Short Assignment: Dulce et Decorum Est

Max Liebl

4/7/17

Wilfred Owen makes many changes to his manuscript in order to better capture the audience and all them to better see the emotion and desperation of the men in a gas attack. One of the first changes is to add in “Quick, boys!” following the signaling of the gas attack. Owen initially writes, “Gas! Gas! An ecstasy of fumbling,” which describes the somewhat chaotic and clumsy movement to don the protective gas masks in a hurry. However, his addition allows for the audience to better picture the speed required for the men to don the masks. It shows how dire the situation is and that speed is crucial and how that plays into the next stanza with the description of the young man who couldn’t get his on in time, thus suffering from the effects of the deadly gas.

Owen also takes out a major portion of his poem where he describes the sound of incoming gas shells. He describes how the men had loosened their masks in case it was gas and the quiet listening of their surroundings waiting for the inevitable. Eliciting this portion allows for the reader to better understand the desperation of a surprise gas attack, since this part paints the picture of men awaiting an oncoming attack. Owen seems to want to create a sense of urgency and surprise and show how these attacks took the lives of young men like the one described in the poem at random whether they had prepared or not.  

ERH 205WX The Man Who Would Be King Essay

Max Liebl

3/23/17

The story, The Man Who Would Be King, per Jeffrey Meyers, asserts the claim that the story is flawed because of Kipling’s apparent lack of moral authority and approval of Peachey and Dravot’s imperialistic goals. The two men the story revolves around tells the tale of how some everyday crooks manage to undermine an entire culture for their own personal gain. While it does end in demise, Kipling attempts to create a sense of vindication for Peachey and Dravot’s sacrifice by implicitly sympathizing with their situation. According to Meyers, this clearly presents to the audience a lack of seriousness and issues of morality that as greedy and rogue as the men were, they still deserve a sort of praise. However, by examining Kipling as an author in this time it is possible to see the irony in his style of writing and how Peachey and Dravot’s situation displays tongue-in-cheek humor. As flawed as the story may be in the backgrounds and behaviors of the main characters, it may have been the intention of Kipling to bring to light his view on national colonialism and implicitly show the humor of Britain’s politics abroad during this time.

Jeffrey Meyers asserts his claim of how Kipling lacks addressing the moral issues throughout the story and condemns him for showing sympathy to their imperialistic ambitions. In a rather harsh tone, Meyers examines Peachey and Dravot as men who lack the education, fidelity, and morality required for kingship and seek the power and riches for purely selfish reasons. In his comparison of the men to James Brooke, “…Dan’s vainglorious ambition is to surpass even Brooke in absolute power…” (Meyers 724), Meyers shows how his view of Brooke is purely materialistic. He desires the wealth and power he achieved by conquering Borneo in 1841 and fails to see the sense of morality and duty to lead that Brooke displayed throughout his rule. In describing Peachey and Dravot, it is easy to see Meyers’ opinion of the men and the evidence he provides backs his condemnation of the author. But Meyers doesn’t take into account the difference between the narrator and the author, assuming the two are indeed separate. While the narrator tells the tale that Meyers is condemning, it is possible that Meyers is pointing fingers at the wrong voice which may not necessarily be that of Kipling.

As a reader, Meyers’ article may come across as condemning to Kipling’s writing. It is easy to get lost in the story and realize the tongue-in-cheek humor that Kipling presents through Dan and Peachey’s situation. Because of this it is apparent to see how the voice of the author can be confused with that of the narrator. The narrator of the story is simply telling the story and may not be expressing exactly the points that Kipling is trying to make about British Colonialism. For example, Kipling creates the situation of Dan and Peachey rapidly taking over territory by using firepower and weapons that were not available to the people of Kafiristan. This poorly illustrates how the British could colonize India and the rapid onset of British culture in the region. While it may seem as simple as Dan and Peachey being able to kill their enemies without ever coming within hand-to-hand range, Kipling makes a mockery of colonialism and the humor arises in the fact that it could simply never happen the way it did in the story. Meyers tends to focus on the literal meaning of the story which is not incorrect, but rather one’s own interpretation which is that if colonizing nations were to forget their sense of morality and humanity, this is what would ensue. By picking up certain context clues, it is easier to see the difference in voice between the narrator and Kipling.

Identifying the voice of the narrator versus that of Kipling allows the reader to see the “joke” that Kipling implicitly creates. The story creates a sense of irony towards the ending especially as the two men are soon ousted from the community that only minutes before had praised them as gods. “They are Englishmen, these people, — and it’s my blasted nonsense that has brought you to this,” (Kipling 23), as Dan states this, they are running out of the community while under fire from its citizens that they had equipped and trained. The irony comes from the fact that they had sought to gain purely personal riches, but instead became self-proclaimed kings and brought western culture to an indigenous people roughly representing colonialism. How they’re plan backfired, in a sense, could be how Kipling saw colonialism and how it could backfire on the British as well should they exploit the indigenous population as Dan and Peachey had. As Meyers writes, he seems to not see past the voice of the narrator and condemn Kipling as being accepting to this kind of behavior and illegitimate rule. It was commonly known that Kipling expressed views related to that of fascism which could be grounds for Meyers scrutiny of the message he portrays in the story. To Meyers, this may be Kipling’s fascist views becoming known through Dan and Peachey’s abusive use of power and intolerance towards other cultures. While it was never confirmed that Kipling was a fascist, Meyers’ argument could support this point of view as well. Identifying the voice of the narrator versus that of Kipling allows for the reader to see the irony of the story being told, however, it is up to the reader to scrutinize between which message Kipling delivers.

