Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Irony' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Irony'

Words and coment. Tell me!

ayumiyoshi1314 — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:18:55 GMT

I did this for my teacher and she liked so I wondered how YOU would like it.

These are my words,

Beleaguered

To harass; beset

I am beleaguered by the problems in my life.

Irony

1 a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning âcalled also Socratic irony

2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance

With a sense of irony I propose the word screeched.

nth

1. Relating to an unspecified ordinal number: ten to the nth power.

2. Highest; utmost

I am delighted to the nth degree because you came to my dinner party.

Organic compound

In physics, a material that contains carbon and hydrogen and usually other elements such as nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen. Organic compounds can be found in nature or they can be synthesized in the laboratory. An organic substance is not the same as a "natural" substance. A natural material means that it is essentially the same as it was found in nature, but "organic" means that it is carbon based.

This âylâ set occurs frequently and more or less each part in between them is the name of a independent group of an organic compound.

Postdoctoral

after doctorate: relating to academic work or research done after a doctorate has been awarded

I did some postdoctoral academic work yesterday.

Please tell me how you like it!

Yes" src="http://www.englishforums.com/emoticons/emotion-21.gif">Yes? No? Tell me!!

Re: Are you affected with the recent financial crisis?

Goodman — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:37:40 GMT

Hi Optilang,

I posted the last thread because of my concern over this unprecedented crisis which not only affected me, surely, everyone in America as well as those living in economically developed countries in some indirect ways. I can comfortably say that I am a good planner. People told me I was crazy thinking about my retirement when I was in my 20âs. Crazy or not, the answer is in the outcome. Those who partied and had fun for the past 15 years will have a tough time catching up for their retirement. My wife has a great influence on my life. She has an extraordinary skill for planning and I learned it from her. As a results, we are in good shape financially, even with the recent losses, we are still on track with our future retirement plans. However, itâs heart wrenching to see our 401k contribution for the last 3 years vanishing practically over night. I was thinking. How could so much money vanished so fast in the financial world and where did it go? What if this crisis happened in the 70âs when Internet and Pentium computers were not available. Would it then slow down the bleeding ?. The irony of this is, mankind invented these technology to supposedly improve his life but did he? I have no doubt, the technologies had contributed in some way to the outcome of the severe bleeding in the financial world globally this past week. Can I blame Bush, yes. He has been the captain at the helm this past 8 years. He is recklessly spending tax payersâ money to the financial black hole.

He is in my opinion a financial moron, and please excuse my anger. But, he couldn't have done all the damages alone. The democratically controlled congress is the check and balance which supposed to keep him in check. The lack of supervision on the financial institutions, the greed of the speculators in the stock and housing market, the fraudulent loaning practice which is the biggest wound and the corrupted CEOâs are the main ingredients for this crisis. From the non-professional standpoint, I see a stagnant economy for at least a year. Large number of layoffs is inevitable. Household spending will be scaled back, corporate earning decreased, factories reduce production and so the vicious cycle is set in motion. The sad thing is, we have 2 presidential candidates who know and show very little in the way of solving the problems faced America and the rest of the world. If this is the future of America, God help us!

how does hitchcock create suspense and shock?

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:41:52 GMT

HELLO! CAN YOU PLEASE CHECK MY ESSAY ACCORDING TO SEA PARAGRAPHS (sTATEMENT, eVIDENCE, aNALYSE)?

âHow does Hitchcock create Suspense and shock?â

Alfred Hitchcock is known as the âmaster of suspenseâ and a great innovator. He has three films in the Top Ten of the American Film Instituteâs top thrilling films. âPsychoâ, made in the year 1960, was number one. Hitchcock always uses suspense and tension to shock his audience. He does this by using cinematography very well by the way he uses the camera position, angles, movement and shots. He also uses scary music and lighting when he wants to shock his audience or create suspense.

Hitchcock misleads his audience to create shock in âPsychoâ. At the beginning of the film, we see Marion Crane and Sam Loomis in the bedroom together. By seeing this, we think this is a love and romance story. After Marion steals the money from her boss, we then believe the genre of the film is about crime. However, the genre of this film is not about romance or even crime. In fact, this movie is a thriller and the main character, Marion, dies a third way through the film. This is unexpected because she is the main character of the film and not a bad person. Another shock is when we discover that Norman Bates dresses like his âmotherâ in womenâs clothing, which the audience finds strange and weird.

False suspense makes shocks more shocking because we never know what will happen. Hitchcock creates false suspense in a number of ways. When Marion has been sleeping in the side of the road in her car, a cop comes and wakes her up. The audience feels tense and wonders if she is going to get caught with the $40,000. Marion is very nervous and we are afraid if the cop is going to search her bag. Her uneasy behaviour adds to the tension. The copâs sunglasses also add to the tension because he is staring right at Marionâs face, and Marion feels guilty and anxious.

Another moment of tension is when the cop follows Marion. We think that he realises that Marion is up to something. There is a slight low angle close up of the copâs car in the rear-view mirror of Marionâs car where she nervously watches him following her. The eyelevel medium shot of the car in the rear-view mirror, allows you to see him following, which is a reflection of the copâs car. Hitchcock builds tension by cutting between Marion and the cop.

