more unforgivable. She 'possessed a mind of uncommon mould' which was also 'soft and benevolent'; she is compared to a 'fair exotic' flower which is sheltered by Alphonse; she drew 'inexhaustible stores of affection from a very mine of love to bestow' on Victor, and her 'tender caresses' are some of his 'first recollections'. She is the idealised mother, a figure that Shelley viewed wistfully, as her own mother died when she was ten days old to be replaced by a disinterested stepmother. Caroline's parenting provides the care that Frankenstein might well have lacked, had he been left to his father alone "“ his father dismisses Agrippa's work without explanation, thereby setting Victor on his course towards 'destruction'. This is the first introduction of a theme that continues throughout the book, that of the necessity for female figures in parenting and in society. Without a mother figure and left only with Frankenstein who subsumes both parental roles, the creature's life is blighted by his imperfection and lack of companionship. However, Caroline is also the trigger to Alfonse's chivalry, thus presenting him in an improved light and allowing his character to develop at the expense of her own weakness. This is a feminist comment from Shelley, whose mother Mary Wollenstonecraft was a notorious feminist and an important influence. Justine, too, is an 'idealised figure', described during the trial as having a countenance which, 'always engaging, was rendered, by the solemnity of her feelings, exquisitely beautiful.' She is the archetypal innocent, being beautiful, weak and entirely accepting of her fate to the point of martyrdom. She would doubtless incense feminists now, accepting death with equanimity ' "I am resigned to the fate awaiting me" ' at the hands of misjudging and dominant men. She is a somewhat two-dimensional character, being compliant in all things, enduring the mistreatment by her mother and not objecting to the injustice of her condemnation. In this sense she serves merely as a plot device, used to introduce the evil of the creature and to show Frankenstein's cowardice in refusing to defend her in time. Here she is another feminine figure used to further a male character's development, just as Caroline was used to develop the character of Alfonse. She is also a vehicle for Shelley's attack on the contemporary judiciary system, which explains her name. The character of Safie is used by Shelley as a direct attack on sexism. Safie is a stronger character than the other women in the novel, as she defies her father in escaping to join Felix. Shelley comments upon the state of 'bondage' inflicted on females in Islamic society at the time, which Safie objects to, encouraged to 'aspire to the higher powers of intellect, and an independence of spirit' by her mother. Shelley, in applauding this determination and self-respect on the part of women, is condemning a society which oppresses females and upholds males as superior. However, Safie is not merely used for this; she is also presented as a contrast to the creature, who is similarly separated from the De Laceys by a language barrier, but who can never be accepted by them because he lacks her 'angelic beauty'. She is an example of man's intolerance towards ugliness, as her beauty transcends the barrier of language whereas the creature's benevolence cannot. Elizabeth is the most 'idealised figure' of all the women in the novel, afforded the following romantic description: 'The saintly soul of Elizabeth shone like a shrine-dedicated lamp in our peaceful home . . . her smile, her soft voice, the sweet glance of her celestial eyes, were ever there to bless and animate us. She was the living spirit of love to soften and attract.' She is here made to transcend ordinary mortality to become 'celestial' and 'saintly'. This makes her death more appalling and triggers Victor's active fury, whereas the suffering of the innocent Justine did not. The base murder of 'the living spirit of love' can be said to be the creature's revenge against humankind, as the killing of something so natural and integral to humanity kills happiness with it. But whilst Elizabeth is assigned this pivotal role in the novel, she is in herself two-dimensional as a character, having no friends outside of the family and no interests save 'trifling occupations' within the household. She is content to wait for Victor, despite his long absences and frequent and serious depressions. She is the idealised woman at the time of the novel's setting, being submissive, supportive and beautiful. However, the character of Elizabeth can also serve a further purpose. It has been argued by several critics that Elizabeth is the creature's opposite, that she and he together make up Victor. She is his good half and the creature his bad. Both characters are orphans and heavily dependent on Victor. Elizabeth is beautiful, good and female, whereas the creature is ugly, evil and male. The blending of the two create Victor, who has robbed himself of gender by assuming both parental roles. It has been suggested by one critic that Victor has feminine characteristics, being 'sensitive, passionate about literature . . . and becom[ing] enamoured with [other men's] voice[s] and feelings'. This theory can be supported, in that Victor attributes to Elizabeth the ability to 'subdue [him] to a semblance of her own gentleness'. By contrast, the creature unfailingly enrages Victor, causing him to lose self-control and become violent. Whilst the feminine roles are flat and manipulated to affect the character and actions of the male roles, the latter are considerably more defined. As Elizabeth Fay writes, Shelley shows the 'realistic weaknesses and frailties' of men in the novel. Walton is presented as sexist and