Blog

Discuss the origins and development of Modernism. How is it represented in 20th century British literature and culture?

Modernism is one of those terms that is attached to a present moment in history, but becomes misleading and clumsy as time (and literature) moves on. At the time of its naming, it referred to a departure from artificial constructions and imaginative narrative structures as seen in Romanticism, Victorianism, and 19th century technology. In literature it was an embrace of the real world and its dramas and social states – Ibsen’s dramas are an excellent model for domestic modernism. In English literature, it is represented by Dickens, who painted pictures of British life much less picturesque than earlier novelists – compare Oliver Twist’s mise-en-scene in contrast to Bronte’s. In poetry, modernism released poetry from rhyme and meter, giving us Eliot’s The Wasteland and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. The period, traditionally lasting until some time between the World Wars, was followed by what is now called post-modernism, including Futurism/Dada/Surrealism, etc.

What would be a simple yet insightful thesis statement for the causes of WW II using these three causes: appeasement, effects of the Great...

A simple yet insightful thesis statement about the causes of World War II might be something along these lines: World War II was in part caused by the humiliating effects that the Great Depression had on Germany; as a result, Germany turned to militarism, and western countries met this increasing threat with a policy of appeasement. This statement means that Germany, which was forced to pay large sums of money in reparations after losing World War I, was further debilitated by the Great Depression because American and European banks could no longer afford to loan Germany money to pay their reparations, largely to England and France. As a result of their economic distress and wounded nationalism, Germany started to remilitarize under the Nazis. At first, other nations did not understand that Hitler would not be stopped, and in the Munich Conference of 1938, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, followed a policy of appeasement by giving Hitler a part of Czechoslovakia in return for agreeing to stop future conquests. Of course, this policy of appeasement was a failure, as Hitler would continue to try to take over Europe and other parts of the world.

What is the significance of the title of the Book of Matthew? Is the title a metaphor or representative of a specific incident in the book?

The first issue you should consider in addressing this assignment is that the Book of Matthew, as is the case with many ancient works, may not have had a title in the modern sense. Thus, talking about an "author" choosing a "title" fundamentally misunderstands the nature and history of this text.

The Gospels (Matthew is one of the four Books of the Gospel) which eventually were included in the New Testament originated in oral tradition...

The Gospels (Matthew is one of the four Books of the Gospel) which eventually were included in the New Testament originated in oral tradition as various stories concerning the life of Jesus and collections of his sayings. This particular work synthesizes materials from the earlier Gospel of Mark with a sayings source referred to by scholars as "Q".

The title in Greek is "To kata Matthaion euangélion," literally "the gospel [good news] according to Matthew." The translators of the Authorized Version (popularly known as the King James Version) translated the Greek into English quite literally.

The title suggests the work tells the story of the "good news" brought by Jesus following a tradition originating from Matthew, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Given the reliance of the text on Mark and the fact that the earliest attributions of it to Matthew occur in the second century, it is unlikely this was actually an account written by Matthew, although he may have been a source of some of the oral traditions that found their way into the text.

The reason for the attribution of the work to Matthew arose in the context of second century debates about and contests for authority among very early Christian factions. Irenaeus and Papias were especially concerned with establishing apostolic succession as a basis for doctrinal authority, and thus the significance of imputing authorship to Matthew has to do with using a form of what rhetoricians of this period would have termed extrinsic ethos as grounds for establishing a text or doctrine as authoritative.

How and why have U.S. interests and involvement in the Middle East changed over time?

The United States has been involved in the Middle East since its founding. One of the first official actions of the US government was the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, which established a ceasefire between the fledgling US Navy and the Barbary States, which included Morocco and other parts of North Africa. Before the treaty, the Barbary States had been hiring privateers called the Barbary Corsairs to raid shipping across the Mediterranean, including US shipping. The treaty put an end to that, in exchange for concessions from the US. Because the Barbary States were predominantly Muslim (as the Middle East remains today), the treaty also established explicitly that freedom of religion in the United States includes Islam. (Some folks don't seem to have gotten the memo...)

Still, US involvement in the Middle East was relatively minimal for most of the 19th and early 20th century. It reached a much higher level after the founding of Israel in 1948, and the establishment of Israel as a key US ally. The resulting displacement of Palestinians, as well as the fact that Israel is a Jewish state surrounded by Muslim states, has led to a great deal of conflict in the region, and the US has generally taken Israel's side in such conflicts, supplying enormous amounts of economic and military support.

More recently the US became again embroiled in the Middle East after OPEC, and especially Saudi Arabia, embargoed oil exports to the US in 1973, dramatically raising the price of oil in the US and triggering inflation and recession (you may have heard it called "the Nixon stagflation"; it is a good example of "cost-push inflation"). This crisis triggered calls for the US to divest from foreign oil, though US oil imports didn't actually fall significantly until the 2010s. Instead, the main US response seems to have been attempts to use diplomacy--and, if necessary, force--to secure a steady supply of oil from the Middle East. Many subsequent conflicts and proxy wars, including those with Iran and Iraq, were at least in part motivated by this desire to protect oil interests.