Hitchcock also creates false suspense when Marion goes to a second-hand car dealer. The cop has an eye on Marion, but she does not know that he is there. We do see the cop so there is a moment of tension. She is doing things that you will not usually expect, such as being panicky and in a rush, which all builds to tension. While the mechanic pulls her car in to inspect it before selling her a different car, she is shocked when she spots the suspicious cop. Although she is aware that the new car she will be buying could be identified, Marion quickly and foolishly decides to buy it. Her nervous behaviour makes the surprised, car dealer wonder why she is forcing him to sell the car to her. She nearly leaves her bag behind, which is a false shock. We expect that Marion is going to be stopped by the cop, but luckily, she does not get caught with the cash.

Another false shock is when, Lila, Marionâs sister, screams when she sees her own reflection in the mirror in âmotherâsâ bedroom. She screams when she sees herself in many reflections in an opposite long mirror, but is relieved that the frightening image is only of herself.

You can only have a limited number of shocking moments to shock people because the few shocks give more impact. If there are too many shocks, then the audience gets used to it.

There are only three shocks in âPsychoâ: when Marion is killed in the shower; Milton Arbogast, the detective is stabbed by âmotherâ; and the discovery of âmotherâ by Lila. Hitchcock creates suspense and shock when Arbogast tries to interview âmotherâ. He quietly enters the front door of the house, takes off his hat, and then stands for a moment in the hallway. He begins to climb up the long steep staircase to the second floor. We feel a bit tense and afraid that something may happen to Arbogast because he is inside a sinister-looking house on top of a hill. Using a tracking shot, the camera follows him from behind to a tracking, high-angled shot in front of him as he climbs up the stairs so he looks vulnerable and small. A cut to the top landing, using an eyelevel close up shot to show a crack of light appear on the floor through the slowly opening door of a bedroom, creates tension as if âmotherâ is behind the door who will see Arbogast and attack him. When he reaches the top step, Hitchcock cuts to a birds-eye-view shot and the high-pitched, screeching music starts to create a shock when Arbogast is attacked at the top of the stairs, in a bird's-eye-view shot, by âmotherâ coming from the bedroom. He is stabbed to death in the face and blood flows out of his face when Arbogast falls backwards down the stairs to the floor. âMotherâ chases after him and gets on top of him; the knife goes up into the air for another strike before the scene fades to black. However, this is not the first shock of the film.

In the shower scene, we experience the first big shock in âPsychoâ. At the start of the shower scene the audience follows Marion into the bathroom. We see her undressing to have a shower. It is very quiet and we can just hear her taking off her gown. The shot is an eyelevel medium close up which makes us feel uncomfortable because we are close behind a naked woman and following her, which seems like we are intruding into this private space. We are looking straight at Marionâs bare back and upper body which makes us feel like Norman, when he was watching her undress through a hole in the wall. Like Norman, we are voyeurs and are intruding into this private space. Hitchcock then cuts to an eyelevel medium close up of Marion in the shower and we watch her cleansing and washing herself, like she is washing away her sins and guilt. We notice that Marion is very relaxed and happy because she is going back to Phoenix to pay back the money she has stolen. Hitchcock cuts to a low angle close up from Marionâs point of view of the water which looks like it is coming down at us, straight and sharp from the shower head which creates a moment of tension because, at the moment we cannot hear anything except for the running water, and this may distract us and Marion if someone is nearby. However, Hitchcock then cuts to an eyelevel medium close up in which we see Marion rinsing herself. This is a realistic shot because the camera is on the bathroom floor on the side of the shower watching Marion and we can see her calm facial expression, so we relax as well as Marion. We think nothing bad is going to happen to her because no one else is in her room and the bathroom and everything seems quiet except for the running water. This is also a private hotel.

Hitchcock then creates suspense by using dramatic irony. He uses an eyelevel medium long shot in which there is a dark shadow on the left, or dominant, side of the screen. Marion is in a completely private place, but in this shot we know that there is someone behind her, while Marion does not. The camera is in front of her, placed inside the wall, and Hitchcock makes us feel uncomfortable and tight as if we are trapped in the shower with Marion. As she is showering, through the translucent shower curtain, we see the door open. With her back to the shower curtain, we can spot a shadowy figure coming from behind. Marion does not hear the killer because of the water falling on her and her hair is soaked by the water so she appears to be small and vulnerable on the right side of the screen with her back to the shower curtain. We see the bathroom door open and we spot a shadowy figure coming from behind. We feel tense because the figure may harm Marion. The shock comes when the dark figure suddenly tears the shower curtain and shrill high-pitched music begins from sharp shrieking, violin strings. The shrill music plays a large part in creating absolute terror as does the silhouette of the figure that is revealed because the face is shadowed and we cannot see it. The killer is on the left or dominant side of the shot and is very dark; light can only be seen on the right side. The killer is holding a knife towards the right bottom corner of the frame where we last saw Marion, so we feel tense and terrified for her.