selfish, mocking his sister's fears for his safety in his opening sentence: 'You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings.' Margaret is an unsatisfactory audience, as he desires a companion 'whose eyes would reply to [his]'. This companion must necessarily be male, for how could a female possibly communicate adequately with him? However, despite this wish for male companionship, Walton possesses certain feminine characteristics, such as his distaste for violence: ' . . . my best years [having been] spent under your gentle and feminine fosterage, has so refined the groundwork of my character that I cannot overcome an intense distaste to the usual brutality exercised on board ship'. He writes adoringly of 'the stranger's' 'conciliating and gentle' manners, 'unparalleled eloquence', nobility and 'cultivated' mind. Walton's ambition to discover 'uncharted territories' is arrogant, as he desires to acquire 'dominion . . . over the elemental foes of our race'. He craves idolatry and power. Shelley introduces this here so that Walton's later failure towards the close of the novel is celebrated by the reader, who has understood that Victor's arrogance has caused devastation, whereas Walton has paid little heed and is bitter in his failure. Shelley is commenting on the stupidity of male hubris, which she 'sensed in the scientific ambitions of Romantics such as her husband,' as the critic James W. Maerten has suggested. Maerten writes also of Anthony Easthope, who has drawn: 'a circular fortress as a model of the . . . masculine ego. Ego . . . is entrapped in its own defences, unable to escape the barriers it has raised against a universe [which is] an enemy . . . The most praised . . . in our civilisation are those who can contain and control the most monstrous powers: biological pathogens, nuclear fission, toxic waste, vast armies. Such Promethean desires are ultimately the illusions of Icarus.' Victor's ego causes him to desire 'a new species' which would 'bless [him] as its creator and source'. He cannot control the monster that he creates, thereby losing his essential masculinity. His attempt to defy Nature and steal God's power for himself is as fatal as Icarus' stupidity in trying to do what man cannot. This male arrogance is introduced by Alphonse, who assumes the care of Caroline and renders her submissive in gratitude. The blatancy of the strong male and weak female roles here has been condemned by some, who suggest that the imposition of a male role on Victor is a form of filicide. This is responsible for his insecurity which in turn leads to his 'overreaching ego inflation'. A critic has argued that: 'Victor Frankenstein is compulsively self-destructive, driven by forces he cannot recognise to create a son by his own efforts and without the troublesome involvement of a woman . . . [upon which] he is horrified . . . and rejects the creature totally, thereby turning the son into the very monster whose existence he has always denied in himself.' It is possible to corroborate this view to some extent, as Victor's feminine qualities conflict with his identity as a man. Shelley was concerned with the issue of gender, as in her novel 'The Last Man' she created an essentially genderless character, Lionel Verney, and discussed how he only acknowledged his gender when he viewed himself in a mirror. His reflection told him that he was an English gentleman, but without this empirical perception he had no such identity. Elizabeth Fay writes of him that he is a 'feminised ideal', 'combining masculine and feminine traits in such a way as to confute traditional notions of gender'. Robert W. Anderson writes that: 'Frankenstein's creature embodies gender transgression on two levels . . . the first being [his] status as being a surgically constructed male, the second being Victor's non-gender transgression in co-opting the female trait of reproduction, transforming his laboratory into a virtual womb.' The creature has no real gender, despite being created physically as a male. He is denied male dominance over females by Victor, who has made him too ugly to be accepted into human society and then destroys the female mate that he had partially made for him. The creature, like Victor, has feminine characteristics, being profoundly affected by literature and nature, and being sensitive to emotion. He is made male only so that there can be no sexual overtones in the relationship between himself and Victor, and the battle between them can be physical and violent as well as rhetorical. The absence of femininity in the making of the creature is its integral flaw. Despite all of Victor's efforts to make the creature perfect, it will ultimately be ugly, because it is unnatural for a male alone to reproduce. Beauty cannot result of only masculinity. Shelley is condemning a single father in this. The death of her mother left her to the care of her father, whom she adored. He often neglected her, leaving her feeling unwanted. The lack of grief on the part of her husband as their babies died augmented this conviction in men's inability to care for children alone. This reinforces her message throughout the novel of the necessity for women in society. Shelley was forced to ask her husband to claim to be the author of the novel, as women were not accepted as writers at the time. Men alone in science and education are fallible, as she suggested in making Frankenstein's experiment so disastrous. Therefore the oppression of women at the time was irrational and arrogant. Frankenstein represents flawed masculinity, as an example of a society without women. Shelley manipulated masculine and feminine gender identities in her novel to try and persuade her audience that men alone cannot create, whether it be children or art.   