Meyers delivers his interpretation of The Man Who Would Be King by addressing the apparent issues of morality as his argument. He identifies how Kipling does not condemn the men for their actions but rather sympathize with their situation. However, it is never stated by Kipling that his intention was to scrutinize Dan and Peachey’s journey to fraudulent kingship. The point of view of the author is that of an outside character and completely disconnected from the story. Kipling never agrees or disagrees with the actions of the characters but instead provides an impartial view of how everyday crooks sought out an adventure for monetary gain and power and achieved their goal which later turned to disaster. While Meyers scrutinizes Kipling’s message, he neglects to look at the deeper meaning of the writing and find the humor in it. While it is possible Kipling uses the voice of the narrator to push his alleged fascist agenda, the irony of two men taking over a region steeped in cultural values to adopt a western way of life is what is most apparent and the theme that Meyers neglects to notice.

Works Cited

Kipling, Rudyard, and Jan Montefiore. The Man Who Would Be King. London: Penguin, 2011. ProQuest. Web.

Meyers, Jeffrey. “The Idea of Moral Authority in The Man Who Would Be King.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900.Vol. 8, No. 4, Nineteenth Century (1968): 711-23. JSTOR. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

Max Liebl

ERH-205WX Meyers Article Summary

3/19/17

Jeffrey Meyers’ article focuses on Moral Authority, or lack thereof, in the novel The Man Who Would Be King. Meyers begins his article by making the claim that Peachey and Dravot fail in kingship because of their lack of moral standards that would be typical of a king such as that of the British Empire. Beginning with their backgrounds which Meyers describes as “soldiers” which is comparable to that of the lowest class of socially acceptable working people in England during that time period. Peachey and Dravot are, “…uneducated and corrupt adventurers,” (Meyers 712), who spend their time committing petty acts of crime such as blackmailing and fraud which makes it clear that their intentions lack integrity and are not genuine. Meyers shows that the vulnerability of the land that which they are conquering also plays a major role in their lack of authenticity since the men have “purely materialistic” ambitions for the land, they seek areas outside of control of the Queen and British governance. Dan and Peachey refer throughout the novel of the comparison of their adventure to that of James Brooke in 1841 who conquered Borneo in much of the same way as the pair conquered Kafiristan. As time goes on, however, Meyers explains that where Brooke took genuine concern to the people of Borneo and acted with compassion and chivalry, Dan and Peachey did not in their case. The pair, “…aspire[d] to Brooke’s power, titles, wealth and fame,” (Meyers 714), but not the level of responsibility and the sense of duty Brooke felt towards his people. Because of the lack of moral values, Meyers shows that is how the men wrongfully assume that their form of government will be better than the primitive institution of power that was in place before. Meyers explains that the pair was able to exploit the gullibility of the people in this manner which is one of the main reasons their rise to power was so swift. Through their use of firepower and technology that was unavailable to the people of Kafiristan at the time, the men never recognize the brutality of their conquest in what Meyers refers to as “unprincipled colonialism”. Meyers shows throughout his article how Dan and Peachey make a mockery out of colonialism and while it may seem as though he is condemning British colonialism, it is rather that he is showing what would happen if morality was suddenly thrown out of the equation.

Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V

Cadet Max Liebl

ERH-205WX

2/20/17

Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Shakespeare’s Henry V is reputed as one of the most important adaptations of the play because of his portrayal of Henry as the King and leader the audience imagines him to be. The remake is often seen as being dark and with harsh scenes of combat and gore that one would not expect of a screenplay of a Shakespeare production. However, Branagh created his version in a post-Cold War world at a time when violent war movies were on the rise, and the heroes were portrayed as larger than life characters. Branagh sought to recreate Henry in the light that was originally intended and in a way, that would appeal to an audience of this era. With scenes that allow the audience to see the more human side of Henry that is more ideologically and politically aware. This allows for a better view into his emotions which in turn creates a better understanding for Henry not as the king, but as the man. Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Henry V brings to life the true Henry that Shakespeare creates in the play, in that he is portrayed as a strong and confident leader who the audience can feel an emotional connection with.

In the original play by Shakespeare, the theme ubiquitous throughout is the theme of coming of age. There is a constant struggle for Henry to break free from the reigns of his childhood innocence and take on the persona of a great king. It is without a doubt that Henry demands and receives an immense amount of respect from his subordinates, and as shown in the beginning of the play, it is apparent that they have taken notice:

The courses of his youth promised it not.

