Practice Paper 1

The following speech “The Pleasure of Books” is written by William Lyon Phelps, an American educator, literary critic and author. The speech was delivered on April 6th, 1933 during a radio broadcast where Phelps conveyed and developed his affection of books through the use of comparison (similes and metaphors), rhetorical devices and diction to engage with the audience.

In the opening paragraph, Lyon indulges with the essence of reading and his disgust for borrowed books, introducing his audience to the literary world’s authentic beauty as his central topic. He opens with an analogy through the lines “The habit of reading is one of the greatest resources of mankind; and we enjoy reading books that belong to us much more than if they are borrowed.”, crafting a comparison between borrowed and owned books. He uses this to further emphasize the relevance of one’s own possession by adding a simile depicting a borrowed book as a guest, with diction in the words punctiliousness and formality, outlining the varied moods a member of the house would have towards an outsider. He follows up with personification in the text “You must see that it sustains no damage; it must not suffer while under your roof. You cannot leave it carelessly, you cannot mark it, you cannot turn down the pages, you cannot use it familiarly.” Where he provides the book with feelings of pain and suffering, soon implementing an anaphora, directly towards the listeners, through the repetition of “you cannot”, listing the limitations of a borrowed book, once more finalizing its relevance of not belonging to the household. Throughout this paragraph, we can see that Lyon relates towards a general audience of literature, who read and adore books just as himself by providing a common event in any booklovers life.

Subsequently, he continues his focus towards the conflict of borrowed and owned books, now tilting towards the supremacy of books that belong to ourselves. In the first line “But your own books belong to you; you treat them with that affectionate intimacy that annihilates formality.” Lyon supports the understatement presented previously on the limitations of borrowed books, now scoping the advantages of the items in our possession as he unfolds his viewpoint on the situation. The passage follows with a hyperbole as Williams exaggerates the freedom one can and should experience with a book they own, “Books are for use, not for show; you should own no book that you are afraid to mark up, or afraid to place on the table, wide open and face down.”.  He follows up with this argument through the simile “it is like a forest where you once blazed a trail.” as well as certain imagery in the lines to follow, “You have the pleasure of going over the old ground, and recalling both the intellectual scenery and your own earlier self.”, using this to back-up and express his support towards owned books by including the audience’s past experiences into the vast tails and lands explored within their childhood (“and your own earlier self”).

In the third paragraph, William cherishes the broad knowledge stored within such fascinating sources of fiction and non-fiction, as he presents the themes of intellectual property and free will within the paragraph. Lyon establishes the lines “Everyone should begin collecting a private library in youth; the instinct of private property, which is fundamental in human beings, can here be cultivated with every advantage and no evils.”, using diction in the word “Everyone” to relate to any individual within the audience as he convinces them that “private property can be here cultivated with every advantage and no evil” providing a bias upon the topic as being completely pure. Moreover, the writer portrays the climax of his speech in the text “they should be free and accessible to the hand as well as to the eye.” Through the encouragement of knowledge as being open-ended, referring to the theme of freedom. William then lists the physical characteristics associated with a book by using imagery as the main device in the passage, expressing the beauty of such hubs of knowledge, providing personal insight of his time with books through the lines “Most of my indoor life is spent in a room containing six thousand books; and I have a stock answer to the invariable question that comes from strangers. "Have you read all of these books?" "Some of them twice." This reply is both true and unexpected.”. He inserts a rhetorical question matched with a hypophora providing an indirect response to the question to enhance his own viewpoint of interest in literature.

As the text concludes, Lyon now examines fictional characters with real human beings, preaching the great variables we are able to study while observing certain personalities and their lifestyle. This is clearly evident through the inclusion of the lines “There are of course no friends like living, breathing, corporeal men and women; my devotion to reading has never made me a recluse.” where Williams uses a simile to compare people in the real and fictional world. He then follows up with the lines “How could it? Books are of the people, by the people, for the people.” where a rhetorical question is paired with an antistrophe to explain that books are never a sign of mere isolation by repeating the word people. In the lines “Literature is the immortal part of history; it is the best and most enduring part of personality. But book-friends have this advantage over living friends; you can enjoy the most truly aristocratic society in the world whenever you want it.”, Lyon uses a stream of metaphors alongside diction in the words “immortal”, “enduring” and “aristocratic society” to validate the relevance and entertainment received from reading, explaining the everlasting possibilities books can exhibit as well as communicating with deceased, yet popular authors in the text “But in a private library, you can at any moment converse with Socrates or Shakespeare or Carlyle or Dumas or Dickens or Shaw or Barrie or Galsworthy. And there is no doubt that in these books you see these men at their best.”. As a result, in the final line “You are necessary to them as an audience is to an actor; only instead of seeing them masked, you look into their innermost heart of heart.”, Williams, once again, directly engages with the listeners by adding a simile to contrast an author with the role of an actor, he inserts imagery as well, to once more praise the exquisite outlook a book can provide over a movie.