The shock continues with a close up of Marion screaming. The blurring of the image by the water makes Marion appear less human and everything happens fast. The close up shows her first reaction to the murderer and to intensify this Hitchcock cuts to an extreme close up of Marionâs mouth as she is screaming loudly. Next, Hitchcock uses a low angle medium shot of the killer who is dominating the centre of the screen. Hitchcock uses shadow to make the killer appear dark and horrific. The killer then starts to attack and we hear sound effects of stabbing. In reality, the sound was made by stabbing a melon. Hitchcock then cuts to a high angle medium shot of Marion to make her look weak and vulnerable. She is in one corner of the frame and the knife is in the space. The knife is blurry because it is moving very fast and Marion is in the corner backing away. The tile wall is trapping her behind and she is very exposed. The attack goes on and on and we keep hearing stabbing sounds of the knife. Hitchcock then uses a high angle close up of Marionâs feet so we can see the blood being washed away from Marionâs body, which creates the impression that Marion is dying because she is losing large amounts of blood and looking very weak. The killer leaves and Marion slowly dies. Hitchcock uses an eyelevel close up of Marionâs hand trying to hold on to the tile wall. She is trying to hold on to her life. This is the aftermath of the shock but there is still tension because there is nothing we can do and slow and low-pitched music starts to create a sad atmosphere.

Marion slowly slides down with her back against the wet, slippery shower wall, while looking up and the camera follows her slow fall. We feel guilty because we are unable to help. We then see Marion stretch her hand out to grab the shower curtain but it comes across as if she is stretching her arms towards us, for help. We want to help Marion but it is impossible so we must just watch her fall so we feel powerless. Then Hitchcock cuts to a birdâs-eye-shot where the shower pole divides the screen in half, which seems like we are directly watching what is happening down in the bathroom. Marion holds onto the shower curtain and pulls it down from its hooks one by one onto herself, which is a diegetic sound and now the slow and low music stops. Then we can just hear the water running from the shower, which tells us that the attack is over and Marion falls to the floor, dead. After that, Hitchcock cuts to a high angle extreme close up of the dark plughole, which is sucking up the water and Marionâs blood which suggests that Marion's life has gone down the drain. The shot dissolves to an extreme close up of Marionâs eye where we can see drops of water which seem like she is crying, which creates an atmosphere of sadness. There is great difference between Norman's 'peeping tom' eye and Marion's dead eye because Marionâs eye looks completely innocent, but Norman was using his peeping eye to watch her undress. Then the camera zooms out to her upper body which becomes a tracking shot where the camera turns and tilts as if we are standing up. We feel sorry and very guilty for Marionâs death as we were unable to stop this terrible attack, so when we leave the bathroom we are basically leaving Marion.

In comparison, in âThe Birdsâ, Hitchcock uses several shocks, perhaps maybe ten or more. Some of them are shocks with no suspense such as when the gull pecks Melanieâs head; the attack by the birds at the childrenâs party; and when the sparrows come down the chimney and attack Mitchâs house. There are also shocks with suspense: the school attack; when Annie is dead; the gulls peck the farmerâs eyes; the petrol station scene; the attack on Melanie in the attic and the huge number of still birds at the end of the film. He does this to shock his audience again and again.

Hitchcock also creates dramatic irony and tension in âPsychoâ when we see the shadow of âmotherâ in the shower scene. Hitchcock also creates dramatic irony in âThe Birdsâ in the climbing frame scene. Here, we see Melanie smoking outside the school, sitting on a bench in a medium long shot. She is calm. There is a long shot of the school and an establishing shot of birds in the sky. We can hear children singing, which sounds normal. There is then a cut to a medium long shot left of the climbing frame behind Melanieâs head (in the right corner of the frame) that dominates the shot to show it is empty. We see one bird land, and Hitchcock builds suspense as he cuts between Melanie looking relaxed and a shot of the climbing frame with four to five birds. Then he cuts back to Melanie before cutting to the climbing frame with fifty birds. Then again he cuts to Melanie still smoking and watching the birds. A cut to the climbing frame which is now full of birds creates shock which Hitchcock develops shock when Melanie looks behind her and sees them. Hitchcock cuts to a high angle long shot as she rushes to the school, which makes her seem vulnerable because then there is a cut to a low angle as the birds start to attack. Both of these attacks are extended and constant.

Hitchcock also uses slow suspense such as when Arbogast and Melanie climb up the stairs in âPsychoâ and âThe Birdsâ respectively. He also uses the stillness of the birds as a collective and then shock. There is the shock of sharp objects in a close up, for example, the knife in âPsychoâ and the beaks in âThe Birdsâ.

In âPsychoâ, Hitchcock creates tension by mainly using music which sounds unnatural, and also shock with the exception of the diegetic sounds in the shower scene. In contrast, he only uses diagetic sounds in âThe Birdsâ such as when the birds are squawking and making noise for tension, Hitchcock also uses silence (the absence of sound) to make the audience feel uncomfortable, for example when we see the broken cups in the farmerâs house. The sounds during the attacks in both films are sharp, harsh, strange and disturbing which build shock because they make the audienceâs heart beat.