The breath no sooner left his father’s body

But that his wildness, mortified in him,

Seemed to die too. Yea, at that very moment

Consideration like an angel came

And whipped th’ offending Adam out of him, (I.i.24-27)

It is clear that Henry is no longer viewed in the same light he was in his youth and in the scene where he condemns Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey, his resolve is solidified. It is known during his condemnation of the three men that Henry and Lord Scroop have a history with roots going back to their early years. However, Henry puts aside any personal emotions that may exist between him and Scroop for the sake of England and marks him as a traitor and is sentenced to death. Throughout the play Henry has more run-ins with his past that lead to him making decisions that reflect a coming of age and a forging of a new level of maturity that will mark him as one of the greatest kings in history.

In 1944, Laurence Olivier brought Henry V to life on screen as an effort to rally the English population during the time of war. In his version, Olivier seems to glamorize the king as the ideal character without allowing the audience to take note of his true persona. The idealized version of Henry makes for a poor connection between the audience and the actor and paints an unrealistic picture of the struggles of Henry’s reign. In an article comparing the Branagh and Olivier films, “…[the] investment in the unkempt and harsh side of physical life–is not debasing but provides an almost ritual immersion from which Henry emerges…” (Donaldson 65). By the audience becoming more in tune with the emotional side of Henry, it creates a better picture for how Henry got to be the king that he is renowned to be throughout history. The gore and scenes of intense battle allow the audience the kind of interaction that Shakespeare originally sought. By placing Henry in the kind of treacherous situations one would never imagine a king of sort in, it is easier to portray him as the leader that he is imagined to be.

A striking difference between the Branagh and Olivier films is the level of intimacy created to better understand Henry and his relationships with others. Many times, throughout the film, the man behind the crown is revealed and the audience gets a glimpse of the spontaneous and empathetic side of Henry. Henry’s Crispin’s Day speech is one of those situations where Branagh portrays him as if he is reaching for an “invisible essence” and imagining the glory that would come from this victory. Throughout the speech, the audience sees two sides of Henry, the ambitious, eager king, and the serious and well-spoken leader in which the acting fades away and reveals his feelings of immense pride and love for his “band of brothers.” Branagh develops Henry in a way that allows us to see into his past life through the relationships he shared with others. The audience sees his coming of age when he orders the deaths of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey and the death of his childhood mentor, Falstaff and how cutting these ties opens the doors to new ones. Henry’s past relationships are, “…intense and mistrustful, charged with the emotional weight of tangled primary family dynamics” (Donaldson 67), but out of the strife of war, new bonds are formed and are proven to last far beyond those of his youth. Henry changes throughout the film and he finds his new self through the bonds of love and brotherhood which Shakespeare had intended to show.

Kenneth Branagh creates an image of Henry that was originally intended by Shakespeare as a confident and charismatic, yet reserved and thoughtful leader. Branagh brings Henry to life as a dynamic character who is constantly being developed throughout the film. However naïve Henry may seem, the audience is reminded of his hard-headedness and serious drive for victory through the scenes of intense battle and betrayal that confirm his commitment to being king. As compared to Laurence Olivier’s version of the film, the audience often does not get a proper view of the man that Henry is, but instead a static “acting” performance which seems forced and undeveloped which leaves the audience satisfied, but without knowledge of the real Henry. Branagh opens the door to Henry’s mind and allows for us to see into his emotions and his love for companionship formed and solidified in battle and hardship.

Works Cited

Donaldson, Peter S. Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), 60-71.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Henry V. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Reflective Essay ERH 205WX

Max Liebl

5/1/17

In taking this course, I learned immensely about the cultural practices and values reflected in British literature. One common theme that stuck with me amongst many of the readings we covered in class was the role of honor in British society. It occurred to me that even more so than the impact that religion and imperialism have on the culture, the underlying root to conduct in warfare and in society in general revolves around a sense of honor. Beginning in the medieval era with Shakespeare’s Henry V, honor plays a critical role in the decisions the young king must make and how that will rally his troops and bring about a sense of national pride and justify their cause. Following into the era of imperialism and the issues of morality that Dan and Peachey face in The Man Who Would Be King, by Rudyard Kipling. Their judgement, or lack thereof, of deciding to journey to Kafiristan seeking power and riches sheds a light on what would happen if British values such as honor and civility were thrown out the window. All leading up to World War I where young men were pressed into service for their nation to defend their homeland and way of life. In what is known as The Great War, the true value of honor and sacrifice are told firsthand through poetry written in wartime by poets such as Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. It is apparent that honor is the touchstone of British culture seeing as it is unwavering and a source for confidence, courage, and guidance for the protagonists of these texts and it is something that I find very interesting and significant to examine further.

