Policy research memo Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Policy memo - Research Paper Example ld Left Behind Act was meant to assure the quality of education and develop accountability it seems that its goals are attainable and beyond the scope of the law. The No Child Left Behind Act meant to model education among children from disadvantaged backgrounds and to ensure that irrespective of race, colour or health status, each child had the right to access to quality education. The policy required that the performance of the students be assessed from time to time to ensure that children performed well between 2rd grade and 8th grade (Olivert 23-27). The ability of the policy to set the standards of education and find ways of measuring performance is an important aspect of ensuring that all students become responsible citizens. To ensure that all students, including those from struggling families performed well, the policy stated that all student who do not attain the minimum score be provided with extra tuition or have their study time extended. This would go on until they attain they attain the benchmark grades to proceed with their education. This is crucial in ensuring that all students get good grades to acquire employment despite an y economic constraints. To maintain accountability, the Act required that the teachers regularly report on the performance of students and provide results at the each of year. The Act achieved accountability by compelling the teachers to account for the performance of the student throughout the learning process. The teachers had to monitor the students’ results every time to ensure that all children achieve good grades (Roberts 12). The Act required that the schools and the district boards provide detailed report cards to the parents reflecting the performance of every child. Secondly, the NCLB Act required that strict measures be taken against teachers who do not deliver in terms of education performance in schools. The extreme measures include the change of the worker structure in the learning institutions. The policy

Why Literature Essay Example for Free

Why Literature Essay It has often happened to me, at book fairs or in bookstores, that a gentleman approaches me and asks me for a signature. It is for my wife, my young daughter, or my mother, he explains. She is a great reader and loves literature. Immediately I ask: And what about you? Dont you like to read? The answer is almost always the same: Of course I like to read, but I am a very busy person. I have heard this explanation dozens of times: this man and many thousands of men like him have so many important things to do, so many obligations, so many responsibilities in life, that they cannot waste their precious time buried in a novel, a book of poetry, or a literary essay for hours and hours. According to this widespread conception, literature is a dispensable activity, no doubt lofty and useful for cultivating sensitivity and good manners, but essentially an entertainment, an adornment that only people with time for recreation can afford. It is something to fit in between sports, the movies, a game of bridge or chess; and it can be sacrificed without scruple when one prioritizes the tasks and the duties that are indispensable in the struggle of life. It seems clear that literature has become more and more a female activity. In bookstores, at conferences or public readings by writers, and even in university departments dedicated to the humanities, the women clearly outnumber the men. The explanation traditionally given is that middle-class women read more because they work fewer hours than men, and so many of them feel that they can justify more easily than men the time that they devote to fantasy and illusion. I am somewhat allergic to explanations that divide men and women into frozen categories and attribute to each sex its characteristic virtues and shortcomings; but there is no doubt that there are fewer and fewer readers of literature, and that among the saving remnant of readers women predominate. This is the case almost everywhere. In Spain, for example, a recent survey organized by the General Society of Spanish Writers revealed that half of that countrys population has never read a book. The survey also revealed that in the minority that does read, the number of women who admitted to reading surpasses the number of men by 6. 2 percent, a difference that appears to be increasing. I am happy for these women, but I feel sorry for these men, and for the millions of human beings who could read but have decided not to read. They earn my pity not only because they are unaware of the pleasure that they are missing, but also because I am convinced that a society without literature, or a society in which literature has been relegatedlike some hidden viceto the margins of social and personal life, and transformed into something like a sectarian cult, is a society condemned to become spiritually barbaric, and even to jeopardize its freedom. I wish to offer a few arguments against the idea of literature as a luxury pastime, and in favor of viewing it as one of the most primary and necessary undertakings of the mind, an irreplaceable activity for the formation of citizens in a modern and democratic society, a society of free individuals. |[pic] | e live in the era of the specialization of knowledge, thanks to the prodigious development of science and technology and to the consequent fragmentation of knowledge into innumerable parcels and compartments. This cultural trend is, if anything, likely to be accentuated in years to come. To be sure, specialization brings many benefits. It allows for deeper exploration and greater experimentation; it is the very engine of progress. Yet it also has negative consequences, for it eliminates those common intellectual and cultural traits that permit men and women to co-exist, to communicate, to feel a sense of solidarity. Specialization leads to a lack of social understanding, to the division of human beings into ghettos of technicians and specialists. The specialization of knowledge requires specialized languages and increasingly arcane codes, as information becomes more and more specific and compartmentalized. This is the particularism and the division against which an old proverb warned us: do not focus too much on the branch or the leaf, lest you forget that they are part of a tree, or too much on the tree, lest you forget that it is part of a forest. Awareness of the existence of the forest creates the feeling of generality, the feeling of belonging, that binds society together and prevents it from disintegrating into a myriad of solipsistic particularities. The solipsism of nations and individuals produces paranoia and delirium, distortions of reality that generate hatred, wars, and even genocide. In our time, science and technology cannot play an integrating role, precisely because of the infinite richness of knowledge and the speed of its evolution, which have led to specialization and its obscurities. But literature has been, and will continue to be, as long as it exists, one of the common denominators of human experience through which human beings may recognize themselves and converse with each other, no matter how different their professions, their life plans, their geographical and cultural