At the end of âPsychoâ, there is a resolution. The killer, Norman, is in prison and is punished. However in âThe Birdsâ, there is a cliffhanger as the birds win and the humans flee. The film is unresolved, so it creates tension among the viewers. âPsychoâ is in black and white, which makes it more sinister and frightening for example, the blood in the shower scene looks realistic, even if it was chocolate syrup. Also lighting is used to create shock. For example, in the fruit cellar, the body of 'âmotherâ is brought to life, revealed by the dead bodyâs crazily laughing face, with its eyes moving, lively and brought back to life by the light. The eyes of the corpse that stare at Lilaâs direction appear realistic but they are indeed dead. This can only happen in black and white, as it involves shadow. In contrast, âThe Birdsâ is mostly in colour so it seems less scary and happier at first. However, the blood looks artificial to us because it is bright red. A better use of how Hitchcock used colour was the fire which looks extremely terrifying and dangerous because it is bright orange and yellow, which would not have the same effect in black and white. However, there is a change of the use of colour at the end of the film when it is mainly black and white because of the colour of the birds and also because it is night which creates tension and a sinister atmosphere.

The killers in both films were realistic but strange and unexpected. The story starts in the city, but mostly set in a small rural town where the character is unfamiliar so the audience has sympathy for them. Also the small town is supposed to be safer, but is surprisingly dangerous. The main characters in both films are blond, stylish beautiful women, both motivated by a love interest. Hitchcock uses experts for both films. In âPsychoâ, there is a psychologist who comes at the end and explains Normanâs condition, which is the resolution. The car is pulled out. There is no more tension. In âThe Birdsâ, an ornithologist woman gives information about birds and their behaviour. In âPsychoâ, Norman's hobby is stuffing dead birds and other animals. The birds are, of course, a constant image in âThe Birdsâ.

At the beginning of âThe Birdsâ, we think this is a romantic comedy, when Mitch flirts with Melanie and the lovebirds move side to side in the car, while Melanie is driving in her car. This seems funny as birds do not normally do that. âPsychoâ, however has nothing to do with comedy. In âPsychoâ Marion is serious and poor whereas Melanie is cheerful, spoilt and rich. Both films are misleading because it starts as a romance. In âPsychoâ, Sam has left his ex-wife and now wants to stay with Marion, but he cannot afford to support her economically, so they are both unhappy. In âThe Birdsâ, Mitch too had a previous lover, Annie but now lives with his mum, Lydia and younger sister, Cathy. Both films are a thriller and become dark and sinister. Hitchcock misleads us to make the shocks more shocking.

Hitchcock creates suspense and shock in the way he uses cinematography: camera position, angles, shots, colour, lighting, sound and music. For example, in âNorth by Northwestâ, Hitchcock creates a scene of suspense and shock in the plane scene. There is an extreme long shot of the sky and cornfield and Cary Grant who looks small and helpless, stands waiting. Then a plane tries to attack him. There is a long silence, and he looks for the plane engine. A truck approaches and Hitchcock uses the camera from Caryâs point-of-view of the truck coming closer until it is an extreme close up of the grill of the truck. This creates shock as the grill is coming towards Grantâs face and ours. There is a point-of-view shot of the plane. A close up of Grant shows us he is shocked and a cut to a long shot of the plane coming towards him builds tension. Grant dives under the truck and then there is a great big shock, when the plane crashes into the truck which is leaking petrol and there is a terrific explosion.

In my opinion, I believe Alfred Hitchcock was outstandingly excellent at creating suspense and shock in a number of ways especially in the shower scene, as we know âmotherâ is coming from behind, but Marion doesnât since her back is facing the shower curtain. I preferred the film âPsychoâ as it was more successful in creating suspense and shock, since the film was made in black and white. This made it seem darker, scarier and creepy.

Re: irony

Avangi — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:54:15 GMT

What seems to be referred to as "verbal irony" is not the irony I learned as a child, which I would call "situation irony." I vote for number four. I suppose if you look hard enough, you can find irony in all of them. (contrasts/opposites)

The third one is an interesting challenge for those who feel opposites is the key.

In your opinion, is humor an essential ingredient?

- A.

Re: What does it mean?

Mr Wordy — Sat, 31 May 2008 11:05:57 GMT

Further, as attested by the occurrence of a number of theory-non-conforming instances of ironic speech, most purely pragmatic views of conversational irony have a limited sphere of explanatory sway.

I understand this to mean, more-or-less: "Most purely pragmatic explanations of how irony is used in conversation have limited use. This is evident from the fact that a number of instances of ironic speech do not conform to theory."

What's not clear to me is how the "pragmatic views" relate to the "theory". For the logic to work, the two have to be referring to the same thing (otherwise the fact that instances of ironic speech don't conform to theory says nothing very much about pragmatic explanations). The problem is that "pragmatic" specifically refers to something that is not theoretical. So, for me it doesn't quite make sense.

Most theories have a limited sphere of explanatory sway because each has to face ironic sentences that ~~they~~ it cannot explain.

To me, this sentence is easier to understand, and if it gets the job done for you then I'd tend to prefer it. It also avoids the pragmatic/theory confusion that I suffered with the first version.

What does it mean?