In British culture, honor has played a major role in creating a sense of national pride dating back to the times of Queen Elizabeth when the different regions of England came together to better serve country instead of their individual region. There is no better example of this kind of unity than in Shakespeare’s Henry V when the young king manages to bring together an army to invade France despite the questionable moral issues and legality of the invasion. Henry, like much of the population of Britain in this time, value relationships with others and mutual trust with those they respect. When it is discovered that there are traitors among the ranks of the king’s top advisors, Henry shows no mercy to the men who attempted to exploit him, severing the bond of trust:

What shall I say to thee, Lord Scroop, thou cruel,

Ingrateful, savage, and inhuman creature?

Thou that didst bear the key of all my counsels,

That knew’st the very bottom of my soul, (II.ii.94-97)

Despite the circumstances, Henry lead his army in a successful war against France and stirs a tremendous pride in the cause they are fighting for.  I believe that Henry V, epitomizes the British sense of honor and shows the root of the pride, the British have for their homeland.

With honor being such an integral part of British society, it is easy to forget what could happen if it were not that way. In Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King, Dan and Peachey seek to gain personal riches by exploiting the culture of the people of Kafiristan. In the 19^th century, the British empire began imperializing eastern countries in hopes to impart western culture and values on the “savage” nations such as India, Burma and the Middle East. In an attempt to catapult developing nations into the current times with western values, the British brought infrastructure, technology and laws to these countries. In the case of Dan and Peachey, the lack of personal honor and morality leads to their untimely demise after being exposed as frauds to the people of Kafiristan. I find this story to be particularly interesting because it is easy to see how imperialism and the colonization of less developed nations could be a slippery slope without regard to personal honor. This reading shows, while far-fetched, how naive the British people in their attempt to bring western influence to a country that follows strict adherence to traditions. The British saw it was their right to expand their empire, but to do it correctly and effectively, they could not exploit other cultures. While the story has undertones of humor, it is a prime example of where honor and glory-seeking collide. Many critics saw this story as appalling because of Kipling’s lack of addressing the issues of moral authority and recklessness that is apparent throughout. In a society that prides itself on being men and women of honor, I believe this story reveals what could happen if the idea of honor was misinterpreted.

This leads into the First World War where so many young men were pressed into service of the nation and lost their lives in the name of protecting their homeland. In the beginning of the war, poets wrote about how the war would unite the nation and would be a glorious way to bring honor back the nation that seemingly lost its way during the time of imperialism. However, by the end of the war, the true honor came from the sacrifices of the so many men that were killed in action and the lives that they gave up serving their country. Honor became a matter of whether you wore a uniform during that time and did your part during the war, “Two bleeding years I fought in France, for Squire: I suffered anguish that he’s never guessed. Once I came home on leave: and then went west… What greater glory could a man desire?” (Sassoon). At the outbreak of war, many young men were eager to join the fight and bring honor and glory to themselves in combat. However, the trenches were a brutal place to fight and so many young men, such as the one Siegfried Sassoon writes about in his poem, Memorial Tablet (Great War) received only the glory of having died overseas. The strife that came with serving in the trenches lead poets to write about the realistic brutality of war and how a whole generation of British men was lost in that short span of four years. World War I brought on the same sense of national pride that is shown in Henry V, re-affirming the loyalty the British people carry for their fellow man and their homeland.

The British have a proud heritage with honor as its base. From the times of knights and the forming of large armies for an invasion, to the bloody trenches of France, honor has been the foundation for great leadership, confidence and sacrifice and it is why England has remained one of the greatest world superpowers. As a future Army Officer, I find it fascinating to study what makes a population so proud of their heritage and continue the legacy of honor throughout the ages to the present day. By studying the poetry and stories told by Britain’s most renowned authors, I now have a better understanding of British culture and role that honor plays in keeping traditions alive.

Works Cited

Kipling, Rudyard, and Jan Montefiore. The Man Who Would Be King. London: Penguin, 2011. ProQuest. Web.

Sassoon, Siegfried. “Memorial Tablet (Great War).” The Desperate Dance. William D. Badgett. 38. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Henry V. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V

Cadet Max Liebl

ERH-205WX

2/20/17

Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Shakespeare’s Henry V is reputed as one of the most important adaptations of the play because of his portrayal of Henry as the King and leader the audience imagines him to be. The remake is often seen as being dark and with harsh scenes of combat and gore that one would not expect of a screenplay of a Shakespeare production. However, Branagh created his version in a post-Cold War world at a time when violent war movies were on the rise, and the heroes were portrayed as larger than life characters. Branagh sought to recreate Henry in the light that was originally intended and in a way, that would appeal to an audience of this era. With scenes that allow the audience to see the more human side of Henry that is more ideologically and politically aware. This allows for a better view into his emotions which in turn creates a better understanding for Henry not as the king, but as the man. Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Henry V brings to life the true Henry that Shakespeare creates in the play, in that he is portrayed as a strong and confident leader who the audience can feel an emotional connection with.

