Essay/Article Contest II

[Angie]

Pretend you work for a magazine or newspaper. Write an interesting and informative article on the subject of your choice.

Length: 325-625 words (word counter), any structure
End date: ASAP
Judge: none

Please only post here with your entries so as not to clutter the thread. If you have questions, PM me or the judge.

[Erik]

Well this is probably the worst article I have ever written but what the heck theres no other entries so I may as well enter this one I suppose. It's for Narnia, The Magician's Nephew to be precise. I really don't like it but considering theres a Narnia movie thread I guess it's quite apt. 514 words by the way

~

The Magicians Nephew- A Piece of pure magic?

Boring, dull, unimaginative. Three words you are unlikely to use when describing C.S Lewis’ ‘The Magicians Nephew’. The Novel, despite its age still manages to captivate broad audiences encompassing many issues and messages within its pages which, perhaps surprisingly, remain relevant even today.

The first book of ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ follows the moral and meaningful journey of two young children, and whilst the book may contain many political and religious viewpoints and themes, for which Lewis has been harshly criticised for including, they are not immediately apparent and it is far from impossible to enjoy this text as simply what it is- a rich, refreshing read.

From the first moment of entering the author’s magical realm we are drawn into his story which, without giving the plot completely away, is humorous, treacherous and perceptive all within a mere few pages. Unmistakably, Clive Staples Lewis has a remarkable talent, hooking his readers in from the opening instant and gripping them with anticipation until the last paragraph. Yet what of the story- what is ‘The Magicians Nephew’ all about?

The young children in question, Polly and Diggory, are transported to the magical world of Narnia with Diggory’s malicious uncle, Andrew at the helm. Uncle Andrew is an extremely intricate and interesting character but at the heart of the matter he is simply a coward. He attempts to put on airs and graces, yet when he meets someone with even more authority than himself, the mighty Queen of Charn, he finds himself both terrified and awed by her, often entirely forgetting his fear, calling her ‘a damn fine woman’. The deluded old man actually believes that an attractive, majestic sorceress would wish to socialise with, or even love a frail, failed human like himself. Essentially the eccentric gentleman cares only for himself, willingly putting children into a perilous unknown environment, where anything could happen, not daring to risk his own neck, taking the quickest route out of danger leaving the young people alone to fend for themselves.
‘The Magicians Nephew’ and indeed the whole of the Narnia Series contains many fascinating and complex characters, such as Uncle Andrew, who whilst immensely entertaining, present clear images of the collections of people in society today. If we take a look behind the simple amusement side of the book there is a moral undertone in all of Lewis’ characters and creations which highlights to the author’s readers the ways in which he believes we should and shouldn’t behave. When writing his series Lewis clearly has two evident objectives: to entertain his readers and to “open peoples' hearts to accepting Christ”

If you are looking for a religious, controversial book then this text will appeal to you. In the same way, if you’re simply after an enjoyable, witty read then Lewis will be sure to satisfy. On both counts Lewis excels in his work, capturing elements of love, hatred, tranquillity, trust and danger in ‘The Magician’s Nephew’, a book that for fifty one years has managed to enchant readers far and wide.

[Deleted]

ok I'll submit my latest piece. 1804 words

An assessment on the contribution of Bismarck in Germany to national unification

The unification of the German States in the late 19th century was due to several factors. The prominent of these factors was a man named Otto Von Bismarck. However, he was only the primary factor, as there were many other factors involved in the unification. I will go onto explain these factors and assess the importance or the magnitude of their contribution in the unification of Germany.

As I have said, the most important factor, in my opinion, was Bismarck. Bismarck came into power in 1862 as Minister-President. Bismarck immediately set to pushing through a Prussian Army reform bill in support of his monarch. Bismarck was anti-liberal and the unification of Germany was never seen as one of his main aims. However, the actions that Bismarck took after his appointment of Minister-President made this unification occur. Bismarck believed that Prussia’s power should be increased and that liberalism and democracies were standing in the way or Prussia increasing her power. Bismarck did believe in a “Germany” of sorts, but it was a Prussian dominated Germany that Bismarck aimed for. Bismarck saw the path to this dominant Prussia was one through “iron and blood” and “Not by parliamentary speeches and majority votes”. Bismarck’s methods became known as ‘Realpolitik’, doing whatever he could by any means necessary. This included going to war three times.