Palinkasocsi — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:55:34 GMT

Does anyone understand the following sentence? I just want to have a general understanding, to understand the basic logic of the sentence.

Any alternative wording?

Many thanks!

Ballad, Porphyria's Lover, To His Coy Mistress and My Last Duchess

SamW — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:51:22 GMT

Basically, I have been set a piece of coursework: to compare the aforementioned poems. I am going for an A* piece at GCSE level, there is no particular question, just to compare the four poems. I have almost completed My Last Duchess, mentioning all the themes I can think of and reading the topics on here for extra guidance. However, I could do with some guidance on how to compare the four as a whole. I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out, heres the essay I have written thus far:

Love poetry can be manipulated to affect the reader in numerous ways; the reader can empathise with the poem, the reader can be inspired by the sentiment of the poem, the reader can attempt to emulate the actions of the characters, the consequences of reading a stirring love poem persist. One aspect that all love poetry has in common is the way in which it can engross the reader in its world and engage with their emotional side. They achieve this by using a number of devices and several genres are used to conjure up vastly varying types of emotions: anger, amorousness, longing, and disgust amongst others. One of the foremost genres is that of the dramatic monologue â in which a character delivers a speech explaining their feelings, actions or motives. I will be analysing three starkly differing dramatic monologues: âMy Last Duchessâ, âTo His Coy Mistressâ and âPorphyriaâs Loverâ. Another variation of love poetry is that of the ballad; a timeless art form that is significantly popular to this day. A ballad tells a dramatic story in a direct style, focussing on a single story; repetition is a particularly commonly used convention in ballads. Ballads are traditionally anonymous, and the poem I am analysing is no different: âBalladâ. âMy Last Duchessâ is written from the perspective of a duke who is on the verge of marrying the Countâs daughter and is conversing with the Countâs servant. His previous Duchess was murdered by the Duke himself and the speech could be interpreted as self-justification by the Duke as he attempts to defend his questionable philosophies. âBalladâ is a direct story told through the perspective of a young woman. The lady has fallen in love with a shepherd; unfortunately, it transpires that the man is dishonest. This is revealed when the shepherd impregnates the young woman and flees; his promises unfulfilled. The resolution is minimal at most, the female being left to contemplate suicide. The dramatic monologue has several different forms in itself; the two remaining poems showcase this perfectly. Despite the fact that they are completely different in theme, atmosphere and tempo, they retain the conventions of a dramatic monologue. âTo His Coy Mistressâ is a classic literary piece by Andrew Marvell. The poem is written through the eyes of a male, attempting to âswoonâ his prospective lady into falling for him and consequently, into bed. The male argues, then counter-balances his argument and then concludes, concluding that, surprisingly enough, she should go to bed with him. The last of the quartet is âPorphyriaâs Loverâ, the poem is told through the perspective of a madman sitting with his lover. Porphyria, the woman he loves, comes to his cottage and tells him she loves him. The madman wants to immortalise the moment forever, so he strangles her with her own hair. From the moment âMy Last Duchessâ begins, one can tell that the Duke is an incredibly possessive man. This is reinforced by the opening line, âThatâs my last Duchess painted on the wall.â This epitomises his attitude towards possessions of any kind. One could draw parallels with the overbearing Duke and Porphyriaâs lover, both extremely domineering and possessive. This is exemplified by the quote in âPorphyriaâs Loverâ, when the lover is on the verge of killing his woman, âThat moment she was mine, mine.â This epitomises the loverâs attitude, he is so desperate to own her that he kills her. Robert Browning conveys this obsessively possessive character by using repetition of the phrase, âmineâ. The theme of obsessive and possessive love on behalf of men is clearly at the forefront of Browningâs mind, portraying similar leading men in both of the poems. The Duke is speaking formally to a social inferior, as emphasised in this quote, âWillât please you sit and look at herâ¦Strangers like youâ¦â This insinuates that he is a polite, pleasant man who treats all social classes similarly hence making the revelation of him murdering his last Duchess all the more shocking. The domineering aspect of his character is re-enforced with the quote, âsince none puts by the curtain I have drawn for you, but I.â This embellishes the fact that he sees himself the only one worthy of certain duties. Furthermore, he is clearly happier with the portrait of his wife, âas if aliveâ than he was with the woman when she was living. He is such an authoritarian that anything that he cannot order or control, whether it is art or people, will suffer the consequences. The poem is organised into rhyming couplets, not dissimilar to âBalladâ and âTo His Coy Mistressâ. However, âPorphyriaâs Loverâ does not use rhyming couplets; this may be due to the fact that Browning was looking for an unpredictable rhythm to reflect the unpredictable storyline. The couplets are used in the relative poems to keep a steady sense of rhythm and to keep the stories moving along at a stable pace. Moreover, Iambic pentameter is used throughout the poem to keep the poem flowing as the readers discover the gradual revelation of the speakerâs true nature. As the poem proceeds, it becomes clearer that the Duke is the epitome of excessive, aristocratic pride. This is accentuated by the quote: âAs if she ranked my gift of a nine-hundred-years-old name with anybodyâs gift.â He is suggesting that she is inferior to him and should cherish the fact that she was allowed to marry him. The quote also carries connotations that he is extremely proud of his heritage and the last duchess didnât respect the name; she brought shame to the family. The line also emphasises how aloof he is, which is also supported by the ensuing line; âWhoâd stoop to blame?