Shelley began writing 'Frankenstein' in the company of what has been called 'her male coterie', including her lover Percy Shelley, Lord Byron and his physician John Polidori. It has been suggested that the influence of this group, and particularly that of Shelley and Byron, affected her portrayal of male characters...

Words: 2083 View(s): 130 Comment(s): 0
Every fortnight I was faced with...Every fortnight I was faced with the taunting experience of retrieving the eggs and every fortnight the task became more and more daring. Each morning at Nonis grandmother house a war between the chickens and I emerged from the normally silent yard, a war that separated all good from the world and emphasized death, destruction and danger. Every morning at Nonis house the boy that I was turned into a manly structure, ready for battle. The sun beamed through the old wooden shutters as the light splashed across his dormant eyes, beckoning him to awaken and absorb the early morning warmth. Each ray of light produced a comforting sensation persuading the boy to emerge from his overnight coma and venture out beneath the newborn sun. The warmth soon turned to a chill as a noise from the far corner of the backyard seized everything that was pleasant. The chicken sounds were calling him, reminding him of his duty"¦..tempting him. Awakening very slowly the boy began to prepare himself for battle, just the way his grandfather had told of his experiences. The boy began to prepare himself both physically and mentall, knowing that one mistake could be the difference between failure and success. The young boy was ready and the beast that lived inside of him was to be exposed to a morning of frightful duties. The young boy was now the beast and the beast was the young boy and with the two minds combined a war was about to begin. He marched with enormous confidence until he reached the large back door that was the gateway to either treasures or torment. A fear inside him was released as he opened the door and proceeded with his mission to recover the prized treasure. He had all senses alert and functioning, ready for any enemy attack from the large, distrustful chickens. His knees and elbows slid along the wet dew of the morning grass like a snake carefully maneuvering its body, hiding from any danger. In front of him was a large cluster of grapevines that blocked any vision or path towards the enemies" barracks. There was no way around the large tangled knot, as this method would expose his route of attack to the enemy. Having no other option the cunning boy had no choice but to go through the vines. His body becoming a large grapevine, ducking and weaving through the tangled domain. The vines did not appreciate his presence and every meter he gained a new gash tore open the bare skin on his legs. He sensed the pressure build as he reached the forefront of the enemy barracks. Before him was a large rusted structure which foreshadowed any positive aspects which had arisen from the attack. The enemy headquarters oozed with a vibe of danger and evil. He decided not to turn back and thus moved onwards. His mission was established and all his knowledge and expertise was then crafted into an attempt to conquer what was rightfully his. He slowly invaded the enemy fortress that was covered by a wide expanse of rust and debree. Slowly and quietly he maneuvered his way around the shed, carefully he did not to make any sudden movements or sounds so as to alert the enemy. He held his position momentarily and observed if there was any movement evident inside the enemy fortress. He stalked the enemy and he felt the enemy stalking him. He then reached the opening of the fortress. A large corrugated iron door separated the young boy from victory and this large barrier to entry was an unexpected obstacle and delay. The door was so big that the latch to grant access into the disgusting pit was not accessible. His plans were disrupted and so he used all of his knowledge to overcome this unexpected occurrence. There wasn"t into the fortress and this small dilemma began to be extremely costly time-wise. Due to this loss in time my enemy slowly began to gain advantage over me and I knew that I had to act quickly in order to save my mission. In the far bottom corner of the shed I could see a small opening. Obviously my enemy also had flaws in his defence and I quickly took advantage of this. Squeezing through the hole was quite difficult and painful. The sharp rusted edges of the corrugated iron grinded through my skin and tore away my clothes leaving large wounds which needed treatment. Treatment, however, was unavailable in this time of dangerous battle so there was no option but to continue my mission, keeping strong thoughts throughout. Entering the shed a foul stench filled the surrounding atmosphere and released foul toxins that began to effect my alertness and consciousness. The combination of wet chickens and fresh faeces were the enemies" main source of attack. Each breath I took had to be restricted because of the foul smell which engulfed the atmosphere around me. I had to overcome this restraint on my body and continue on. Although remaining strong I was