In the original play by Shakespeare, the theme ubiquitous throughout is the theme of coming of age. There is a constant struggle for Henry to break free from the reigns of his childhood innocence and take on the persona of a great king. It is without a doubt that Henry demands and receives an immense amount of respect from his subordinates, and as shown in the beginning of the play, it is apparent that they have taken notice:

The courses of his youth promised it not.

The breath no sooner left his father’s body

But that his wildness, mortified in him,

Seemed to die too. Yea, at that very moment

Consideration like an angel came

And whipped th’ offending Adam out of him, (I.i.24-27)

It is clear that Henry is no longer viewed in the same light he was in his youth and in the scene where he condemns Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey, his resolve is solidified. It is known during his condemnation of the three men that Henry and Lord Scroop have a history with roots going back to their early years. However, Henry puts aside any personal emotions that may exist between him and Scroop for the sake of England and marks him as a traitor and is sentenced to death. Throughout the play Henry has more run-ins with his past that lead to him making decisions that reflect a coming of age and a forging of a new level of maturity that will mark him as one of the greatest kings in history.

In 1944, Laurence Olivier brought Henry V to life on screen as an effort to rally the English population during the time of war. In his version, Olivier seems to glamorize the king as the ideal character without allowing the audience to take note of his true persona. The idealized version of Henry makes for a poor connection between the audience and the actor and paints an unrealistic picture of the struggles of Henry’s reign. In an article comparing the Branagh and Olivier films, “…[the] investment in the unkempt and harsh side of physical life–is not debasing but provides an almost ritual immersion from which Henry emerges…” (Donaldson 65). By the audience becoming more in tune with the emotional side of Henry, it creates a better picture for how Henry got to be the king that he is renowned to be throughout history. The gore and scenes of intense battle allow the audience the kind of interaction that Shakespeare originally sought. By placing Henry in the kind of treacherous situations one would never imagine a king of sort in, it is easier to portray him as the leader that he is imagined to be.

A striking difference between the Branagh and Olivier films is the level of intimacy created to better understand Henry and his relationships with others. Many times, throughout the film, the man behind the crown is revealed and the audience gets a glimpse of the spontaneous and empathetic side of Henry. Henry’s Crispin’s Day speech is one of those situations where Branagh portrays him as if he is reaching for an “invisible essence” and imagining the glory that would come from this victory. Throughout the speech, the audience sees two sides of Henry, the ambitious, eager king, and the serious and well-spoken leader in which the acting fades away and reveals his feelings of immense pride and love for his “band of brothers.” Branagh develops Henry in a way that allows us to see into his past life through the relationships he shared with others. The audience sees his coming of age when he orders the deaths of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey and the death of his childhood mentor, Falstaff and how cutting these ties opens the doors to new ones. Henry’s past relationships are, “…intense and mistrustful, charged with the emotional weight of tangled primary family dynamics” (Donaldson 67), but out of the strife of war, new bonds are formed and are proven to last far beyond those of his youth. Henry changes throughout the film and he finds his new self through the bonds of love and brotherhood which Shakespeare had intended to show.

Kenneth Branagh creates an image of Henry that was originally intended by Shakespeare as a confident and charismatic, yet reserved and thoughtful leader. Branagh brings Henry to life as a dynamic character who is constantly being developed throughout the film. However naïve Henry may seem, the audience is reminded of his hard-headedness and serious drive for victory through the scenes of intense battle and betrayal that confirm his commitment to being king. As compared to Laurence Olivier’s version of the film, the audience often does not get a proper view of the man that Henry is, but instead a static “acting” performance which seems forced and undeveloped which leaves the audience satisfied, but without knowledge of the real Henry. Branagh opens the door to Henry’s mind and allows for us to see into his emotions and his love for companionship formed and solidified in battle and hardship.

Works Cited

Donaldson, Peter S. Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), 60-71.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Henry V. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Article Summary: “Henry V: King, Chorus, Critics”

The article by Lawrence Danson, takes a very critical stance on the performance of Henry V. Beginning with the very date the play was performed in is scrutinized by comparison to the Chorus mentioning the return of Henry V to that of the Earl of Essex prior to his demise to determine the actual location of the first performance of the play. The article states that, “Essex’s campaign was in shambles by late summer; by the time the Globe was ready to open, his defeat looked certain.” (Danson 27). This would mean that the play was first performed in the interim theater known as, The Curtain, which leads the Chorus to take on an apologetic tone and points out the lack of scenery to provide the audience with a clear image of the play’s setting. This is another point that Danson makes in that, “The Chorus’ apologies violate that elementary rule of English good breeding, “Never apologize, never explain”-not too much, at any rate, lest you keep the offense fresh in mind.” (Danson 28). However, Danson does go on to further explain that this sort of tone puts the audience in a more attentive state, thus praising the way it is used so wisely.