locations, their personal circumstances. It has enabled individuals, in all the particularities of their lives, to transcend history: as readers of Cervantes, Shakespeare, Dante, and Tolstoy, we understand each other across space and time, and we feel ourselves to be members of the same species because, in the works that these writers created, we learn what we share as human beings, what remains common in all of us under the broad range of differences that separate us. Nothing better protects a human being against the stupidity of prejudice, racism, religious or political sectarianism, and exclusivist nationalism than this truth that invariably appears in great literature: that men and women of all nations and places are essentially equal, and that only injustice sows among them discrimination, fear, and exploitation. Nothing teaches us better than literature to see, in ethnic and cultural differences, the richness of the human patrimony, and to prize those differences as a manifestation of humanitys multi-faceted creativity. Reading good literature is an experience of pleasure, of course; but it is also an experience of learning what and how we are, in our human integrity and our human imperfection, with our actions, our dreams, and our ghosts, alone and in relationships that link us to others, in our public image and in the secret recesses of our consciousness. |[pic| |] | his complex sum of contradictory truthsas Isaiah Berlin called themconstitutes the very substance of the human condition. In todays world, this totalizing and living knowledge of a human being may be found only in literature. Not even the other branches of the humanitiesnot philosophy, history, or the arts, and certainly not the social scienceshave been able to preserve this integrating vision, this universalizing discourse. The humanities, too, have succumbed to the cancerous division and subdivision of knowledge, isolating themselves in increasingly segmented and technical sectors whose ideas and vocabularies lie beyond the reach of the common woman and man. Some critics and theorists would even like to change literature into a science. But this will never happen, because fiction does not exist to investigate only a single precinct of experience. It exists to enrich through the imagination the entirety of human life, which cannot be dismembered, disarticulated, or reduced to a series of schemas or formulas without disappearing. This is the meaning of Prousts observation that real life, at last enlightened and revealed, the only life fully lived, is literature. He was not exaggerating, nor was he expressing only his love for his own vocation. He was advancing the particular proposition that as a result of literature life is better understood and better lived; and that living life more fully necessitates living it and sharing it with others. The brotherly link that literature establishes among human beings, compelling them to enter into dialogue and making them conscious of a common origin and a common goal, transcends all temporal barriers. Literature transports us into the past and links us to those who in bygone eras plotted, enjoyed, and dreamed through those texts that have come down to us, texts that now allow us also to enjoy and to dream. This feeling of membership in the collective human experience across time and space is the highest achievement of culture, and nothing contributes more to its renewal in every generation than literature. |[| |p| |i| |c| |]| t always irritated Borges when he was asked, What is the use of literature? It seemed to him a stupid question, to which he would reply: No one would ask what is the use of a canarys song or a beautiful sunset. If such beautiful things exist, and if, thanks to them, life is even for an instant less ugly and less sad, is it not petty to seek practical justifications? But the question is a good one. For novels and poems are not like the sound of birdsong or the spectacle of the sun sinking into the horizon, because they were not created by chance or by nature. They are human creations, and it is therefore legitimate to ask how and why they came into the world, and what is their purpose, and why they have lasted so long. Literary works are born, as shapeless ghosts, in the intimacy of a writers consciousness, projected into it by the combined strength of the unconscious, and the writers sensitivity to the world around him, and the writers emotions; and it is these things to which the poet or the narrator, in a struggle with words, gradually gives form, body, movement, rhythm, harmony, and life. An artificial life, to be sure, a life imagined, a life made of languageyet men and women seek out this artificial life, some frequently, others sporadically, because real life falls short for them, and is incapable of offering them what they want. Literature does not begin to exist through the work of a single individual. It exists only when it is adopted by others and becomes a part of social lifewhen it becomes, thanks to reading, a shared experience. One of its first beneficial effects takes place at the level of language. A community without a written literature expresses itself with less precision, with less richness of nuance, and with less clarity than a community whose principal instrument of communication, the word, has been cultivated and perfected by means of literary texts. A humanity without reading. untouched by literature, would resemble a community of deaf-mutes and aphasics, afflicted by tremendous problems of communication due to its crude and rudimentary language. This is true for individuals, too. A person who does not read, or reads little, or reads only trash, is a person with an impediment: he can speak much but he will say little, because his vocabulary is deficient in the means for self-expression. This is not only a verbal limitation. It represents also a limitation in intellect and in imagination. It is a poverty of thought, for the simple reason that ideas, the concepts through which we grasp the secrets of our condition, do not exist apart from words. We learn how to speak correctlyand deeply, rigorously, and subtlyfrom good literature, and only from good literature. No other discipline or branch of the arts can substitute for literature in crafting the language that people need to communicate. To speak well, to have at ones disposal a rich and diverse language, to be able to find the appropriate expression for every idea and every emotion that we want to communicate, is to be better prepared to think, to teach, to learn, to converse, and also to fantasize, to dream, to feel. In a surreptitious way, words reverberate in all our actions, even in those actions that seem far removed from language. And as language evolved, thanks to literature, and reached high levels of refinement and manners, it increased the possibility of human enjoyment. Literature has even served to confer upon love and desire and the sexual act itself the status of artistic creation. Without literature, eroticism would not exist. Love and pleasure would be poorer, they would lack delicacy and exquisiteness, they would fail to attain to the intensity that literary fantasy offers. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that a couple who have read Garcilaso, Petrarch, Gongora, or Baudelaire value pleasure and experience pleasure more than illiterate people who have been made into idiots by televisions soap operas. In an illiterate world, love and desire would be no different from what satisfies animals, nor would they transcend the crude fulfillment of elementary instincts. Nor are the audiovisual media equipped to replace literature in this task of teaching human beings to use with assurance and with skill the extraordinarily rich possibilities that language encompasses. On the contrary, the audiovisual media tend to relegate words to a secondary level with respect to images, which are the primordial language of these media, and to constrain language to its oral expression, to its indispensable minimum, far from its written dimension. To define a film or a television program as literary is an elegant way of saying that it is boring. For this reason, literary programs on the radio or on television rarely capture the public. So far as I know, the only exception to this rule was Bernard Pivots program, Apostrophes, in France. And this leads me to think that not only is literature indispensable for a full knowledge and a full mastery of language, but its fate is linked also and indissolubly with the fate of the book, that industrial product that many are now declaring obsolete. |[pic| |] | his brings me to Bill Gates. He was in Madrid not long ago and visited the Royal Spanish Academy, which has embarked upon a joint venture with Microsoft. Among other things, Gates assured the members of the Academy that he would personally guarantee that the letter - would never be removed  from computer softwarea promise that allowed four hundred million Spanish speakers on five continents to breathe a sigh of relief, since the banishment of such an essential letter from cyberspace would have created monumental problems. Immediately after making his amiable concession to the Spanish language, however, Gates, before even leaving the premises of the Academy, avowed in a press conference that he expected to accomplish his highest goal before he died. That goal, he explained, is to put an end to paper and then to books. In his judgment, books are anachronistic objects. Gates argued that computer screens are able to replace paper in all the functions that paper has heretofore assumed. He also insisted that, in addition to being less onerous, computers take up less space, and are more easily transportable; and also that the transmission of news and literature by these electronic media, instead of by newspapers and books, will have the ecological advantage of stopping the destruction of forests, a cataclysm that is a consequence of the paper industry. People will continue to read, Gates assured his listeners, but they will read on computer screens, and consequently there will be more chlorophyll in the environment. I was not present at Gatess little discourse; I learned these details from the press. Had I been there I would have booed Gates for proclaiming shamelessly his intention to send me and my colleagues, the writers of books, directly to the unemployment line. And I would have vigorously disputed his analysis. Can the screen really replace the book in all its aspects? I am not so certain. I am fully aware of the enormous revolution that new technologies such as the Internet have caused in the fields of communication and the sharing of information, and I confess that the Internet provides invaluable help to me every day in my work; but my gratitude for these extraordinary conveniences does not imply a belief that the electronic screen can replace paper, or that reading on a computer can stand in for literary reading. That is a chasm that I cannot cross. I cannot accept the idea that a non-functional or non-pragmatic act of reading, one that seeks neither information nor a useful and immediate communication, can integrate on a computer screen the dreams and the pleasures of words with the same sensation of intimacy, the same mental concentration and spiritual isolation, that may be achieved by the act of reading a book. Perhaps this a prejudice resulting from lack of practice, and from a long association of  literature with books and paper. But even though I enjoy surfing the Web in search of world news, I would never go to the screen to read a poem by Gongora or a novel by Onetti or an essay by Paz, because I am certain that the effect of such a reading would not be the same. I am convinced, although I cannot prove it, that with the disappearance of the book, literature would suffer a serious blow, even a mortal one. The term literature would not disappear, of course. Yet it would almost certainly be used to denote a type of text as distant from what we understand as literature today as soap operas are from the tragedies of Sophocles and Shakespeare. |[pic| |] | here is still another reason to grant literature an important place in the life of nations. Without it, the critical mind, which is the real engine of historical change and the best protector of liberty, would suffer an irreparable loss. This is because all good literature is radical, and poses radical questions about the world in which we live. In all great literary texts, often without their authors intending it, a seditious inclination is present. Literature says nothing to those human beings who are satisfied with their lot, who are content with life as they now live it. Literature is the food of the rebellious spirit, the promulgator of non-conformities, the refuge for those who have too much or too little in life. One seeks sanctuary in literature so as not to be unhappy and so as not to be incomplete. To ride alongside the scrawny Rocinante and the confused Knight on the fields of La Mancha, to sail the seas on the back of a whale with Captain Ahab, to drink arsenic with Emma Bovary, to become an insect with Gregor Samsa: these are all ways that we have invented to divest ourselves of the wrongs and the impositions of this unjust life, a life that forces us always to be the same person when we wish to be many different people, so as to satisfy the many desires that possess us. Literature pacifies this vital dissatisfaction only momentarilybut in this miraculous instant, in this provisional suspension of life, literary illusion lifts and transports us outside of history, and we become citizens of a timeless land, and in this way immortal. We become more intense, richer, more complicated, happier, and more lucid than we are in the constrained routine of ordinary life. When we close the book and abandon literary fiction, we return to actual existence and compare it to the splendid land that we have just left. What a disappointment awaits us! Yet a tremendous realization also awaits us, namely, that the fantasized life of the novel is bettermore beautiful and more diverse, more comprehensible and more perfectthan the life that we live while awake, a life conditioned by the limits and the tedium of our condition. In this way, good literature, genuine literature, is always subversive, unsubmissive, rebellious: a challenge to what exists. How could we not feel cheated after reading War and Peace or Remembrance of Things Past and returning to our world of insignificant details, of boundaries and prohibitions that lie in wait everywhere and, with each step, corrupt our illusions? Even more than the need to sustain