still feared by the enemy, who I could sense was close. Entering a small hidden room I could see a white figure sitting in a large basket covered with shadows of hell. Looking over to the monstrous creature I could see it watching me"¦waiting for me"¦.ready to attack. I was in the creature"s territory and this was a major disadvantage so I had to use all of my knowledge and skill to minimise the disadvantage. I was within three meters of the enemy now and my body began to react in ways which were uncontrollable. I could not breathe nor move and even in this stagmented state I was beginning to tremble and sweat, my heart beating helplessly"¦.self-possessed. My only hope was to use military power against this beast because every minute I waited the creature gained an advantage over me. Both the chicken and I knew this was so. Calmly, I reached into my back pocket and pulled out the weapon to victory, a fully systematic super soaker two hundred ready to end this war of wars. Focusing my scope I had the chicken in view and my sniper skills were about to be unleashed. I had the edge over my enemy. Now the enemy was the prey and I was the predator. My mind was focused and with one swift action I enforced a bodily blow to the enemy, sending screeches of help from the struggling victim. The chicken looked into my eyes and deep into its eyes I could see red flames, symbolising a fury of hatred. The chicken now only had attack in its mind and it slowly stumbled towards me for the kill. Anticipating it"s every move I unleashed a second blow to the head of the chicken, sending it into shock. The enemy lay helplessly on the floor pleading for its life. It was now a fight against time to find the treasure, before new lines of attack arrived. Treasure and victory were my main objectives now. Leaping and hoping towards the basket I could see a white glow that flowed over the rims of the basket. Picking up the treasure created a wonderful sensation. The smooth curves rubbed against my hands leaving no scratches or marks but a warm silky feeling. The dark surroundings were lightened by the luminous light which the object possessed. My cold hands were soon created into warm pads of delicacy by the inner scorch that the treasure pulsated. Thoughts of victory and success emerged in my mind and with a small teardrop emerging I called this treasure my EGG. The war had been won. It was now time to return home and once again face the family I had missed so much during battle.   

Every fortnight I was faced with the taunting experience of retrieving the eggs and every fortnight the task became more and more daring. Each morning at Nonis grandmother house a war between the chickens and I emerged from the normally silent yard, a war that separated all good from the...

Words: 1308 View(s): 128 Comment(s): 0
King Oedipus is a play in...King Oedipus is a play in which the protagonist, attempts to find the cause of a sickness affecting the city of Thebes. The process through which Oedipus uncovers the details of the disease directly parallels the process used by the television show House M.D, in which Dr. House unravels complex mysteries surrounding a patient's sickness. Dr. House's method of uncovering information is extremely unorthodox--he threatens and manipulates anyone who can help him, often becoming obsessed with solving the medical puzzle. Oedipus follows in the same direction, becoming hell bent on finding the origin of the sickness, assaulting those who withhold information from him and dismissing anyone who opposes him. The mental and physical likeness of the two characters was instrumental in the decision of depicting Oedipus as Dr. House. Scripting was essential in making the theme of the rendition obvious to the audience, as it established the medical tone, aided each actor's portrayal of his or her character and helped determine the look of the play. The scripting of the play was used to mimic the tone of House M.D. The initial script served as a rough outline for the entire production and thus established the overall tone of the play. The first step was to locate any lines dealing with the issue of sickness and emphasise the scenes in which the cause of the sickness is discussed. As a result, the opening lines pertained to the sickness and helped establish the medical theme: "What is the meaning of these prayers for the healing of pain?" Sophocles 25. It was also necessary to sustain the consistency of the medical references and eliminate irrelevant dialogue. To achieve this characters had to written out of the script. The first example of this is the Priest, who was replaced by Creon to create a scene of fast paced dialogue between Oedipus and Creon, again mimicking House M.D's technique of discussing an illness. By selectively choosing lines, Oedipus' egotistical nature became more apparent, thus making it more obvious to the audience that Oedipus was meant to be Dr.House. This process placed emphasis on lines spoken by Oedipus, as his self-proclaimed talent was an identifying mark of hubris--a tragic flaw that both Dr.House and Oedipus constantly display: "You have prayed; and your prayers shall be answered if you will obey