In conclusion, William speaks with an appealing tone and mood, connecting his personal insights with the audience and attempting to create a bright and innovative atmosphere. He shapes his argument by quarreling with the ideas of the literary world as a sight that can only be observed and explored on a personal level unlike practical adventures. He contemplates with the themes of freedom and intellectual property to further develop his central viewpoint and perspective of fictional characters and ecosphere.

Coriolanus IOC Blog post

Please visit the Following link to access my IOC:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B71d-_x7r4Z0aGdaenNsU1RYZUkzSjlDYXotbURTQ2h2YUhz

Third Citizen. He said he had wounds, which he could show                                                      1

in private;

And with his hat, thus waving it in scorn,

'I would be consul,' says he: 'aged custom,

But by your voices, will not so permit me;                                                                                     5

Your voices therefore.' When we granted that,

Here was 'I thank you for your voices: thank you:

Your most sweet voices: now you have left

your voices,

I have no further with you.' Was not this mockery?                                                                     10

 

Sicinius Velutus. Why either were you ignorant to see't,

Or, seeing it, of such childish friendliness

To yield your voices?

 

Junius Brutus. Could you not have told him

As you were lesson'd, when he had no power,                                                                             15

But was a petty servant to the state,

He was your enemy, ever spake against

Your liberties and the charters that you bear

I' the body of the weal; and now, arriving

A place of potency and sway o' the state,                                                                                     20

If he should still malignantly remain

Fast foe to the plebeii, your voices might

Be curses to yourselves? You should have said

That as his worthy deeds did claim no less

Than what he stood for, so his gracious nature                                                                            25       

Would think upon you for your voices and

Translate his malice towards you into love,

Standing your friendly lord.

Sicinius Velutus. Thus to have said,

As you were fore-advised, had touch'd his spirit                                                                          30

And tried his inclination; from him pluck'd

Either his gracious promise, which you might,

As cause had call'd you up, have held him to

Or else it would have gall'd his surly nature,

Which easily endures not article                                                                                                   35

Tying him to aught; so putting him to rage,

You should have ta'en the advantage of his choler

And pass'd him unelected.

Junius Brutus. Did you perceive

He did solicit you in free contempt                                                                                               40

When he did need your loves, and do you think

That his contempt shall not be bruising to you,

When he hath power to crush? Why, had your bodies

No heart among you? or had you tongues to cry

Against the rectorship of judgment?                                                                                             45

Coriolanus Theme of Power

The play Coriolanus, written by Shakespeare in the Elizabethan era, is exhibited as a work of power throughout the context. During the era, the English public were attempting to overthrow king James VIII, searching for a pristine and modernized man. Shakespeare similarly portrays this in Coriolanus, categorizing the main protagonist as a faithful and god-like classical warrior who battles his way for the heart of Rome. Throughout the play, Coriolanus is contrasted with dragon imagery, relaying a sense of physical strength, authority and individualism, recurring with the theme of power. During the initial phases and building of the climax his acts are portrayed as dragon-like, once he’s banished and decides to work against Rome, yet in Act 5 Scene 2, Menenius states “This Martius is grown from man to dragon: he has wings”, explaining that he has fully developed into such a beast. Thus, Coriolanus is approached by his mother, wife and son who kneel towards him, leaving him indifferent until he is emotionally impacted by his mother’s words. This displays the prowess and control his mother has on her son, although her position is respected due to the achievements of her son, she is bound to tame the beast and sacrifice him for the goodwill of Rome. Tullus Aufidius does not display much of a powerful character after being defeated by Coriolanus in battle, however is provided with the chance to regain revenge upon his prior enemy once Coriolanus avoids overtaking his homeland. As a result, during this era Shakespeare was able to portray the transformation of England, as well as the global world, through the inclusion of an ancient demi-god coupled with two regular, yet highly corrupt human beings taking charge and admonishing such a power, emphasizing the point that goodwill and heroic influences have been casted aside.

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterisation of Coriolanus in Act I?

In the play Coriolanus, Shakespeare designates his leading character with qualities that correlate with other classical heroes, yet depicts his flaws as well, while setting the stage for further conflicts ahead.