The first of Bismarck’s wars was the Prusso-Danish War. This was a war between Prussia, Austria and Denmark. The Danish King looked to annex the independent states of Schleswig and Holstein. Prussia fought along side Austria in defending these two provinces, and defeating the Danish Army. On first appearances, this action seems admirable and that Prussia and Austria were operating as friends. However, if you look below the surface, there is a much more cunning side to this action. Prussia gained control of Schleswig and Austria of Holstein in the Convention of Gastein. This meant more territory for Prussia, and also that the Austrian territory of Holstein was separated by Prussian territory. Bismarck immediately set about making Austrian access to Holstein difficult and created more tension between the two states.

The second of Bismarck’s wars was the Austro-Prussian war. Tensions had been heightening between these two nations so conflict was seen as inevitable. Austria was already getting annoyed with Prussia due to the Prussians limiting the Austrian’s acess to their new territory, Holstein. Austria breaks off negotiations about Holstein and places the matter in the hands of the Bund. Bismarck immediately accuses Austria of breaching the Convention of Gastein and sends Prussian troops into Holstein, hoping to provoke a war. However, the Austrian troops do not put a fight and left Holstein without conflict. However, tensions were once again heightened between Austria and Prussia. Austria took this opportunity to order the mobilization of her armed forces, but this made Austria appear the aggressor of the two states. Bismarck now made two secret agreements against Austria. The first was with Napoleon III, the emperor of France. This was a verbal agreement from Bismarck which was later ignored and denied. Napoleon was led to believe that if he remained neutral in an Austro-Prussian war, France would receive territory in the Rhineland or in Belgium. The second agreement was with Italy. Bismarck signed a treaty with Italy that said if Italy declared war on Austria after Austria had declared war on Prussia, then Prussia would restore the province of Venetia to Italy. This agreement was only valid for three months. Meanwhile, Austria had accused Prussia of violating the Bund in invading Holstein, so Bismarck withdrew the Prussian soldiers from Holstein. However, the Austrians went even further and suggested Prussia be excluded from the Bund and that the other members of the Bund join in war against Prussia. Prussia withdrew from the Bund and sent an ultimatum to the other states; choose between the Bund or the Kleindeutsch.

Prussia quickly defeated Austria and its allies, deciding the conflict with a crushing victory at the Battle of Königgrätz. The war lasted only a few weeks. As a result of the Peace of Prague, the German Confederation was dissolved; Prussia annexed Schleswig, Holstein, Frankfurt, Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, and Nassau. Austria also promised not to intervene in German affairs. To solidify Prussian hegemony, Prussia and several other North German states joined the North German Confederation in 1867 with King Wilhelm I of Prussia as its President, and Bismarck as its Chancellor. The southern German States were all to join a Customs Union heavily dominated by Prussia and were forced to make military allegiances with Prussia. The northern German states were now unified in what resembled an early Germany.

The third of Bismarck’s wars followed only four years later. The Franco-Prussian war was the cause of several clever manoeuvres by Bismarck. Prussia's victory over Austria increased tensions with France. The French Emperor, Napoleon III, feared that a powerful Prussia would upset the balance of power in Europe. Bismarck, at the same time, sought war with France; he believed that if the German states perceived France as the aggressor, they would unite behind the King of Prussia. Bismarck set about increasing tension with the French at any possible moment. Bismarck refused to acknowledge that he had ever made an agreement about France gaining territory for remaining neutral in the Austro-Prussian War. Bismarck went a set further and leaked the news that the French were requesting German territory to the press, causing a surge of anti-French feeling. Bismarck further manipulated the French movements for further territory gains in leaking any attempt made by the French to buy land to the press. For example, the French attempt to buy Belgium or when the French attempted to buy Luxemburg. Each one of these attempts to gain more territory was met with a surge of anti-French feeling and relationships between France and Prussia. A suitable premise for war arose in 1870, when the German Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was offered the Spanish throne, which had been vacant since a revolution in 1868. The French not only blocked the candidacy, but also demanded assurances that no member of the House of Hohenzollern becomes King of Spain. Bismarck then published the Ems Dispatch, a carefully edited version of a conversation between King Wilhelm and the French ambassador to Prussia. Bismarck’s edited version of the telegram portrayed the French as being aggressive and the publication was intended to provoke France into declaring war on Prussia.
The Ems Dispatch had the desired effect. France mobilized and declared war, but was seen as the aggressor. As a result, German states, swept up by nationalism and patriotic zeal, joined Prussia and provided troops for the coming battles. The Franco-Prussian War was a great success for Prussia. The German army, commanded by Moltke, the Prussian Chief of Staff, won victory after victory. The major battles were all fought in one month and the French were defeated in every battle. The remainder of the war featured very careful German operations and massive confusion on the part of the French. When peace was established in 1971, France was forced to pay a large indemnity of £200,000,000 and surrender Alsace and Lorraine.
Bismarck decided to act immediately to secure the unification of Germany. He opened negotiations with representatives of southern German states, offering special concessions if they were to agree to unification. The negotiations were successful and King Wilhelm was crowned "German Emperor" on 18 January 1871 in the Hall of Mirrors in the Château de Versailles. Each of the twenty-five German states retained its independence. The King of Prussia, as German Emperor, was not sovereign over all of Germany; he was only in charge of the Central Government, foreign affairs and the armed forces. The new German Empire was formed by the cunningness and the ability to manipulate situations of Bismarck. Bismarck brought the German states together over a period of thirty years and got them all to agree to become part of the new German Empire.