A key theme that is brought up throughout Danson’s article is the notion that less is more. Danson praises the Chorus’ ability to reflect King Henry in an optimistic and imaginative light and the ambiguity that is created by the voice of the Chorus. The play itself being a work of fiction, the Chorus helps define the parameters for how the audience should interpret the play. King Henry’s Saint Crispin’s Day speech reflects the imaginative and aesthetic voice that the Chorus aims for. The speech sheds a triumphant light onto King Henry, but like all Shakesperian plays, as Danson points out, “Harry, committing himself (with the aid of Chorus) to the status of fiction, becomes by that token an object for interpretation.” (Danson 35). Danson states that such characters as King Henry self-create themselves in their speeches, but the Chorus of Henry V without limiting the audiences thinking, “…shows us and in his words tells us the spirit in which we are to understand Harry’s plays-both the one he writes on Crispin’s Day and the one Shakespeare and history wrote for him.” (Danson 35). The audiences’ interpretation of the play is a major theme of this article and how the Chorus creates ambiguity yet guides us in the right direction of how all audiences should view King Henry.

This article paints Henry V in a light that is critical yet praising because of its limiting factors that may hinder the audiences’ imagination, but the playwrights’ ability to overcome that.  Danson praises the apologetic voice of the Chorus which successfully puts the audience in the right train of thought while leaving room for all to interpret the play as they please. As Danson states, “It is Shakespeare’s celebration of theatricality, on stage and off.” (Danson 43). This article praises Shakespeare’s ability to overcome apparent physical limiting factors and success in delivering the play in the way it was intended to.

Works Cited

Danson, Lawrence. “Henry V: King, Chorus, Critics.” Shakespeare Quarterly 34.1 (1983): 27-43. www.jstor.org/stable/2870218.

Short Assignment: The Canterbury Tales

One very important aspect of Chaucer’s culture is the food and drink consumed during this time. The diet of Chaucer’s England is rather unique because of what was consumed and by whom. Social class played a major role in the everyday diet, in fact, it is argued that lower classes had a healthier diet than the higher classes. The daily diet for an upper-class member of society, such as knights, consisted of high amounts of red meat, fat, and sugar. While member of lower social classes might have consumed nutritional foods such as vegetables and foods high in fiber (Forgeng and McLean, 183). One common denominator amongst food consumed was bread. While different styles of bread reflected social status, it was nonetheless a staple in almost every medieval diet. An average aristocratic diet usually consisted of meat, especially beef, followed by pork and mutton, as well as dairy and egg products (Forgeng and McLean, 183). On the other hand, “A prosperous peasant might consume two or three pounds of bread, eight ounces of meat or fish, and from two to three pints of ale per day.” (Forgeng and McLean, 183). While it is a simple diet, it is clear to see how lower social classes may have been healthier based on diet alone.

One unmistakable feature of the diet in Chaucer’s England is the amount of alcohol consumed. The very basis of this story revolves around the consumption of ale in the tavern of the Host and the tales that ensue are often told in a drunken manner. At almost every meal, no matter the social class, ale was consumed which is the unhopped version of beer, and consumption was not limited to anyone including women and children. Typically, a gallon of ale per day per person was consumed, however, it was not as strong as common beer is today. The lack of hops made it difficult to store ale for long periods of time which is why it was so often consumed in large quantities (Forgeng and McLean, 190). While it might seem odd, water was usually only consumed by those of the extreme lower classes which was less flavorful, nutritious, and safer than alcoholic beverages (Forgeng and McLean, 191). Due to poor sanitation systems during this time, water pollution was prevalent throughout England especially in cities. Other alcoholic beverages such as wine, mead, cider, and perry as well as distilled liquors were available, but rarely consumed and often had to be exported.

Diet played a very important role in Chaucer’s England and was unique by its simplicity and the fact that it denoted class. Chaucer’s tales cover a broad spectrum of social class and as each tale is told it is interesting to note the social status of the characters by the way they eat and drink. The Canterbury Tales revolves around people from different walks of life and distinct social classes joining together for one common purpose and it is clearer now to see their backgrounds and better understand the culture of this period of time.

Works Cited

Forgeng, Jeffrey L., and Will McLean. Daily Life in Chaucer’s England. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1995. Print.

My Final Reflection

Cadet Max Liebl

5/1/15

Help Received: Mrs. Mattie Q. Smith

As I reflect on my writing over the past year, I notice some distinct differences in my planning and execution of my essays. In my first year of college, I’ve become more mature in my writing style and process. Before coming to college, my level of writing was at the standard high school level, very basic with little unique structure. I never fully respected the writing process and never went in-depth into the editing and peer review process to further enhance my writing. This is the most important factor that has changed since high school. I’ve come to be more open to other people’s suggestions and put my own personal bias aside. As a result, my essay scores increased and looking back, I see distinct differences in style and the flow of the overall essay. I have also used my experiences so far in my college career at VMI to bring a unique personal style to my writing. I will be utilizing select essays in chronological order and note certain differences that reflect my progression in writing. My writing style has changed dramatically since the beginning of the year, I’ve become more comfortable and more organized in my thoughts to be able to effectively communicate what I’m trying to convey to my audience through taking my time throughout the writing process to edit and revise what I’m trying to say.