the continuity of culture and to enrich language, the greatest contribution of literature to human progress is perhaps to remind us (without intending to, in the majority of cases) that the world is badly made; and that those who pretend to the contrary, the powerful and the lucky, are lying; and that the world can be improved, and made more like the worlds that our imagination and our language are able to create. A free and democratic society must have responsible and critical citizens conscious of the need continuously to examine the world that we inhabit and to try, even though it is more and more an impossible task, to make it more closely resemble the world that we would like to inhabit. And there is no better means of fomenting dissatisfaction with existence than the reading of good literature; no better means of forming critical and independent citizens who will not be manipulated by those who govern them, and who are endowed with a permanent spiritual mobility and a vibrant imagination. Still, to call literature seditious because it sensitizes a readers consciousness to the imperfections of the world does not meanas churches and governments seem to think it means when they establish censorshipthat literary texts will provoke immediate social upheavals or accelerate revolutions. The social and political effects of a poem, a play, or a novel cannot be foreseen, because they are not collectively made or collectively experienced. They are created by individuals and they are read by individuals, who vary enormously in the conclusions that they draw from their writing and their reading. For this reason, it is difficult, or even impossible, to establish precise patterns. Moreover, the social consequences of a work of literature may have little to do with its aesthetic quality. A mediocre novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe seems to have played a decisive role in raising social and political consciousness of the horrors of slavery in the United States. The fact that these effects of literature are difficult to identify does not imply that they do not exist. The important point is that they are effects brought about by the actions of citizens whose personalities have been formed in part by books. Good literature, while temporarily relieving human dissatisfaction, actually increases it, by developing a critical and non-conformist attitude toward life. It might even be said that literature makes human beings more likely to be unhappy. To live dissatisfied, and at war with existence, is to seek things that may not be there, to condemn oneself to fight futile battles, like the battles that Colonel Aureliano Buenda fought in One Hundred Years of Solitude, knowing full well that he would lose them all. All this may be true. Yet it is also true that without rebellion against the mediocrity and the squalor of life, we would still live in a primitive state, and history would have stopped. The autonomous individual would not have been created, science and technology would not have progressed, human rights would not have been recognized, freedom would not have existed. All these things are born of unhappiness, of acts of defiance against a life perceived as insufficient or intolerable. For this spirit that scorns life as it isand searches with the madness of Don Quixote, whose insanity derived from the reading of chivalric novelsliterature has served as a great spur. |[pi| |c] | et us attempt a fantastic historical reconstruction. Let us imagine a world without literature, a humanity that has not read poems or novels. In this kind of atrophied civilization, with its puny lexicon in which groans and ape-like gesticulations would prevail over words, certain adjectives would not exist. Those adjectives include: quixotic, Kafkaesque, Rabelaisian, Orwellian, sadistic, and masochistic, all terms of literary origin. To be sure, we would still have insane people, and victims of paranoia and persecution complexes, and people with uncommon appetites and outrageous excesses, and bipeds who enjoy inflicting or receiving pain. But we would not have learned to see, behind these extremes of behavior that are prohibited by the norms of our culture, essential characteristics of the human condition. We would not have discovered our own traits, as only the talents of Cervantes, Kafka, Rabelais, Orwell, de Sade, and Sacher-Masoch have revealed them to us. When the novel Don Quixote de la Mancha appeared, its first readers made fun of this extravagant dreamer, as well as the rest of the characters in the novel. Today we know that the insistence of the caballero de la triste figura on seeing giants where there were windmills, and on acting in his seemingly absurd way, is really the highest form of generosity, and a means of protest against the misery of this world in the hope of changing it. Our very notions of the ideal, and of idealism, so redolent with a positive moral connotation, would not be what they are, would not be clear and respected values, had they not been incarnated in the protagonist of a novel through the persuasive force of Cervantess genius. The same can be said of that small and pragmatic female Quixote, Emma Bovary, who fought with ardor to live the splendid life of passion and luxury that she came to know through novels. Like a butterfly, she came too close to the flame and was burned in the fire. |[pic| |] | he inventions of all great literary creators open our eyes to unknown aspects of our own condition. They enable us to explore and to understand more fully the common human abyss. When we say Borgesian, the word immediately conjures up the separation of our minds from the rational order of reality and the entry into a fantastic universe, a rigorous and elegant mental construction, almost always labyrinthine and arcane, and riddled with literary references and allusions, whose singularities are not foreign to us because in them we recognize hidden desires and intimate truths of our own personality that took shape only thanks to the literary creation of Jorge Luis Borges. The word Kafkaesque comes to mind, like the focus mechanism of those old cameras with their accordion arms, every time we feel threatened, as defenseless individuals, by the oppressive machines of power that have caused so much pain and injustice in the modern worldthe authoritarian regimes, the vertical parties, the intolerant churches, the asphyxiating bureaucrats. Without the short stories and the novels of that tormented Jew from Prague who wrote in German and lived always on the lookout, we would not have been able to understand the impotent feeling of the isolated individual, or the terror of persecuted and discriminated minorities, confronted with the all-embracing powers that can smash them and eliminate them without the henchmen even showing their faces. The adjective Orwellian, first cousin of Kafkaesque, gives a voice to the terrible anguish, the sensation of extreme absurdity, that was generated by totalitarian dictatorships of the twentieth century, the most sophisticated, cruel, and absolute dictatorships in history, in their control of the actions and the psyches of the members of a society. In 1984, George Orwell described in cold and haunting shades a humanity subjugated to Big Brother, an absolute lord who, through an efficient combination of