â He uses stoop to emphasis how lower class she was in comparison to himself. âMy Last Duchessâ uses archaic language, analogously to âBalladâ, as exemplified by the use of the phrase âforsoothâ (âHer wit to yours, forsooth, and made excuse). âBalladâ possesses a multitude of examples of such language using phrases such as âtheeâ, âthyâ and âthouâdstâ. The two poems use this anachronistic language to invoke different sentiments. âBalladâ uses antiquated language to emphasise the âtypical fairytaleâ aspect of the poem and to engage with the readers by evoking the style of older speech â it is aiming to retain the original essence of a poem. âMy Last Duchessâ uses archaism to accentuate the aloof aspect of the Dukeâs character. Despite the fact that the Duke has murdered the last Duchess, he clearly does not acknowledge, or perhaps understand, the direct consequences of his actions. This is implied heavily by the final three lines in which he points out another piece of art, a statue of Neptune â âNotice Neptune, thoughâ¦cast in bronze for me!â The exclamation mark confirms the fact that he is as proud of a statue and as excited of this Roman god as his wife. This implies that he does not realise the consequences of his actions, simply negating her as part of his collection. This sentiment is echoed in âPorphyriaâs Loverâ, in which the madman does not realise the corollary of the murder he has so harshly committed. This is supported by the phrase, âI propped her head up as before.â This statement conveys the fact that he does not recognise the significance of his actions; treating his dead love exactly the same as his living love. The two males in âTo His Coy Mistressâ and âMy Last Duchessâ may have vastly differing personalities but they both view women in a similar light. The duke and the seductive lover have a certain attitude towards women; they both see women as objects, the only difference being that they view these objects through different perspective. The Duke in âMy Last Duchessâ is a supercilious, impertinent man; his status and wealth meaning more to him than love as showcased by the line âWhoâd stoop to blame this sort of trifling?â He believes that the late Duchess was of a lower class, thus tainting their love, implying that he is more perturbed with lack of status than lack of love. He is a megalomaniac, who is jealous about his ex-wife not giving only him her attention. The speaker in "To His Coy Mistress" seems like a respectful man, the speaker is articulate - an important attribute considering he is attempting to seduce the woman. He uses his way of words to flatter her, but we then learn that he only wants her for pleasure rather than love; he adopts a false persona of love as another technique to lure her. This is exemplified by the change of tone in the first to second stanza, the second stanza assumes a threatening tenor â emphasising a void-like image to win his lady â âAnd yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternityâ. This phrase epitomises the way in which the male attempts to manipulate the woman by conjuring up images on the topic of void if she was to reject his advances. The Duke patently feels that his last Duchess did not correspond with the expectations of an archetypal Duchess. An exemplary Duchess would be cold and calculating; avoiding affection like the plague. However, the Duchess did not, in the Dukeâs eyes, demonstrate these traits, as portrayed by this quote â âShe thanked men, - good! But thanked somehowâ¦as if she ranked my giftâ¦with anybodyâs gift.â The Duke is accusing the Duchess of being too affectionate, an attribute not welcome for a Duchess. Furthermore, the Duke surmises that the Duchess is too easily pleased, as showcased by this line in the poem â âToo easily impressed; she liked whateâer she looked on.â This illustrates (in the Dukeâs opinion) the fact that she is too âfriendlyâ and easy to please, particularly when dealing with males. However, it is extremely palpable that the Duchess is simply being friendly and the Duke is unable to understand his wifeâs warm nature. This attitude is reinforced when the Duke struggles to describe his wifeâs kind-hearted personality: âShe had a heart â how shall I say â too soon made glad?â This quote illustrates the fact that he cannot understand that aspect of his wifeâs personality; he expects much colder behaviour from his Duchess. Despite the fact that the Duke is, as he put it, âdisgustedâ with the Duchessâ behaviour. She is described as a lovely free being; freedom is portrayed in the quote: âshe liked whateâer she looked on, and her looks went everywhere.â This quote depicts the Duchess as an impulsive, free soul. However, the Duchessâ free spirit is juxtaposed by the restrictive nature of the Duke as rendered by âI choose never to stoop,â and âI gave commands.â This suggests that the Duke is attempting to restrict the Duchess from being her spontaneous self. It seems that he failed and due to his authoritarian nature, he decreed that she should be murdered. The Duchess is represented as a beautiful person, both physically so and by nature. She loved nature, as emphasised by her association with the imagery of a sunset, a âbough of cherriesâ and her âwhite muleâ. The Duchess is shown as physically attractive â âthe faint half-flush that dies along her throat,â â not dissimilarly to the ladies in âTo His Coy Mistressâ and âPorphyriaâs Loverâ. The woman is clearly beautiful in the seductive poem âTo His Coy Mistressâ as conveyed by the use of doting similes (âThou by the Indian Gangesâ side shouldst rubies find; I by the tide Of Humber would complain.â) He uses this imagery to compare her to an exotic river whereas he is an uninteresting English river. The technique is used to lavish praise upon the beautiful woman, portraying her as glamorous and beautiful; akin to the Ganges. âPorphyriaâs Loverâ uses a beautiful lady to emphasise the surprising (and brutal) nature of the death and juxtapose the madman thus creating a sense of paranoia on behalf of the lover. The gracious beauty of Porphyria is emphasised by the repetition of her âyellow hairâ and her âsmooth white shoulderâ. Beauty is used in the two murderous poems to juxtapose the leading men thus creating a sense of wonder. Splendour is used in âTo His Coy Mistressâ to intensify the efforts and give further cause to the leading manâs attempt to seduce the lady. Alliteration is used in âMy Last Duchessâ (âdropping of the daylight.â, âyour masterâs known munificenceâ) to maintain a rhythm and perhaps for the Duke to flaunt his eloquent speaking ability. The poem is written in heroic couplets with almost continuous enjambment; this technique gives the poem a conversational style â essential for creating a rapport between the reader and the Duke. Browning uses dramatic irony to illustrate the dukeâs manipulative and callous character towards the end of the poem, as he refers to the girl he wants to marry as âmy objectâ (the Duke does not realise how much he is revealing about his personality throughout not only this quote, but the whole poem).