The past year has been one of much change and new experiences. I’ve grown in my academics and as a person in ways that I would never have imagined. As a writer I’ve come to incorporate much of my personal experiences into my writing which adds a unique personal style to my work. In the beginning of the year, I reflected many times on my experiences as a Rat going through the trials and tribulations of the Ratline. Writing during the Ratline became my avenue of escape from it all. I had so many thoughts running through my head at the time and I quickly found it easy emulate those thoughts onto paper. In my first essay, Ray Bradbury Reflection, I write about certain key traits or characteristics about my life many of them coming from my experiences in the Ratline. In the first body paragraph of this essay I use a simile to describe conformity and how it plays an important role in life as a Rat. I felt comfortable and more able to answer the prompt in the form of a narrative and in looking back, I can see how my ideas flowed and how I supported my claims. “One simile I take away from that first week is, “The world is like a steam roller, and it will flatten you if you’re not ahead of it.” (“Ray”, 1). In this statement, I create a simile and tie it back into my first week at VMI. This is one example of how I added a personal style to my writing. Though the essay has a unique and personal style to it, it lacks proper adherence to organizational guidelines which I tried to improve on in later essays by taking more time in pre-writing and preparation.

The next essay I am going to examine titled, Reflection of Time, has some of the personal qualities as Ray Bradbury Reflection, but it also has a better structure and organization. Again, I tie in elements of the Ratline and personal emotions felt throughout and connect it back to the main theme of time. In one example, I explain how I would look at the clock and the hour hand would be would forever be stuck on the “3” or the “9” (“Reflection”, 2) and how time would seem to just stop at the worst moments possible. By using my personal experiences I was able to more effectively support my thesis and relate better to my topic. I felt more comfortable in writing this piece since I had had more time to prepare and get used to the pace of college academics. This was the first essay I took my time on and went through the peer review process completely. The result was a more put together piece that displays my thoughts well and in an organized manner. This essay set the tone for how my future essays should be written and the time and attention to detail necessary to produce a solid final product.

Another factor that I improved in my writing was the use of descriptive language and syntax. Working to improve my sentence mechanics and creating a steady flow from one idea to the next so that I create an effective argument for my audience has been one of my greatest challenges to overcome. What most of my previous essays lack is use of descriptive language to create images of what I’m trying to convey to the audience. Creating pictures in the mind of the reader is an essential trait to any essay since that is what defines the tone and how you want the reader to perceive the message you are trying to convey. I felt like I was able to hone my use of descriptive language in the Virginia Outdoor Writers Association (VOWA) essay titled, The Climb. In this essay I took the same approach in using personal experiences to answer the prompt, but I also took the time to focus on my sentence wording and transpose the pictures of the event in my head onto the paper. In this example, “…the Sun was beginning to peep over the mountains in the distance and break through the thick purple fog that had engulfed the Shenandoah Valley overnight…” (“The Climb”, 1), I describe my first morning at VMI and how the Sun would burn off the fog that would roll in overnight. My goal was to create an image in the readers’ head and see what I was seeing on that day. This is just one example of my use of descriptive language and syntax, but in every essay I wrote after this I took the time to focus on sentence structure and effectively create the image I am trying to convey onto paper.

This year I took a different approach to my pre-writing work and how I revise and edit my work. When it came time to write my science essay titled, Solar Powered Flight: A Reality, I wrote about the comparison between a science-related article to be used for mass consumption and a peer-reviewed article intended for an audience in that particular field. For this essay I needed to read in-depth both articles and have a firm understanding of the subject matter to gather support for my comparison. The research process allowed me to practice and refine my pre-writing techniques. I revised and refined my essay multiple times and the final product is one that I am very proud of. I tie in multiple sources to support my claim and my extensive research of what key elements separate a peer-reviewed article from a science-related article are clearly identified and supported thoroughly. In this example, “…information needs to be shared in a way that makes sense for the common reader because once an idea is established in magazines such as Discover, it’s up to the people to take it further in development.” (“Solar”, 3), I describe the important role that science-related articles play in society and how a science-related article differs from a peer-reviewed article. This essay gave me the unique opportunity to research a topic that I enjoy learning about and refine my synthesis skills in gathering information from multiple sources to support the main topic of my paper.

This past year has been a year of changes and improvements to my writing. My time in ERH-101/102 has opened my eyes to writing and helped me recognize my true potential as a writer. I’ve seen a steady progression in how I write and the steps I take in pre-writing and as a result, each essay built on the next as far as quality. The variety of essays I was able to write this year allowed me to focus on certain elements of writing and improve in specific areas. For me, I saw the most progression in my level of preparation and my style. After discovering this new found respect for the writing process, I began to notice a steady increase in my grade because I was paying more attention to how I write and how I deliver the message I’m trying to communicate to my audience. I feel more comfortable now about personalizing my essays and being able to effectively establish my credibility. Overall, I am impressed when I look at the progression my writing has undergone. I am now a more confident and proficient writer and I will take the skills that I have learned and mastered throughout the year and apply them to future endeavors.