As the main protagonist and central character, throughout who the play revolves around, Coriolanus proves to be a severe, yet highly respected warrior within Rome. Shakespeare illustrates him with great leadership and authenticity to his character  through glimpses within the act 1 in lines such as "Hang em! They say!", the exclamations providing emphasis upon his control over the public. His great hate for the plebeian's or lower class of Rome crafts further exaggeration in this politically centralized play. The text "Hang ye! Trust Ye? With every minute you do change a mind, And call him noble that was now your hate, Him vile that was your garland. What's the matter, That in these several places of the city You cry against the noble senate, who, Under the gods, keep you in awe, which else Would feed on one another? What's their seeking? " contains rhetorical questions, as Coriolanus argues upon the worthiness and significance of the public, speaking of their rapidly shifting emotions and using diction such as "garland" "awe" to emotionally derail the citizens and their perspective of the wealthy.

He can also be categorized as an active character who (throughout act 1) creates various mistakes, one of the most significant being his  avoidance of disposing-off of his arch enemy Aufidius, providing sparks of attitude and self-centeredness. The lines "he's a lion that I'm proud to hunt" contain animal imagery, conveying prowess to Coriolanus's tone of speech, yet is highlighted as irony of circumstance, as he has esteem for his enemy and is aware of the fact that there is non who may challenge him in his quest more than Aufidius, becoming an important form of reasoning as to why Coriolanus leaves him wounded rather than dead.

As a result, Shakespeare uses his characterization to foreshadow key moments to occur as the tale progresses, producing an entrance towards the political scenario of Rome. Shakespeare provides no personal touch of thought towards Coriolanus's character, though, avoiding the implementation of soliloquies, yet crafts an unusual hero, almost unlike the connotations of good, regardless of his strong physical stature. Nevertheless, with lack of rational decision making and slight absence of mind, Coriolanus could walk along the path of evil as the play moves forth.

bell hooks Blog Post

"An unbroken connection exists between the broken English of the displaced, enslaved African and the diverse black vernacular speech black folks use today. In both cases, the rupture of standard English enabled and enables rebellion and resistance. By transforming the oppressor’s language, making a culture of resistance, black people created an intimate speech that could say far more than was permissible within the boundaries of standard English."

Selected Text: What's so wrong with "sounding black?"

The following text correlates with the quote above made by bell hooks as it speaks of the common misconceptions and viewpoints towards African Vernacular English as having wrong or incorrect grammatical rules and forms of speech. The author produces and proves her own claims of AAVE and how certain linguists have categorized and contrasted it to standardized English, leading to false results or conclusions which are usually based upon "racial bias". The text battles with white stereotypes, as the author declares that "I stress that, in this case, I am talking about an accent, not poor diction and not slang, but a distinct cadence and way of pronouncing words.". She urges for such a rebellion to stop, facing away from black vernacular, through comparing and contrasting other dialects in English "The change is largely unconscious mimicry, much like how a New Yorker who now lives in California might find her Brooklyn accent gets a little stronger when she goes back home".

Similarly, this idea connects with bell hook's saying above where she states that there are still distinct features of AAVE and Broken English that separate the two, as she persuades the audience of the fact that the African Americans produced an independent dialect to portray sovereignty to showcase the varied features their society has achieved regardless of the white's. As a result the two authors display the tongue as a form of resistance from the acts of oppression applied towards them in the past, and symbolize the significance of their own rights through the craftsmanship of this dialect.

Indigineous Languages Cornish Podcast

Please Visit the Following Link to access our Podcast on the Cornish Language

https://clyp.it/ued0arps

What is the value of preserving indigenous languages?

Native languages are the heart and soul of an individual. They signify cultural heritage, promote national pride and evidently portray who we are in the modern day world. As human beings, each one of us have distinct features from one another, including that of identity which is centrally influenced by aspects such as our own mother tongue. Although at times we may tend to ignore such blessings,  disregarding their real natural beauty, which leads to issues such as indigenous languages.

Of the 7000 languages in the world, around 3000 of them are considered to be spoken by a minority, from which around 400 have 50 or fewer speakers, and 200 have below 10. This undoubtedly exhibits the significance of preserving indigenous languages in the modern day era as watching such tongues rapidly disappear can result in the decline of multiple civilizations, customs and beliefs. As this gradually begins to incline, we will end up losing track of facts or details, such as where certain historical monuments originated from or how mankind once began, and eventually misplace the central reason of our existence.

In conclusion, learning and maintaining our home languages are an immense factor in current day context, as according to the Times magazine, it is expected that 95% of all languages are to be either lost or indigenous by the end of the 21st century, leading to great chaos and utter disaster in terms of determining ones master identity. The relevance of this situation is key to deciding our future selves as well as the lives of generations after us and has been highlighted by numerous leaders across the world, including South Africa's former president and politician, Nelson Mandela, who said “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart”.