me" Sophocles 31; "I have saved this land from ruin. I am content." Sophocles 37; "No god will speak for me." Sophocles 68. Dr.House, much like Oedipus, only displays true hubris during social conflict, when his real thoughts become apparent. uphold Oedipus' arrogant attitude and maintain conflict, it was again necessary to drastically shorten the lines of miscellaneous characters, as they had little or no conflict with Oedipus. For Jocasta Dr.Cuddy in House M.D, Oedipus' wife, it was essential to eliminate much of the dialogue between her and Oedipus that was non-confrontational; the resulting scene between the two characters is much more edgy and engaging as Oedipus and Jocasta exchange remarks in a manner similar to those between Dr.House and Dr.Cuddy: "JOCASTA: For the love of God, believe it, Oedipus!/ OEDIPUSangered: And why should I repent?" Sophocles 43. Jocasta's limited role had another purpose: due to a lack of actors, Jocasta had to be played by an outside helper, thus it was easier for her to be written as an off-stage character. The conflict between the two of them helped to give Jocasta some dominance and masked the fact that she was physically missing. Lastly, the initial scripting included brackets to indicate how a certain line should be delivered, often to emphasise a certain aspect of House M.D. For example, Oedipus is indicated to say certain lines in a bitter voice, as would Dr.House: "OEDIPUSbitter: And while you suffer, none suffers more than I!" Sophocles 27. The initial scripting gave the group a rough outline of what was to be said, but even more important was the way the lines were to be delivered. Each actor had to find a way to portray his or her character that would give a clear resemblance to his or her House M.D counterpart. Of utmost importance was the tone and emotion used to deliver each line. Manish, who played Oedipus, had to use tone to twist the original meaning of lines, changing heartfelt or sympathetic statements into cruel and sarcastic taunts: "What is the matter? Something you fear? Something you desire?/ I would willingly do anything to help you" Sophocles 25. A sarcastic tone is characteristic of Dr.House and perfectly establishes Oedipus' personality as sadistic. It also serves the purpose of establishing Oedipus as the dominant character as he makes other characters seem inferior while also entertaining the audience, building a bond between the audience and Oedipus. Manish also used a range of emotions in his delivery, as Oedipus' choleric nature has him constantly yelling and threatening other characters. The quick temper exhibited showed a clear link to Dr. House, who often loses his temper when confronted: "OEDIPUS: Answer! If I must speak again, you die!" Sophocles 57. The temper also engaged the audience and helped maintain the conflict that was the backbone of the play. Jenny, who played the part of Jocasta, had to be extremely careful in her delivery, as she was an offstage character. To show the depth of her character, Jenny had to change from standing up to Oedipus to being affectionate towards him, just as Dr. Cuddy does to Dr. House. Jenny used a loud dominant tone at first, then slowly begin using a wavering and desperate tone as her character became more worried about Oedipus: "JOCASTA: What is the meaning of this loud argument, you quarrelsome men?" Sophocles 43; "JOCASTA: No! In God"s name-if you want to live, this quest must not go on!/ I implore you, do not do it" Sophocles 55. Kazi, who played Teiresias, used a strong and whimsical tone to establish his character's wise nature. Kazi was chosen to play the prophet because his deep voice made him excellent as opposing Oedipus. He utilized his deep voice to establish dominance and make it clear to the audience that he was not going to be overcome by Oedipus, proving himself to be the first character to stand up against Oedipus: "TEIRESIAS: I tell no more. Rage with what wrath you will." Sophocles 35. Finally, Saad was chosen to be Creon. Visually, he made an excellent counterpart to Oedipus, as he was taller, had a clean-shaven look and appeared very sly. His inquisitive and rational tone was used to deflect the anger present in many of Oedipus' remarks, making the audience consider who was right: "CREON: Reason with yourself, would any man exchange a quiet life"¦for an uneasy throne?". His rational arguments are reminiscent of those put forward by Dr. House's closest friend, Dr. Wilson. At the end of the play, Saad exhibited his sly nature by showing that he shared many of the same qualities as Oedipus, using extreme sarcasm and being extremely condescending towards Oedipus: "CREON: I am not here to scoff at your fall,/ Nor yet to reproach you for your past misdeeds" Sophocles 65. Once each actor decided how he or she wanted to portray his or her character, it was necessary to revisit the script and make numerous changes adhering to the new personality of the character. Each actor's varied use of tone and emotion helped establish the theme of the play while also enhancing the performance. While the scripting and delivery of the play made subtle allusions to House M.D and cleverly paralleled the characters of