terror and technology, eliminated liberty, spontaneity, and equality, and transformed society into a beehive of automatons. In this nightmarish world, language also obeys power, and has been transformed into newspeak, purified of all invention and all subjectivity, metamorphosed into a string of platitudes that ensure the individuals slavery to the system. It is true that the sinister prophecy of 1984 did not come to pass, and totalitarian communism in the Soviet Union went the way of totalitarian fascism in Germany and elsewhere; and soon thereafter it began to deteriorate also in China, and in anachronistic Cuba and North Korea. But the danger is never completely dispelled, and the word Orwellian continues to describe the danger, and to help us to understand it. |[pic| |] | o literatures unrealities, literatures lies, are also a precious vehicle for the knowledge of the most hidden of human realities. The truths that it reveals are not always flattering; and sometimes the image of ourselves that emerges in the mirror of novels and poems is the image of a monster. This happens when we read about the horrendous sexual butchery fantasized by de Sade, or the dark lacerations and brutal sacrifices that fill the cursed books of Sacher-Masoch and Bataille. At times the spectacle is so offensive and ferocious that it becomes irresistible. Yet the worst in these pages is not the blood, the humiliation, the abject love of torture; the worst is the discovery that this violence and this excess are not foreign to us, that they are a profound part of humanity. These monsters eager for transgression are hidden in the most intimate recesses of our being; and from the shadow where they live they seek a propitious occasion to manifest themselves, to impose the rule of unbridled desire that destroys rationality, community, and even existence. And it was not science that first ventured into these tenebrous places in the human mind, and discovered the destructive and the self-destructive potential that also shapes it. It was literature that made this discovery. A world without literature would be partly blind to these terrible depths, which we urgently need to see. Uncivilized, barbarian, devoid of sensitivity and crude of speech, ignorant and instinctual, inept at passion and crude at love, this world without literature, this nightmare that I am delineating, would have as its principal traits conformism and the universal submission of humankind to power. In this sense, it would also be a purely animalistic world. Basic instincts would determine the daily practices of a life characterized by the struggle for survival, and the fear of the unknown, and the satisfaction of physical necessities. There would be no place for the spirit. In this world, moreover, the crushing monotony of living would be accompanied by the sinister shadow of pessimism, the feeling that human life is what it had to be and that it will always be thus, and that no one and nothing can change it. When one imagines such a world, one is tempted to picture primitives in loincloths, the small magic-religious communities that live at the margins of modernity in Latin America, Oceania, and Africa. But I have a different failure in mind. The nightmare that I am warning about is the result not of under-development but of over-development. As a consequence of technology and our subservience to it, we may imagine a future society full of computer screens and speakers, and without books, or a society in which booksthat is, works of literaturehave become what alchemy became in the era of physics: an archaic curiosity, practiced in the catacombs of the media civilization by a neurotic minority. I am afraid that this cybernetic world, in spite of its prosperity and its power, its high standard of living and its scientific achievement would be profoundly uncivilized and utterly soullessa resigned humanity of post-literary automatons who have abdicated freedom. It is highly improbable, of course, that this macabre utopia will ever come about. The end of our story, the end of history, has not yet been written, and it is not pre-determined. What we will become depends entirely on our vision and our will. But if we wish to avoid the impoverishment of our imagination, and the disappearance of the precious dissatisfaction that refines our sensibility and teaches us to speak with eloquence and rigor, and the weakening of our freedom, then we must act. More precisely, we must read. MARIO VARGAS LLOSAs new book, The Feast of the Goat, will be published by Farrar, Straus Giroux in November. He is professor of Ibero-American Literature and Culture at Georgetown University.

Sylvia Plaths Poetry Essay -- Sylvia Plath Poem Essays

Sylvia Plath's Poetry Wrapped in gaseous mystique, Sylvia Plath’s poetry has haunted enthusiastic readers since immediately after her death in February, 1963. Like her eyes, her words are sharp, apt tools which brand her message on the brains and hearts of her readers. With each reading, she initiates them forever into the shrouded, vestal clan of her own mind. How is the reader to interpret those singeing, singing words? Her work may be read as a lone monument, with no ties to the world she left behind. But in doing so, the reader merely grazes the surface of her rich poetics. Her poetry is largely autobiographical, particularly Ariel and The Bell Jar, and it is from this frame of mind that the reader interprets the work as a complex, crushing, confessional web that most truly describes the mythic Sylvia Plath. Her two most significant volumes of poetry, The Colossus and Ariel, flesh out her poetic lexicon: wading through the deep, patterned labyrinth of her poetry with her life as a guide. Title piece to her first collection of poems, â€Å"The Colossus† is a daughter’s attempt to reconstruct her dead father in the fallen statue at Rhodes: â€Å"†¦his death nine days after her eighth birthday left an imprint upon her imagination that time did not erase or soften† (Butscher 3). Because Plath never really knew her father as a healthy man (Stevenson 12), she likens him to this decrepit stone which, as an archaeologist, she must piece together â€Å"with gluepots and pails / of lysol† (Plath C. 20). In reality, she must function as an emotional archaeologist in order to reconcile her loss, to revenge herself on her father for leaving her. She attempts, continually, to prove herself to him; as a child she continually showcased her artis... ...Colossus. 1998. New York: Vintage International; New York: Alfred Knopf, Inc., 1962. Rosenblatt, Jon. Sylvia Plath: The Poetry of Initiation. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Stevenson, Anne. Bitter Fame. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1989. Van Dyne, Susan R. Revising Life: Sylvia Plath’s Ariel Poems. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993. â€Å"Fueling the Phoenix Fire: The Manuscripts of Sylvia Plath’s ‘Lady Lazarus’† . Sylvia Plath. Ed. Harold Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989. 133-147. Works Consulted Broe, Mary Lynn. Protean Poetic: The Poetry of Sylvia Plath. Colombia: University of Missouri Press, 1980. Plath, Sylvia. The Journals of Sylvia Plath. New York: Anchor Books, 1998. Strangeways, Al. Sylvia Plath: The Shaping of Shadows. Cranbury: Associated University Presses, 1998.