The Duke is the epitome of possessive, arrogant egotism.

...and that is as far as I have got. Thanks in advance.

Sorry for the lack of paragraphs, when I copied and pasted the essay from word, it seemed to get rid of them.

Re: Can anybody explain this please ..

Annvan — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:01:21 GMT

"I understand the irony of the situation, because I was actually the person who introduced a large number of my friends...."

It "is not lost on me" = the meaning/significance doesn't escape me, i.e. I understand/appreciate it.

"as" = here I think it means "because"/"since".

Can anybody explain this please ..

The Graduate — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:05:57 GMT

Hi there,

The irony of this is not lost on me, as I introduced a large number of my friends and colleagues to the Joy of using Firefox (then Firebird).

Can you please first, explain what does the whole sentence mean and then explain the underlined words.

Thanks In Advance ..

Re: Evolution - are all races equally developed?

Stannum — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:05:26 GMT

G'day Forbes,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my opinions and thank you for taking the time to craft that response lucidly.

I am about top disagree with some of your opinions but I salute you as a person and feel honoured to have met you here.

Forbes wrote:

Stannum wrote:

Forbes wrote:
I think that the mistake Stannum is making is to assume that a foolish or irrational act is necessarily an indication of low intelligence.
And I think that one of the mistakes that Forbes makes is to presume that Stannum is making a mistake and then Forbes is compounding that error by coming over all paternalistic in assuming quite naturally naturally that Forbes is right and Stannum is wrong.

I don't much care to be talked down at.

I never insist that I am right. I am just offering an opinion. Just because I am offering an opinion that differs from yours does not mean that I am talking down to you.

Sorry mate. It must be a translaton thing. The preamble, 'I think that the mistake Stannum is making...' sounds quite harsh to this Australian.

Forbes wrote:
Stannum wrote:

Forbes wrote:
Let's say you are sitting at a cafe table and need some change. You see a small boy you do not know, call him over and ask him to go and change a banknote. You may, if you thought about it, be able to calculate the chances of ever seeing the boy again. But your intelligence has not come into play - you have just decided to trust him and if you do indeed never see him again you may decide you were a fool and go on to do The Times crossword in ten minutes without filling in the squares. I have a friend who is a member of Mensa, but who completely lacks common sense and is one of the most gullible people I know.
I think that any mug who gives money to a small child unknown to them is likely to get a pretty standard result.

I am an intelligent bloke and I have never and never would I consider anything so foolish. I suspect that you may be guilty of entrapment if you later found the boy and took him to the police complaining that he had stolen money that you gave him.

The simple point that I am trying to make is that there is no correlation between common sense and intelligence. The fact that you would not ask an unknown child to change a banknote says nothing about your level of intelligence.

To the contrary. I beg to differ. Again this may be a cultural thing but I would consider that any Aussie who gave a banknote to an unknown child and asked that child to return with change is somebody that I would arrange a game of poker with as I would consider that person to be a fool in possession of money soon to be parted with.

It is obvious that this money changing thing is not simply a debating trick, as referenced later, but a core belief that you hold.

You apparently see nothing unintelligent in the concept of a stranger giving a child money and asking that child to go away to obtain change and then come back again whereas I see that as being just as indicative of low intelligence as playing poker machines or gambling on horses. All three persuits are certain to leave you with less money despite the promise of easy gain.

Forbes wrote:
Stannum wrote:
Forbes wrote:
Humans, more than any other species, need to learn how to survive. Let's face we even have to be told how to make babies. Whenever we kill animals for food we use our intelligence, not superior strength or speed or any specially adapted equipment such as sharp teeth or claws; all hunting skills are learned or worked out and planning a hunt and making tools to catch and kill other animals requires intelligence. A spider can weave a web, but does not know how it does it. If humans weaved webs they would either have to learn how to do it or work it out, both of which require intelligence.
How do you presume to know what is in the mind of a spider? Forbes seems so superior in intelligence that Forbes is able to think for me and also be able to divine that a spider can not know how to do a thing.