the show, the look of the play and the appearance of the characters was the most blatant way of making the audience understand the theme. The characters' clothing was the most blunt and direct form of recognition for the audience, thus it had to be carefully planned. To represent Dr. House, Manish wore classic jeans with a dress shirt and a blazer. To make it even more obvious, he used a cane--Dr. House's signature prop--and a bottle of pills. To create the setting of a hospital, many of the characters were dressed like doctors. Saad, depicting Dr. Wilson, wore a lab coat and carried a stethoscope. Brendan and Shivon, meant to be Dr. House's team, both wore lab coats and stuck together, speaking in turns to establish that they were a team. To further show that it was a hospital, a small waiting room was added at the end of the stage, with several extras reading magazines while waiting for a doctor. At the other end of the stage was Dr. House's desk, where Manish used the blackboard to write out the symptoms of an illness, exactly as it seen on House M.D. The look of the play was detrimental to the tone of the play: the lab coats made the discussion of the illness seem much more serious and the congregation of doctors made the quest of searching for a cure plausible. Before any of the visuals were used, a distinguished audio clip was used--the theme song of House M.D. The clip was again an effort to mirror House M.D, but was also used to build tension in the audience. Another important factor of the play was the stage direction. The characters went back and forth across the stage, constantly utilizing different parts of the stage to give the play a moving feel, as House M.D often refuses to stay in one location for more than a few minutes. The look of the play was the easiest way for the audience to realise what the theme of the play was and was executed carefully to give as many visual clues as possible. Scripting was a dynamic process that was constantly altered to keep up with any changes made to the play. Although it was most first used to establish tone, secondly used to accentuate character and used minimally for the look of the play, the significance of each of these elements occurs in the reverse order. That is to say, the look of the play was the most important, as it immediately clarified the theme. Once the blatant visual techniques made the audience obvious to the theme, the audience had a chance to understand the portrayals of the characters and finally was able to follow the subtle scripting parallels. It is impossible to separate each element into when it was considered, since they are all interdependent: throughout the development of the script, the portrayal of the characters is heavily pondered as is the overall look of the play. Similarly, the final portrayal of each character is only perfected through scripting changes and visual decisions. The theme of the rendition was excellently clarified throughout the play because each of the aspects was skilfully interconnected through use of flexible scripting.  

King Oedipus is a play in which the protagonist, attempts to find the cause of a sickness affecting the city of Thebes. The process through which Oedipus uncovers the details of the disease directly parallels the process used by the television show House M.D, in which Dr. House unravels complex...

Words: 1848 View(s): 182 Comment(s): 0
Hamlet, one of Shakespeare's tragic plays,...Hamlet, one of Shakespeare's tragic plays, portrays the story of a young man's quest to avenge his murdered father and his quest to find his true identity. In his soliloquies, Prince Hamlet reveals to the readers his personal perceptions of the events that take place in his homeland, Denmark, and of which are either indirectly or directly tied to his father's murder. Many critics and scholars agree that while Hamlet's soliloquies reveal the search of his identity and true character, his soliloquies universally illustrate man's search for his true identity. The first soliloquy of Hamlet takes place early in the play, and Hamlet expresses his lachrymose feelings to the reader and how he wishes that God "had not fixed his cannon 'gainst self-slaughter." He explains that only two months after his father's death, his mother "married with my uncle, my father's brother, but no more like my father than I to Hercules." While Hamlet does not examine his identity or character immediately, he illustrates the cause of his sorrow. Hamlet also contrasts his father from his uncle saying that they have nothing in common like he does to Hercules. This could be an underlying denouncement of his own character, and by contrasting himself to Hercules "“ a symbol of strength in both body and mind, he suggests that he lacks self-worth or self-esteem. Nevertheless, it is apparent to the reader that Hamlet is suicidal, as he contemplates it within the first line of the soliloquy. In his next soliloquy Hamlet reveals his conflict: he knows he must avenge his father, but he hesitates to commit pre-meditated murder. He calls himself a "rogue and peasant slave" and states that he, the "player in a fiction, in a dream of passion," is not hastened to his cause, and "can say nothing for a king upon whose property and most dear life a damned defeat was made." He condemns himself and asks: "Am I a coward? Who calls me villain? Breaks my pate across? Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face? I should take it; for it cannot be but I am pigeon-livered." But in justification to himself, he exclaims that he shall strike a play - a reenactment of his father's murder, and he states: "The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." In his soliloquy, Hamlet derives his feelings of himself as a coward because he, "the son of a dear father murdered, prompted to revenge by heaven and hell," does nothing to avenge his father. What Hamlet fails to see is the fact that he is a teenager, a man in adolescence. In his mature, adult mind, he knows that he must avenge his father, but there lives an innocent child in his conscience who does not want to commit murder; and Hamlet perceives this as cowardice. It seems as though Hamlet is struggling with what he knows he must do, and actually doing it. While instead of pursuing his father's revenge, he lets his emotions dictate his actions in this case, his lack of action. So, in self-justification, he tucks away his apprehension and decides to seek proof of Claudius's murder of Hamlet's father. Furthermore, Hamlet is beginning to question his identity as a "pigeon-livered coward." What is more noteworthy, however, is that both soliloquies exhibit Hamlet to be an immature boy, as he speaks on impulses of emotion, rather than logic itself. Next, in one of the most famous soliloquies in the English language, Hamlet again contemplates the subject of suicide, but he does not do so on impulses of emotion. Instead, his contemplation is based on reason. "To be or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer outrageous fortune"¦or end them. To die, to sleep- no more- and by a sleep to say we end the heartache"¦'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time"¦who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought"¦and loses the name of action." In this soliloquy, Hamlet philosophizes about the right of one to take one's own life. While scholars believe that Hamlet is contemplating about taking his own life, it is noteworthy to mention that he says nothing that suggests that he, as an individual is thinking of taking his own life. He uses the words "we," "us," and the indefinite "who." Therefore, he must be referring to humanity as a whole. While Hamlet is not directly attempting to find his identity, he evidences his maturity to the reader by philosophizing, instead of merely speaking on emotion alone. Hamlet also concludes that humans are afraid to take their own life because of their fear of the unknown. Thus, he is indirectly finding his identity, by identifying simple, human nature "“ and with this identification, he brings himself one step closer to knowing himself. With his final soliloquy, Hamlet finds his identity, and decides that he will carry out his vengeance upon Claudius. First he answers his question to himself: "What is a man, in his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more." As he continues to speak, it becomes evident to the reader that Hamlet realizes his faults as a character because he says: "Now, whether it be bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple of thinking too precisely on th' event "“ I do not know why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do,' since I have cause, and will, and strength, and means to do't." Hamlet, after witnessing the loyalty of Fortinbras's troops toward their cause, asks himself: "How stand I then, that have a father killed, a mother stained, excitements of my reason and my blood, while to my shame I see twenty thousand men fight for a plot?" And after this he declares "from this time forth my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" Finally, after contemplations, philosophizing, and searching for his purpose and identity, it seems that Hamlet understands himself as a person. He confronts his apprehension, and after witnessing a horde of men fighting for a single cause, Hamlet undergoes a revelation of his purpose "“ to avenge his father. With the search for his identity over, Hamlet's whole position in the chain of events transforms from reluctant to immerse with cravings for revenge. In conclusion, Hamlet's soliloquies illustrate the search for his identity. With every soliloquy, Hamlet's maturity increases, and undergoes a change from an impulsive child to a fate-accepting adult. Furthermore, every soliloquy exhibits Hamlet's feelings of insecurity with himself, except the final soliloquy. It is in his final speech that Hamlet accepts himself for who he is, and determines that he is Hamlet, a revenge-seeking prince on a quest for his father's vengeance.   

Hamlet, one of Shakespeare's tragic plays, portrays the story of a young man's quest to avenge his murdered father and his quest to find his true identity. In his soliloquies, Prince Hamlet reveals to the readers his personal perceptions of the events that take place in his homeland, Denmark, and...

Words: 1236 View(s): 162 Comment(s): 0