Srinivasa Ramanujan

Srinivasa Ramanujan Ramanujan was born in India to a poor family in Erode, a city in Madras state. His father was a clerk and his mother a deeply religious housewife. None of these facts reflect who Ramanujan really was. He was a brilliant, self-taught mathematician whose ideas caught the attention of some of the prolific mathematicians of his time to include G. H. Hardy. In this short biography we will cover both his life and his contributions to mathematics. As stated earlier, he was born in south India to a poor family but they were still respectable in the community.This gave Ramanujan the opportunity to attend school and begin learning elementary Mathematics. He was quickly realized as a truly brilliant student with most of his talent directed towards mathematics. Interestingly, his family would sometimes take in student boarders and one of them gave him a trigonometry text when he was twelve and he mastered it within a year. In 1903 he was awarded a scholarship to attend the Go vernment College at Kumbakonam. He spent all of his time studying mathematics and ended up failing his other subjects and lost his scholarship and dropped out.He married Janaki in 1909 and acquired a job as a clerk. While the position did not pay much it allowed him much time to concentrate on his research. Ramanujan went to Cambridge in 1914, despite the great strides he made in his work in corroboration Hardy and Littlewood it took a great toll on his body. Ramanujan, being devout to his religion did not eat meat and the lack of quality vegetarian food in England and his long working hours were hard on his body. In 1917, Ramanujan was hospitalized with what was thought to be tuberculosis.While continually working from his hospital bed, he did not show enough improvement to make the trip back to India until 1919. Even with the best medical care available in India, Ramanujan died on April 29, 1920 at the age of 32. Ramanujan’s genius in mathematics is still represented today. His impact on Number Theories, Modular Forms, Statistical Mechanics, and other branches of mathematics have made great contributions not only in math but also in physics and computer science. Ramanujan’s style and methods of mathematics developed from his earlier studies in trigonometry and Carr’s volume of theorems.In his own works, Ramanujan looked for such formulas or identities that he saw in Carr’s works. In his earlier work, when he found a formula or answer he felt to be true by his own mathematical intuition and therefore he provided few proofs for his results. In his works with Hardy, they made great progress in the theory of partitions. â€Å"The partition function p(n); is the function of a positive integer n which is a representation of n as a sum of strictly positive integers. Thus p(1)= 1, p(2)= 2, p(3)= 3, p(4)= 5 ,p(5)= 7, p(6)= 11. (Denbath 628) In some of his last work before his death, Ramanujan discovered what is now known as the Mock Theta Functions. Mock functions are q series with exponential singularities such that the arguments terminate for some power. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a man dedicated to mathematics and had a true love for it. He was also a man entrenched in his religion and a deep commitment to his family. He consistently wanted to improve the education in his community and showed much interest in the poor and orphans who needed help getting an education.With all of the accomplishments and accolades that are attached to his name the truth of who Ramanujan was as a mathematician and a person makes him truly a one of a kind person in history. Works Cited Watkins, Thayer. â€Å"Srinivasa Ramanujan, a Mathematician Beyond Compare. † San Jose University, n. d. Web. 19 November 2012. Debnath, Lokenath. â€Å"Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920) and the Theory of Partitiions of Numbers and Statistical Mechanics a Centennial Tribute. † J. Math. & Math & Sci. Vol. 10 No. 4 (1987): 625-640. Web. 19 Novemb er 2012.