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, as a kind of vicarious retaliation, US policy in the Middle East became even more aggressive, changing from simply trying to ensure a steady flow of oil to actively trying to unseat governments perceived as the enemy. On the one hand, some of these governments---such as the Taliban's in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's in Iraq---were in fact quite terrible, engaged in tyranny, oppression, and genocide; and thus it is hard to feel bad that they are gone. But on the other hand, many equally-terrible regimes (such as that of Saudi Arabia) were not toppled by the US military, and it is hard to see why other than that the US only tends to attack countries that stop supplying it with oil. In addition, the costs of these wars and occupations has been extremely high---trillions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of people killed---and often greatly underestimated beforehand.

Most recently, under President Obama, the US has gone back to a less aggressive approach, and actually followed through on reducing foreign oil dependence. Under Obama US oil imports have fallen faster than ever before. Make no mistake, the US still deploys many troops (including quite literally robot troops, namely Predator drones) in the region, but the strategy has been much more targeted at undermining particular leaders and terrorist organizations rather than at conquering and occupying whole countries.

How would you compare and contrast the message about science and integrity in Frankenstein and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

I find Dr. Jekyll's use of science to have at least a bit more integrity than Victor Frankenstein's. Frankenstein dreams of being "blessed" by a race of men which he will have created and "hailed" as something of a hero by them. He puts science to use in order to achieve personal glory and fame, and because he acts without integrity, behaving selfishly and unethically, he ruins many more lives than just his own.

Dr....

Dr. Jekyll, on the other hand, doesn't exploit science in order to achieve fame. In essence, he succumbs to Victorian societal pressure to conform to an incredibly repressive moral code. His intention is to better himself by making it easier for him to always do the right thing, as defined by his society. Despite the problems we might find with his rationale (if we take issue with his attempt to rid himself of a fundamental part of being human), his intentions, I would argue, are less self-serving than Frankenstein's. Jekyll is actually attempting to change himself in order to better fit the (unreasonable) demands of his society, and so his use of science smacks more clearly of integrity than does Frankenstein's. He shows that it is possible to put science to use in a more ethical way than Shelley's "hero."

Why does Duke Orsino say "If music be the food of love, play on" in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night?

Duke Orsino is suffering, and he is hoping that the music will end his suffering.

Duke Orsino is in love, but his love is unrequited. Olivia has vowed off men. She has experienced some hardships because both her father and brother died and she wants to take a seven year mourning period to recover from the loss. This is a different kind of love. Duke Orsino has convinced himself that he is in love with her, but she will have none of it. This is why he tells the musician to play on, because music is the “food of love,” as they say, and if you eat too much, you will no longer have an appetite for it. Basically, if you listen to enough music, you won’t be in love anymore. I guess that’s his plan, metaphorically.

DUKE ORSINO

If music be the food of love, play on;
Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so die.
That strain again! it had a dying fall … (Act 1, Scene 1)

It doesn’t work. Orsino gets sick of the music and tells the musicians to stop. Shakespeare makes another joke with a play on the “hart,” which is a stag. This sounds a lot like “heart,” doesn’t it? This is especially true since Shakespeare’s audience would have been hearing and not seeing the word.

CURIO

Will you go hunt, my lord?

DUKE ORSINO

What, Curio?

CURIO

The hart. (Act 1, Scene 1)

Orsino picks up the play on words by mentioning Olivia. He is hunting her heart, not a deer. He wants Olivia to return his affections. Listening to music did not make him love her any less.

What are common themes in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini?

Both Frankenstein and The Kite Runner deal with several similar themes, though separated by years of history and with very different authorship. In Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein is appalled by the monstrosity of his creation. He is devastated by what he has done, and spends the entire novel trying to kill the monster and avenge the deaths of his loved ones.

Similarly, Amir spends much of The Kite Runnertrying to escape the monstrosity he...

Similarly, Amir spends much of The Kite Runner trying to escape the monstrosity he witnessed when he saw Assef beat and rape Hassan. Amir tries to make his own amends by adopting Hassan's son.

Father-son relationships are also themes in both novels. Though Victor's relationship with his father in Frankenstein is fairly typical, his relationship to his created son, the Creature, is atypical. He rejects his "son" entirely, and the Creature is left alone and parentless. The Creature becomes monstrous because he is never shown love. Victor never has biological children because the Creature murders his wife on their wedding night.

In The Kite Runner, Amir's father is ashamed of his introverted and bookish tendencies, which creates tension in their relationship, as does their move to the US. Like Victor, Amir is unable to have children with his wife, and instead adopts his brother's son in an attempt to create a family.

Because both novels deal intimately with shame, making amends, and family relationships, the theme of identity can be said to encompass all these smaller themes into a larger, unifying theme that runs across both stories.