Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
In this essay I will be looking at two stories one written in the nineteenth century "The signalman" and the other in the twentieth century "Lamb to the Slaughter". I will look at these two stories and compare all the similarities and differences between them, especially in terms of style, content and language. At the beginning of Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter" Dahl sets the scene very well by using a lot of adjectives, this gives the reader a better description of where and when the story is set "the room was warm and clean the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight "“ hers and the one by the empty chair opposite." "There was a slow smiling air about her" From these quotes we can see that Dahl has set the scene and it is happy and relaxed. At the beginning of "The Signalman" Dickens begins with speech, this makes you want to read on I think, he also uses the narrator to make the story more interesting. These are two very different ways of beginning a story, the readers expectation depends on how they interpret the beginning but I think that Dahl tried to make the reader ask them self who is this woman waiting why is she so happy, but Dickens on the other hand wants the reader to think who is this shouting who is this person telling the story, both beginnings make you want to read on. Dahl creates suspense by building the scene and using a lot of adjectives, this helps build up the suspense very well. Dickens builds suspense by keeping the characters very secretive so the reader is always asking questions so they will read on this I think is a very good way of building suspense. We aren't told what Patrick says to Mary in "Lamb to the Slaughter" because this would be a bit of a predictable story, I think not being told also creates more suspense. Where "Lamb to the slaughter" is set at home adds to the story it is homely but at the same time deadly because anything can happen behind closed doors "the room was warm and clean the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight "“ hers and the one by the empty chair opposite." "The Signalman" is set in a valley like place on a train track this sets a scary mood because down there anything could happen "his post was in as solitary and dismal a place as ever I saw". Both of the stories were written at different times "Lamb to the Slaughter" in the twentieth century and "The signalman" in the nineteenth century so the styles are very different. "Lamb to the slaughter" is written in the third person and so there is lots of direct speech, but "The Signalman is written in the first person and so there is not really any direct speech. I think direct speech is better and adds more to the story. I think the language used by Dickens, because it is older makes the story more eerie. The stories do have different purposes I think they both have morals but they are very different in the way that I think Dahl wrote his story with a moral but also made the story funny to prove that not all stories have to be serious to have a moral. On the other hand, Dickens wrote his story to warn people. Dickens didn't support new technology like trains and so wanted to warn people about the terrible tragedies that could happen. Dahl, on the other hand, wanted to express that even if you love someone they can still make you angry enough to kill them. I think both of the authors use the same sort of main characters even though the stories were completely different! Both of the characters had been very nervous and unsure about themselves. I think the authors used violence and death to put across their stories because it grabs people's attention and makes them think about what is going on in the stories. I don't think it is very important that the stories are written in the First person or the third person "she might as well have hit him with a steel club" "I was not sure, I told him that I did fully understand" these ways of telling the story are just as good as each other. Dickens wrote about a train killing someone because people were afraid of trains in those days, in 1866 trains were relatively a new invention. Dickens didn't support new technology and trains so in his story he could express his dislike for train and warm people of what they could do. Dahl's massage had more of a moral to it the concerns about the rights and wrongs murder. He used Mary Maloney as an example that murder is a spur of the moment thing and you can even use the anger to hurt someone you love. This shows that both writers suggested in their stories that new technology is not always helpful for example trains, forensic science-finger printing etc. For the time we are in now Dahl is more up to date and writes for a more modern audience and often his work is written for television and radio, he would assume that his readers would know what a typical household would look like because they would have seem many on the television. This is because Dahl's story was written in 1979 when the TV and radon had been invented "she carried it upstairs, holding the thin bone-end of it with both her hands, and she went through the living room she saw him." This quote does not use a lot of description about what the living room and stairs etc looked like because it would be the same as on TV every other suburban household. Dickens wrote his story in a lot more detail because people only had access to books and written words they would need to build a picture of this story in their imaginations, and because this story was a ghost story this would have thrilled and excited them. Televisions were not invented when this story was written in 1866 "there was a fire, a desk for an official book in which he had to make certain entries, a telegraphic instrument with its dial, face, and needles, and a little bell of which he had spoken." This quote uses a lot of description because if you had a TV you would have probably seen an example of a signalman box or a little hut before but because the television hadn't been invented Dickens had to use a lot of description. I have found the difference between these two stories are, "The signalman" is supernatural "Lamb to the Slaughter" is not, both writers have a serious but different purpose for writing their stories, both writers suggest that modern science and technology don't give you all the answers in life, both have central characters who have seem to have "lost their minds", both writers involve violence and death in their stories to draw the readers attention, and the ending to both stories had a twist which in both of the stories I did not expect. "Lamb to the Slaughter" is very funny but at the same time ends on a cliff hanger, but "The signalman" is not really a cliff hanger but leaves you thinking.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1256 Views: 173 Comments: 0
In this essay I will be looking at two stories one written in the nineteenth century "The signalman" and the other in the twentieth century "Lamb to the Slaughter". I will look at these two stories and compare all the similarities and differences between them, especially in terms of style, content and language. At the beginning of Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter" Dahl sets the scene very well by using a lot of adjectives, this gives the reader a better description of where and when the story is set "the room was warm and clean the curtains drawn, the...