An Analysis of Othello by William Shakespeare Essay

In the play â€Å"Othello† by William Shakespeare Iago plays the master manipulator and manages to deceive many of the other characters especially Othello and Cassio. It can be said that his motives are based solely on his insecurities due to the fact his goal in the play was to ruin Othello’s life. He does this by using psychological manipulation on Othello’s thoughts and makes him believe that Cassio and Desdemona are fond of each other. Which basically means that he targets anyone that brings out his insecurities, which gives him a reason to lash out and  kill or harm these people, to make himself feel better. In the beginning of the play Iago makes it seem as if his hatred towards Othello is because he has made Cassio his lieutenant. As the play goes on you later realize that Iago’s hatred extends even more. â€Å"I hate the Moor, and it is thought abroad that ‘twixt my sheets, he has done my office: I know not if’t be true, but I, for mere suspicion in that kind, will do as if for surety. †. There seems to be some rumors about Othello and Iago’s wife Emilia, the rumors are that Othello and Emilia have slept together. In the quote above he states that he doesn’t care if the rumors are true and that he is going to proceed with his plan as if they are true. Throughout the play Iago constantly reminds himself of why he’s targeting Othello. â€Å"I do suspect the lusty Moor, Hath leap’d into my seat: the thought whereof, Doth, like a poisonous mineral, gnaw my inwards; And nothing can or shall content my soul, till I am even’d with him, wife for wife. † His hatred towards Cassio is more directed. Iago hates Cassio because he has gotten the position of  lieutenant even with his lack of experience in the field as he is a more tactical creating strategies person. â€Å"More than a spinster, unless the bookish theoric†. Iago basically states that Cassio’s lack of manliness add to his hatred towards him. Each person in the play get manipulated in a way that only suits them. For example Roderigo is â€Å"blinded by his love for Desdemona, and is prepared to do anything to win her heat† this give Iago the advantage to take his weakness and use it against him. As innocent as Iago’s words seem Othello lets Iago’s manipulative words counteract with his thinking and this is where  you could say he has officially planted the seed making sure he has Othello’s ear. As Othello asks for proof Iago is once again able to manipulate Othello by making him hide and hear a conversation Iago has with Cassio. â€Å"Now will I question Cassio of Bianca, A housewife that by selling her desires, Buys herself bread and clothes. It is a creature, that dotes on Cassio, as ’tis the strumpet’s plague, To beguile many and be beguiled by one. He, when he hears of her, cannot refrain, From the excess of laughter. Here he comes. † Iago says this once Othello withdraws and  once Cassio corners him starts discussing Bianca but allows Othello to believe they are discussing Desdemona. He whispers so Othello would not hear him and by doing that he agitates Othello and that causes him to be delusional. As mentioned before Cassio is also manipulated by Iago. The first way in which Cassio is deceived is when he get pressured into drinking and then starting a fight which consequently ruins Cassio’s reputation. † If I can fasten but one cup upon him, with that which he hath drunk tonight already, He’ll be as full of quarrel and offense, as my  young mistress’ dog. Now my sick fool Roderigo, Whom love hath turned almost the wrong side 1 out, To Desdemona hath tonight caroused, Potations pottle-deep, and he’s to watch. Three lads of Cyprus, noble swelling spirits, That hold their honors in a wary distance, The very elements of this warlike isle, Have I tonight flustered with flowing cups, And they watch too. Now ’mongst this flock of drunkards, Am I to put our Cassio in some action, That may offend the isle. † This is Iago’s soliloquy where he actually reveals his manipulative side. At first, Iago told Cassio he  should drink on behalf of Othello although he knew that he did not want to and was not capable of it. Iago has manipulated Cassio to do something unethical. Othello and Cassio both get exploited by Iago because they both find honest, good friend and have a hard time judging character. Iago acts like he truly cares about Othello by giving him warning signs about Cassio. Iago also fools Cassio into thinking he cares whether he has a good time or not. Another way Iago manipulates Cassio is when he plants the handkerchief in Cassio’s chambers. â€Å"I know not  neither, I found it in my chamber. I like the work well. Ere it be demanded, As like enough it will, I would have it copied. Take it and do ’t, and leave me for this time. †. Cassio says this when he gives it to Bianca. Cassio has no idea as to how the handkerchief got into his room. Iago left it there to set him up and make it seem as if he is having an affair with Desdemona. Iago exploits Cassio’s limited knowledge since Cassio did not know that the handkerchief belong to Desdemona. In both scenarios Iago manipulates Othello and Iago by sugar coating the truth from  them. Iago does feel better after manipulating the characters in the story this is shown throughout the story as Iago manipulates and controls every other character so well that they seem like puppets that he controls. At the end of the play, Iago’s manipulation has left a trail of destruction that has killed Othello and Cassio, as well others and has destroyed the lives of many who remain. The motivations and ideas Iago has are very deceptive and cunning, and his ability to influence is very amazing. Iago’s actions define of a man who will stop at nothing until he  exacts revenge on everyone who he feels has threaten him in one way or another. Shakespeare has presented Iago as a kind and noble soldier he has also been known as honest Iago, this showing that everyone is not as what they seem on the outside. Already knowing that Iago has a hatred for his superior Othello and now Cassio â€Å"Thou told’st me thou didst hold him in thy hate,† Said Roderigo. â€Å"Despise me if I do not,† Iago replies. This during the opening scenes in the play. Iago fools Othello by providing â€Å"ocular† proof but didn’t allow him to listen or understand properly. As for Cassio, he used his friendship to plant the handkerchief. Both Othello and Cassio are naive have a hard time judging character, are too proud to believe that someone is fooling them and their limited knowledge as to what was going on around them allows Iago to Successfully in the end manipulate the mind of Othello and sent him insane and 2 left Cassio in a situation that he didn’t belong in. Othello and Cassio were both victims of Iago’s manipulation due to the fact that they had something Iago did not. 3 Bibliography William, S. (01. 22. 14). Othello. Great Britain. Oxford University. JONATHAN, L. (28. 01. 2010). HOW DOES IAGO MANIPULATE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE HIS AIMS? OTHELLO. RETRIEVED (02. 27. 2014), FROM HTTP://WWW. MARKEDBYTEACHERS. COM/AS-AND-A-LEVEL/ENGLISH/HOW-DOES-IAGO-MA NIPULATE-DIFFERENT-CHARACTERS-IN-ORDER-TO-ACHIEVE-HIS-AIMS. HTML The Theme of Deception in William Shakespeare’s Othello. Retrieved (02. 27. 2014), from https://sites. google. com/site/thethemeofdeception/home Joshua, A. (2013). Protestant epistemology and Othello’s consciousness. Retrieved (03. 01. 14), from Gale Academic One File.