Works Cited

Liebl, Maxwell A. “Ray Bradbury Reflection.” Ed. Maxwell Liebl. Lexington:VMI 2014.

Liebl, Maxwell A. “Reflection of Time.” Ed. Maxwell Liebl. Lexington:VMI 2014.

Liebl, Maxwell A. “The Climb.” Ed. Maxwell Liebl. Lexington:VMI 2014.

Liebl, Maxwell A. “Solar Powered Flight: A Reality.” Ed. Maxwell Liebl. Lexington:VMI 2014.

Pro/Con Essay

The death penalty is a highly contested issue in regards to legality, ethics, and methods throughout the world. Currently, the sentencing of people to death is used only against the world’s toughest criminals and in most cases the general public can agree that the executions are justifiable. Executions have been known to act as a deterrent for future criminal acts and put to death those who really are dangers to society. However, issues surrounding the legality and morality of the death penalty have arisen. The methods in which criminals are executed, people being found innocent following incarceration and whether it works as an effective deterrent have been contested amongst scholars and editors constantly. The death penalty has its pros and cons, some argue its ability to make for a safer society and some argue it does more harm than good.

The death penalty does what it is supposed to do: eliminate criminals deemed unfit for society. In only the most brutal of cases involving acts of violence so terrible that the punishment of death is justifiable, will execution be discussed as an option for punishment. While most states have outlawed capital punishment and other states that allow it have implemented increasingly stringent regulations on those facing death row, the death penalty serves an important role of putting to death those proven unable to safely reenter society following time served. Other reasons for its positive side include helping with the overcrowding of prisons, and modern DNA testing technology being able to mitigate almost all uncertainty as to a person’s innocence (Messerli). The problems with the death penalty prior to the development of modern technology was that many criminals were being executed and later found innocent when further evidence was discovered. This creates a general lack of faith in the judicial system to properly submit solid evidence prior to an issuance of capital punishment. The overcrowding of the prison system in the U.S. has become a major political issue and the death penalty helps to mitigate some issues with that despite only taking out a small percentage of the prisons population. The death penalty is considered by many in today’s society to be an essential part of the judicial system. It stands as a factor of fear to criminals and those who are considering committing a crime by making them think twice about the consequences versus the reward. Support for the death penalty can be seen around the nation, even people who may oppose the killing of a human being on behalf of a crime they committed, they understand that this is viable solution to a major problem in our society.

Death penalty has also been subject to much scrutiny in recent years. This has been due to many factors including financial issues, the deterrent factor and the fact that it sends the wrong message to the public about executing those who have killed others as a way of justification. The execution of even the world’s most dangerous criminals is most often viewed in a negative light due to its barbaric nature and the fact that it costs taxpayers large sums of money. This is due to the longevity of the trials and the countless appeals processes that may result. According to BalancedPoltics.org, it is not uncommon for death row criminals to be held for upwards of 15-20 years (Messerli). Additionally, the endless hearings, trials and appeals lead to a clog in the court system since cases involving in capital punishment tend to get the most attention by judicial officials. Aside from the judicial issues, the death penalty is often falsely advertised to be a deterrent from violent crime when most evidence has shown no connection to execution halting violent crime. According to one source, “…violent crimes such as murder are often illogical and expressive acts…” (Smith). This proves that there is no relationship between execution rates and violent crime rates. Some see the death penalty as a justifiable way of punishing a criminal for their acts, but some see it in a different light. Some would agree that the death penalty is indeed barbaric in nature and that the “eye for an eye” mentality behind the execution of violent criminals. Executing convicted criminals will only send a message that it is acceptable to use killing as a way of settling crime and not allowing the prisoner to imbue any personal changes since they know they are condemned to death. Some would argue that serving a life sentence does more than executing a criminal on the spot because it allows the convicted felon time to reflect on the past and may result in drastic enough changes that parole may be possible. There is strong support for abolishing of the death penalty because of its nature and moral and financial issues as well as it being an inhumane method of dealing with societal issues..

The death penalty has been a highly contested issue for many years. It has been around since before modern times and centuries ago it was considered common practice to execute those found guilty of even petty crimes. Since then, society has come a long way to determine that executing everyone found guilty of a crime does not solve any problems. However, society does still see the need for punishments that fit the crime which in some cases of violent crime, that punishment is death. This creates the current argument in modern society of whether or not capital punishment is a viable method of dealing with criminals. While there are many issues, there are just as many pros to having capital punishment as a punishment in our judicial system. Overall there is a strong argument on both sides and both give solid evidence backing each position up.

Works Cited

1. Smith, Candace. “Sociology Lens.” Sociology Lens RSS. The Society Pages, 14 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
2. Messerli, Joe. “BalancedPolitics.org – Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages).” BalancedPolitics.org – Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages). N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.