but different purpose for writing their stories, both writers suggest that modern science and technology don't give you all the answers in life, both have central characters who have seem to have "lost their minds", both writers involve violence and death in their stories to draw the readers attention, and the ending to both stories had a twist which in both of the stories I did not expect. "Lamb to the Slaughter" is very funny but at the same time ends on a cliff hanger, but "The signalman" is not really a cliff hanger but leaves you thinking.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Arthur Miller was born in 1915...Arthur Miller was born in 1915 in New York. He was a playwright whose work discussed significant social issues, giving the reader a deep insight into his characters' feelings. He died on February 11th 2005. In 'A View From The Bridge', Eddie Carbone is a middle-aged Sicilian-American longshoreman who lives with his wife Beatrice and his 18 year old niece Catherine. They live in a two bedroom apartment in a slum area. They don't have very much money and Eddie speaks non-standard English. Early in the book the reader gets the impression that Eddie is a hard-working man who is trying to earn enough money to provide for his wife and niece. Although Catherine is the 18 year old niece of Eddie, at the beginning of the story the reader gets the feeling that Catherine is treated as Eddie's little girl. Catherine was born in America with a slight Sicilian-American accent. She wants to leave school having been chosen out of many girls to be a stenographer for a plumbing company. Catherine is put in a difficult situation by Eddie because some of his actions suggest he may be sexually attracted to her, but Catherine falls in love with illegal immigrant Rodolpho. There are many dramatic mini scenes in Act 1. In one of them Rodolpho sings in front of everyone. This causes tension between Eddie, Rodolpho, Catherine, Beatrice and Marco. Eddie says "“'He's like a chorus girl or sump'm'. Eddie is saying that Rodolpho isn't normal and that he might be homosexual. This is very insulting and Eddie showing his dislike for Rodolpho even though he has only just met him. Eddie's rudeness towards Rodolpho makes Catherine annoyed and Miller writes "“ Embarrassed now, angered, Catherine goes into the bedroom... she gives Eddie a cold look, restrained only by strangers. The audience can see from Catherine's face and body language that she isn't very happy with Eddie and the tension this creates. The mini-scene continues with further tension from a disagreement between Eddie and Beatrice as they argue about Catherine. Eddie also says "“ 'You mean it's all right with you? That's gonna be her husband?' He is asking Beatrice whether she would be happy if Rodolpho married Catherine because Eddie obviously doesn't like him. This argument makes Beatrice say "“'When am I gonna be a wife again'. Eddie and Beatrice are going through a hard time and Beatrice feels that Eddie isn't treating her like he is supposed to. Eddie's reaction to Beatrice's comments is "“'I can't talk about it'. Eddie is becoming tense by Beatrice pestering him and doesn't know how to respond to her questions. The row results in Eddie not bothering to look at or touch Beatrice. The reader can see this from Miller's stage directions where he puts "“she tries to turn him to her"¦he keeps his head turned away. Miller, from this stage direction, makes the reader appreciate that Eddie is annoyed. Miller also writes "“Eddie"¦ his face puffed with trouble, and the room dies. Eddie is being very negative and this is frustrating other characters. Miller creates tension from his dialogue and from his stage directions as facial expressions they describe the characters body language. In act two Eddie's presence on stage has a profound effect on the other characters. Miller has presented Eddie in this way through his choice of dialogue and specific stage directions. The tension between Eddie and the other characters grows after he sees Rodolpho emerge from Catherine's room with Catherine. Miller states "“ Eddie sees him and his arm jerks slightly in shock. He puts this to illustrate to the reader that Eddie is obviously quite surprised and angry. At the time Eddie is a bit drunk and he throws himself at Catherine and kisses her on the lips. Miller writes "“ he reaches out suddenly, draws her to