However, Bismarck could only be described as the architect, or builder, of German Unity. Bismarck used a lot of “materials” or situations that happened prior to him becoming Chancellor of Prussia. For example, the Napoleonic Wars had caused a great surge in Nationalist feelings for Germany, in that the majority of Germans did not want French rule. Nationalistic feelings further increased in the years after the Napoleonic wars, mainly amongst university students and lecturers. Though nationalistic ideas and movements were suppressed by the Bund, 25,000 nationalists met at Hambach in 1832. This was a new student movement called ‘Young Germany’. The nationalists adopted red, black and gold as their colours. In 1833 the extreme nationalist students made several attempts at an uprising but each time they were easily crushed by Metternich using the Bund. In 1840 France threatened to extend her eastern frontier into Germany as far as the River Rhine. This caused a great surge in Nationalism amongst the Germans as they did not want to be under French control once again. Many patriotic songs were written about defending the ‘Fatherland’. This invasion did not go ahead but the surge in nationalistic feeling and anti-French feelings remained.

The German states were also already being drawn together and working together in the Prussian Zollverein. In 1836, the Zollverein contained twenty five of the thirty nine German states and covered an area which had the population of twenty five million living in it. The Zollverein drew the German states together, stimulating economic growth, and firmly establishing Prussia as the economic leader in Germany. Some economic historians such as Helmut Böhme use the Zollverein to dispute the general view of Bismarck as the unifier of Germany. A Zollverein Congress was established to decide on policy matters and this was seen as one of the first United Governments between the states.
The Industrial Revolution of Prussia also meant that Prussian power greatly increased and Prussia established herself as the most powerful German state. The Industrial revolution in Germany meant that there were new engineering techniques and new roads and railways were built throughout Germany, helping to increase trade and also bring the Independent German states closer together and closer to becoming a united Germany.

As you can see, though Bismarck was essentially very important to the Unification of Germany, Bismarck generally manipulated and expanded on feelings and situations that already existed. However, it is undisputable that Bismarck was very important to the unification of Germany and was very smart and very cunning in how he achieved the formation of the New German Empire. In my opinion, Bismarck was the most important factor in the unification of Germany, but it must be remembered that he was not the sole reason for the unification of the German states.

[johnsapphire]

All non-essential posts should be deleted soon, else I shall practice using my mod powers on them...

*giggle*

And the maximum is 625 words, I believe...so modify it before December 10th, or I shall grade you down...or maybe just read the first 625 words...

[Deleted]

oh... well it doesn't make sense at 625 words.... ummm i'll look at my other articles....

[johnsapphire]

admin said:

Please only post here with your entries so as not to clutter the thread. If you have questions, PM me or the judge.

[jollymcjollyson]

My most recent essay. It's over 625, but meh. Grade me down for it all you want, 625 words isn't enough to do anything substantial with a text. Wish I'd fleshed out my theories on rain, though... I'll edit that later.

What’s in a Name? An Absence of Thing:
Issues of Label in Molloy

Names, in Beckett’s Molloy, carry overtones of deception, restriction, and instability. Throughout this section of the Trilogy, the disjunction between things and names confounds the reader with ambiguous or insufficient qualifiers. The theme of naming illustrates two major functions of names: to confine an object to a particular label and to capture the essence of that object in a word. Names, imposed by a higher, dominant force (people) on things, seem forced and inadequate—unintentionally used as fetters and mockeries rather than qualifiers. The linguistic ideal, in which a thing, through virtue of its own unique existence, names itself, simply does not appear in Molloy, and the object which comes closest to reaching that ideal is a farce.