You have indicated a high level of intelligence by using the debating trick of homing in on the analogy and trashing it, rather than dealing with the main point. I deliberately suggested that a spider does not know how it weaves a web just to see if you would home in on it. I do not presume to know the mind of a spider. But the truth is that building webs is something that is programmed into the brain of a spider; spiders do not learn how to weave webs from their parents. If a human wants to make a web like structure he learns how to do it by watching someone else do it or works it out; it is not instinctive.

A human child is born with the instinctive ability to smile and it is postulated, by Desmond Morris et al) that this is a staggeringly important survival ability. We learn things and we know things and we do some things without knowing just the same as the spider.

A spider has been demonstrated as possessing the ability to learn under controlled and repaetable circumstances and it is now thought that some spiders use this ability to learn to learn to hunt their prey by trial and error. The web casting spiders are one type and the jumping spiders are another.

Forbes wrote:
Stannum wrote:
Forbes wrote:
If intelligence is or involves the ability to learn or to work things out, then every human that Stannum has worked with has the ability to learn and work out more things the most intelligent chimpanzee.
I have unfortunately worked with people who have to be fed and bathed and cleaned and sat up and lay down.

I have worked with people who are so congenitally impaired that they can not perform any fucntions much higher than the autonomous. I sometimes carry on conversations with people who I suspect understand me less than my dog was able to.

Now you are showing your intelligence by deliberately equivocating. In one post you said: âI reckon that there are chimpanzees with more potential than some burkes I have had to work with over the yearsâ and now you say: âI have worked with people who are so congenitally impaired...â Assuming that you are not so unkind as to refer to the congenitally impaired as burkes, I take it that in each case you are referring to two different sets of people. âWork withâ in the first case means âperform a job of work withâ whilst in the second it means âassist in some wayâ. You know that I mean the first sense. So the question is: Do you sincerely believe that anyone you have shared a job of work with is less intelligent than a chimpanzee?

I did not equivocate and you show that you understand this with your confirmatory question so I would politely request that you retract the 'Equivocator' imprecation.

I have worked with burkes who for one reason or another have intellects that I would compare unfavourably to some primates that I have read of. {See Animal Days by Desmond Morris} I consider that a person who takes a perfectly valid and functioning mind and blasts that mind with alcohol or drugs to be a burke. I have worked with a few such people and I was never able to trust any one of them. I had a brother who was a lovely bloke and quite bright who died in the gutter from alcoholic poisoning. For the last ten years of his life I was unable to understand his lifestyle. For the last three years of his life I was unable to carry on an intelligible conversation with him. The sad part was that everyone knew what was going to happen, we were surprised that he lived so long, the saddest part was that my brother knew what he was doing to himself.

At some point during my brother's final years his intellect dropped to a very very low point. He forgot how to do so many things. He could no longer drive a car. His manual dexterity was shot. He was still human but only just barely functioning. He was baffeled by some modern door locks and a computer was just a weird TV. He became definitely illiterate [I had to throw away the scribbled christmas card he sent me as my daughter was troubled by the prechildish scrawl from a fifty year old man] and probably innumerate.

Forbes wrote:
Stannum wrote:
Forbes wrote:
We are intelligent because we have evolved that way. But evolution is not perfect and in some ways we have become too intelligent for our own good. If whales and elephants are not destroying the world it is because they have not learned or worked out how to do it.
That is total egocentric rationalising to try to justify Homo sapiens sapiens hyper aggressive actions.

How many animals other than humans regularly exterminate vast numbers of their own species?

How many other animals befoul their environment.

Forbes now has the ability to divine that whales and elephants would be just as bad as us given the chance. How can Forbes know this? How many elephants and whales have you polled in your quest to be right?

The suggestion that whales and elephants might destroy the world if they knew how is ironical, but I suspect you knew that. The point I want to make is that humans have the capability to destroy the world because of their intelligence. If they do so it will not be because of a lack of intelligence, but for a multitude of other reasons.

Intelligence is a faculty that includes abilities such as seeing patterns, solving problems and the like. Being intelligent will not stop you being greedy, impetuous, lazy, aggressive, petty-minded, neurotic and a whole lot of other things.

I am again sorry if I have misunderstood your irony but such comments have already meen made in apparent seriousness by others.

I do not believe that the ability to destroy the world is an inevitable result of intelligent. That is too nihlistic for me to contemplate. As with many evolutionary things this ability is a glitch and will be shortly erradicated as we run out of cheap available energy.

I beleive that the ability to destroy the world will only exist for one more generation and then it will be dismantled and never reassembled.

There is nothing inevitable about nuclear armageddon. It is a very complex process and will be halted by humanity {as it already has done} if ever it is contemplated.

I do not know any truely intelligent people who are greedy, impetuous, lazy, aggressive, petty-minded, neurotic. I know some damaged people like that but I don't consider such people to be really intelligent at all.

See ya mate

Stannum