him, and as she strives to free herself he kisses her on the mouth. This action could be as a result of Eddie having inappropriate feelings for her or it may be a last ditch effort to stop Catherine from leaving because he can't accept that she isn't his little girl anymore. Rodolpho shouts at him "“ 'Stop that! Have respect for her!' Rodolpho eventually manages to pull Eddie off her and Eddie turns round to face Rodolpho. Rodolpho then says "“ 'She'll be my wife. That is what I want my wife. My wife!' The use of the exclamation marks shows the passion in Rodolpho's voice and contributes to creating dramatic tension. This infuriates Eddie even more and he teases Rodolpho who tries to attack Eddie, but Eddie lunges towards Rodolpho and kisses him on the lips. Miller says "“ Rodolpho flies at him in attack. Eddie pins his arms, laughing, and suddenly kisses him. A motive for kissing Rodolpho could be an attempt to prove to Catherine that Rodolpho is homosexual. The above stage directions in this mini scene are designed to achieve visual tension among the characters describing physical contact and body language especially that of Eddie so that the audience can fully appreciate the growing nature of his relationships with Catherine and Rodolpho. Events in act two build up to the tragic climax. In this mini scene Eddie reports Rodolpho and Marco to the Immigration Bureau who take them away and it is widely believed that Eddie was the person that reported them. When Catherine tells Eddie that she and Rodolpho are getting married Eddie tries to make her rethink her decision. He pleads "“ 'Katie, wait a minute'. But Catherine responds with "“ 'No, I made up my mind.' Even now, after everything that has happened before, Eddie doesn't want Catherine to leave. Even though Eddie is against the marriage he tries to get Marco and Rodolpho out of the house before the Immigration Bureau arrive. He becomes worried and anxious. He says nervously "“ 'Catherine! What're you, got no brains? You put them up there with two other submarines?' Miller also states "“ In a driving fright and anger, to describe the way Eddie was acting. Catherine moved Marco and Rodolpho to an apartment upstairs where Eddie knew the Immigration Bureau could find them. Eddies newly found care for Rodolpho and Marco meant that when the Immigration Bureau knocked on the door they all knew it was Eddie who had reported them. Miller writes "“ 'A knock on the door. His head swerves. They all stand motionless.' Eddie does what he can to make Marco and Rodolpho avoid being caught by the Immigration Bureau but it was too little too late. Miller also puts "“'Catherine stands motionless, uncomprehending"¦she stands a moment staring at him in realized horror.' This stage direction visualises for the reader the dramatic tension, it shows that Catherine knew what Eddie had done and that she was shocked and surprised that even Eddie would report them after he had constantly told her how it was against the Sicilian Code of Honour. In this mini scene Miller skilfully via his stage directions used the lack of motion to create tension. Eddies actions in act two are against everything that he was saying in act one and his jealousy makes him commit an unforgivable crime against his family and the Sicilian community. In act one he was telling Catherine how it is against the Sicilian Code of Honour to report an illegal immigrant under any circumstances. When Beatrice was describing a boy that once reported his uncle she said "“ 'He had five brothers and the old father"¦ and they pulled him down the stairs "“ three flights his head was bouncing like a coconut.' At the time this play was set, late 1940s, it wasn't acceptable to be homosexual and in act one Eddie makes it sound like being homosexual was almost as bad as breaking the Sicilian Code of Honour. Yet in act two he kisses Rodolpho. I think 'A View From The Bridge' is a very interesting book as it raises social issues that are still relevant today and it shows the difficult decisions a Sicilian American, such as Eddie, had to make in the late 1940s.   

Arthur Miller was born in 1915 in New York. He was a playwright whose work discussed significant social issues, giving the reader a deep insight into his characters' feelings. He died on February 11th 2005. In 'A View From The Bridge', Eddie Carbone is a middle-aged Sicilian-American longshoreman who lives...