Essay on Options and Firm Offers

Essay on Options and Firm Offers Essay on Options and Firm Offers Essay on Options and Firm Offers  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The option C is the enforceable contract that Sally and Louie may have upon signing the paper. This contract is enforceable since it contains the promise of Sally to reserve her Monday mow for Louie until 5 p.m. and Louie promises to handle her $5Issue  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The issue is the establishment of the contract between Sally and Louie, where Sally promises to reserve her Monday mow for Louie until 5 pm, when Louie is supposed to take the final decision and enforce the contract by handling Sally $5 and agreeing to the contract’s conditions.Rule  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The rule is the restatement, para. 87 option contract, according to which an offer is binding as option contract if it is written and signed by the offeror and is made irrevocable by the statute.Rule explanation  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The rule means that the parties h ave signed the contract and the binding of the contract makes it irrevocable that means that if either party refuses from the contract by violating its provisions becomes responsible for the breach of contract.Application  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In case of Sally and Louie the application of the rule means that Louie should either agree and accept Sally offer by 5 pm and handle her $5 or, alternatively, he should refuse from the contract and did not accept the offer made by Sally. Sally in her turn should wait until 5 pm and set herself free to choose any other client to contract her Monday mow. She may act in the same way, if Louie refuses to pay her $5, if he accepts her offer.Conclusion  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Thus, Sally and Louie have a binding contract, which is enforceable by 5 pm upon options determined in the written form of the contract.

The Life and Death of a Star

The Life and Death of a Star Stars last a long time, but eventually they will die. The energy that makes up stars, some of the largest objects we ever study, comes from the interaction of individual atoms. So, to understand the largest and most powerful objects in the universe, we must understand the most basic. Then, as the stars life ends, those basic principles once again come into play to describe what will happen to the star next. Astronomers study various aspects of stars to determine how old they are as well as their other characteristics. That helps them also understand the life and death processes they experience. The Birth of a Star The stars took a long time to form, as gas drifting in the universe was drawn together by the force of gravity. This gas is mostly hydrogen, because its the most basic and abundant element in the universe, although some of the gas might consist of some other elements. Enough of this gas begins gathering together under gravity and each atom is pulling on all of the other atoms. This gravitational pull is enough to force the atoms to collide with each other, which in turn generates heat. In fact, as the atoms are colliding with each other, theyre vibrating and moving more quickly (that is, after all, what heat energy really is: atomic motion). Eventually, they get so hot, and the individual atoms have so much kinetic energy, that when they collide with another atom (which also has a lot of kinetic energy) they dont just bounce off each other. With enough energy, the two atoms collide and the nucleus of these atoms fuse together. Remember, this is mostly hydrogen, which means that each atom contains a nucleus with only one proton. When these nuclei fuse together (a process known, appropriately enough, as nuclear fusion) the resulting nucleus has two protons, which means that the new atom created is helium. Stars may also fuse heavier atoms, such as helium, together to make even larger atomic nuclei. (This process, called nucleosynthesis, is believed to be how many of the elements in our universe were formed.) The Burning of a Star So the atoms (often the element hydrogen) inside the star collide together, going through a process of nuclear fusion, which generates heat, electromagnetic radiation (including visible light), and energy in other forms, such as high-energy particles. This period of atomic burning is what most of us think of as the life of a star, and its in this phase that we see most stars up in the heavens. This heat generates a pressure - much like heating air inside a balloon creates pressure on the surface of the balloon (rough analogy) - which pushes the atoms apart. But remember that gravitys trying to pull them together. Eventually, the star reaches an equilibrium where the attraction of gravity and the repulsive pressure are balanced out, and during this period the star burns in a relatively stable way. Until it runs out of fuel, that is. The Cooling of a Star As the hydrogen fuel in a star gets converted to helium, and to some heavier elements, it takes more and more heat to cause the nuclear fusion. The mass of a star plays a role in how long it takes to burn through the fuel. More massive stars use their fuel faster because it takes more energy to counteract the larger gravitational force. (Or, put another way, the larger gravitational force causes the atoms to collide together more rapidly.) While our sun will probably last for about 5 thousand million years, more massive stars may last as little as 1 hundred million years before using up their fuel. As the stars fuel begins to run out, the star begins to generate less heat. Without the heat to counteract the gravitational pull, the star begins to contract. All is not lost, however! Remember that these atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which are fermions. One of the rules governing fermions is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that no two fermions can occupy the same state, which is a fancy way of saying that there cant be more than one identical one in the same place doing the same thing. (Bosons, on the other hand, dont run into this problem, which is part of the reason photon-based lasers work.) The result of this is that the Pauli Exclusion Principle creates yet another slight repulsive force between electrons, which can help counteract the collapse of a star, turning it into a white dwarf. This was discovered by the Indian physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar in 1928. Another type of star, the neutron star, come into being when a star collapses and the neutron-to-neutron repulsion counteracts the gravitational collapse. However, not all stars become white dwarf stars or even neutron stars. Chandrasekhar realized that some stars would have very different fates. The Death of a Star Chandrasekhar determined any star more massive than about 1.4 times our sun (a mass called the Chandrasekhar limit) wouldnt be able to support itself against its own gravity and would collapse into a white dwarf. Stars ranging up to about 3 times our sun would become neutron stars. Beyond that, though, theres just too much mass for the star to counteract the gravitational pull through the exclusion principle. Its possible that when the star is dying it might go through a supernova, expelling enough mass out into the universe that it drops below these limits and becomes one of these types of stars ... but if not, then what happens? Well, in that case, the mass continues to collapse under gravitational forces until a black hole is formed. And that  is what you call the death of a star.