Words: 1373 View(s): 260 Comment(s): 0
In this Play the inspector plays...In this Play the inspector plays various roles. He plays a socialist as he is against capitalist views and because he is not just looking out for himself but others as well. Also he is known to be a catalyst as he brings a split in the Birling family. He plays a ghost as we find out he is not real. Additionally he plays a fraud because he is not a real inspector, but he does act as an Inspector. The inspector adds a great deal of tension and drama to the play. Priestley does this because he brings tension between the younger generation consisting of Sheila and Eric and the older generation consisting of Gerald, Mrs. Birling and Birling because of the inspector. Priestley uses the inspector as a substitute of him self to put his socialist points across this adds drama because we have to think about what he is trying to do. The four Birlings and Gerald are happily seated around the dinner table having an enjoyable night celebrating Sheila and Gerald"s engagement. All of them are feeling happy and are comfortable and relaxed and do not seem to have a care in the world but all of that is about to change. The scene is set in 1912, which is a pre war time. Also this is the time when the suffragettes were fighting for women"s rights. Additionally this was the time that the Titanic was built. The unsinkable ship, which ironically sank, would set sail in a week"s time. The life that the Birlings live is very nice and easy but Priestley is showing how great things always end in disaster like the evening they are having. This is also ironic as he starts by telling us how the Titanic was unsinkable and it ended and just like he will go on to tell us how the Birling"s lives are good at the moment but this will soon come to an end. The story does have some relevance to the early nineties even if the novel it was written in 1945. All these points are there to remind us of how not all good things last and how we should all look out for each other and not just for ourselves. An example is "We are members of one body," said the inspector. This shows us that the inspector is enforcing the point of being part of one community and that we should look out for one and other. This also shows the link of how the inspector could just be Priestley in another form such as a ghost. I believe that Priestley is reminding us to look out for each other just in case any major wars happen and we have to rely on each other so that"s maybe why he is enforcing this. When the inspector first enters the stage the atmosphere changes but not a great deal on first sight of the inspector. The inspector does not appear to be a big man but he does make him self appear strong and confident. He gives an impression that he will destroy them if they toy with him. Sheila changes the way she thinks and decides from now on she is going to be good. She has come to this decision as a result of the influence the inspector has had on her. His socialist views have been understood by Sheila and have changed her because she is going to start to care for other people. For example "whoever that inspector was it was anything but a joke. You knew it then. You began to learn something. And now you"ve stopped," said Sheila. This shows us that the Inspector really has influenced Sheila and she has learnt something from what he is trying to say. Also she is showing the divide between the Birlings when they find out the inspector was not real as they now will not take responsibility for the death of Eva Smith but the youngsters will. The Inspector creates a split between the family by dividing the younger and older generations. He is a catalyst because he divides the family and makes them angry at each other. Gerald and Sheila will not get married because of the inspector"s visit. Birling may not get his knighthood because of the visit from the inspector may cause a scandal. All these things are the effects of the Inspector"s visit. All Priestley is trying to do is make everyone take responsibility for their actions, for example what he is doing to the Birlings. By doing this it makes the audience feel like they need to do the same thing but not act like the older generation of the Birlings but act like the younger generation. Near the end of the play the inspector is thought to be a fraud. The Birlings have various reasons to believe this. There was no information about him and he did not tell us anything about himself when he introduces him self. He is unknown in the force as the policeman Gerald asked said there was no such inspector. Also Birling is very familiar with the county police force and he said he had never seen or heard of an Inspector under the name Goole. The way he was working through the Birlings made them think he was a fraud as no inspector has ever done this to the Birling"s before. Near the end of the play it is discovered that there is no inspector named Goole and he has never been seen on the police force. For example ""¦I met a sergeant I know"¦ He swore there wasn"t any inspector Goole or anybody like him on the force here," said Gerald. This is proof there is no Inspector Goole and he really is a fraud. Also There"s is more proof because no other inspector works like him but it definitely is very effective as he left the Birling family in shambles. The Inspector is considered a fraud. Gerald is the first to question if the inspector really is an Inspector. He goes on to say that the inspector did not show all of us the same picture as he showed everyone a picture one by one so there is no evidence that he could have showed each of them all different pictures let alone the real Eva Smith. They all may have seen different photos. He then goes on to say that there was no evidence to prove that there really was a young girl called Eva Smith that had died. This is Gerald"s view of how the inspector works and how it makes him a fraud. The inspector also tells us how and why he works. "It"s the way I like to work. One person and one line of inquiry at a time. Otherwise, there"s a muddle." This shows us how the Inspector explains how he works and why. This sounds like the real way an inspector should work which misleads us at the beginning of the play and makes us think he really is an inspector. This makes the story effective and dramatic because it all leads to a huge twist at the end when we find out the inspector does not really exist and there is no dead girl called Eva Smith however there is another twist at the end when they really do find out an Eva Smith had really died and an inspector is on his way over. This makes the story more interesting and more dramatic like a soap opera and it adds more suspense to the play. The inspector is used in the story as someone who is supposed to be like J.B Priestley. He is like a substitute for J.B Priestly and they are linked as the inspector is being used to put across his messages. The inspector is in the story to make the Birling"s have responsibility for their actions. He is trying to make people think about what they do before they do it. "Look before you leap" as the saying goes. The inspector is trying to say that people should all be treated equally. All these messages are aimed at the audience as well as the Birlings. This is how Priestley gets his points out to us, through the link between him and the inspector. I think his main messages are that we are all part of one community, not individual people but we are connected one way or another so we have to care for each other and look after each other. For example ""¦.We are responsible for each other," said the inspector. This shows us the inspector has socialist views and does care about others apart from himself. Priestley puts across message of capitalism verses socialism as he shows the Inspector, the socialist saying how we should not be like a capitalist but more like a socialist and care for one another. The inspector is a socialist as is Priestley and have socialist views. They are against capitalism, as they do not feel you should just earn a living for money and for yourself but you should help other people. The inspector"s name is a pun for ghoul. This then leads us to believe that the inspector does not exist. He is some sort of ghost or phantom who is a nightmare to the Birlings. The Birlings have other beliefs that prove the inspector does not exist like Gerald. He finds out from another police sergeant from the county force that there is no one like or called the inspector they had met. In addition, the older generation seem to think it is all a hoax. For example "It"s a hoax of some kind," said Gerald. This shows that the older generation thinks it is some old fool playing a trick on them causing a scandal. There is nothing wrong with them believing this as they now have evidence that the inspector really is not an inspector but a fraud but that is only if he really does exist which is unknown to everyone. It could also show that the inspector is a bad ghoul playing tricks on family to have fun. He seems to know about he future because he knows what will happen to Eva Smith that no one else knows about, which may give the audience an idea that he is not a human being. He is another type of life such as a spirit that does not exist in our world, as it is virtually impossible to predict the future. He does make the Birlings scared of him as he breaks them down one by one leading them to confess. This may also show why he is a ghoul because he is scary. The inspector being a ghoul makes the audience more interested in the story because there is no obvious thing at the beginning of the story that gives him away but we all have our suspicions and this leads to tension as we want to continue to view the play to find out whether our suspicions were correct or not. This is another aspect that makes the play so good and again it involves the truth hidden behind the inspector. The inspector had an enormous affect on the Birlings. He caused them to fall out with each other and go against each other. From all what he told them the only people that actually learnt their lesson was the younger generation. The elders did not as when they found out the inspector was a fraud they were celebrating so what the inspector said went through one ear out the other. I think the family could get back to how they were before but it would be on Sheila and Eric"s conscience that they once helped lead a girl to suicide. Priestleys over all message in this story was we are all part of one community and we have to look after each other rather than just looking out for ourselves. If one person is affected in the community than all of us are. That is what Priestleys over all message is. I believe the over all role of the inspector was to play a substitute of Priestley to get Priestleys messages across to the audience and the Birlings. The Inspector has many hidden messages in him. He plays so many different roles and the he himself makes the whole story. He makes you think and puts across the messages, which to me is the point of the book. He is very effective and adds a great deal of drama.   

In this Play the inspector plays various roles. He plays a socialist as he is against capitalist views and because he is not just looking out for himself but others as well. Also he is known to be a catalyst as he brings a split in the Birling family. He...

Words: 2134 View(s): 112 Comment(s): 0