The idea of names confining to preconceived limitations the things they try to represent is most easily seen in part I of Molloy, and inextricably coincides with images of motherhood, home, and the female. Molloy finds himself chained to his mother, constantly bound to the woman who gave him life and language; she acts as a symbol of his mother-tongue. This figure of ancestral, native language refers to Molloy as “Dan, [he doesn’t] know why,” although “Dan was [his] father’s name, perhaps” (17). By calling him what is possibly his father’s name, Molloy’s mother binds her son to the past, the idea of which is reinforced by his memory of her questions, all of which concern what Molloy, or Dan, “remember” (17). On a more basic level, by referring to him by a name simply not his own, Molloy’s mother reveals the ambiguity and interchangeability of arbitrary terms of identification. His mother represents Molloy’s past, his history, whether literally familial or symbolically linguistic, and her type of naming confines him to that history, limiting his freedom to go elsewhere. Molloy himself describes movement concerning his mother as flight “on the clipped wings of necessity” (27), equating attendance to her who named him with restricted mobility.

While Molloy’s mother represents the kind of naming the mother-tongue produces, Lousse, in whose house and garden he stays for a long period, represents the attitude formal style takes towards naming. Molloy’s stay with Lousse is a stay in the figurative house of traditional, elevated language. Lousse, paralleling a structuralist binary view of linguistics from the dominant perspective, attempts to “mollify Molloy, with the result that [he] was nothing more than a lump of melting wax” (47). The elevated language of Lousse wishes to smooth Molloy over in an attempt to turn him into the seal with which she chooses to imprint him. Her ideal naming system conquers, melts, and reshapes the object into a constant display of its name. Because of her need for things to reflect the labels with which she saddles them, Lousse cannot stand it when names and things do not correspond; for example, she thinks of her dog, Teddy, “like a child” (33): pure, innocent, and young. However, she is on her way, when she meets Molloy, to have the dog euthanized because it is “old, blind, deaf, crippled with rheumatism and perpetually incontinent” (33). Because Teddy’s non-correspondence can no longer be ignored, Lousse must destroy and bury him. Her garden itself symbolizes control. In her garden Lousse can decide which flowers stay and which are pulled, she holds dominion over the names and things in the garden, and has it constantly cared for “in order to preserve the garden from apparent change” (52). Names in the garden and house of Lousse attempt to dominate both the wild and the horrific, forcing those uglier concepts to submit to the more pleasing label with which she binds them.

While in the first section of Molloy names seem to center around making the essence of things fit into preconceived notions of rules and familial history, the second section portrays naming in a different light, one of an attempt to capture (rather than create) that essence. Simply put, the first section tries to make things correspond with their given names, whereas the second couples names with their relative things by means of a transcendental union. The stamp-book of the Moran section shares Lousse’s idealism, but in the spirit of unity rather than dominance. The book serves to bring all the stamps (labels, words, etc) under one common cover, binding all language to the same pages, so the type of linguistic ideal does differ from that of Lousse. While Lousse wishes to fit all things into one certain, preconceived, linguistic pattern, the stamp-book seems a symbol of the attempt to fit all the various linguistic patterns into one, complete, indisputable language. But the stamps themselves taint the book with their arbitrary nature. Moran’s favorite stamp, the Nyassa, features “a giraffe grazing off the top of a palm-tree” (121), which, while aesthetically pleasing, does not really occur in nature, since the giraffe eats Acacia leaves. The names of both stamps mentioned on page 121, the Togo and the Nyassa, both contain puns that belittle the idealistic notions surrounding them. The more obvious joke, Togo (to go) isn’t going anywhere. The glue of the stamp sticks it firmly to the page of the stamp-book, revealing the inaccuracies even in the so-called ideal. Nyassa, perhaps more of a stretch but no less ironic, is doubly humorous because Moran “[is] very fond of the Nyassa” (121), and yet the stamp’s name is "nigh on ass." The stamp that Moran finds so agreeable eludes the very quality he thinks it instead exudes.

Being put in a book to fix quality and permanence of names illustrates one failed attempt to force names to correspond with things, but another, more apparent, example occurs when Moran refers to Molloy as “Mollose” and admits “a weakness for this ending” (112). Wishing for names to end in the suffix –ose would have those names reflect the quality of the thing itself, similar to ending the word in –like. Molloy’s name clearly does not end in –ose, and Moran, then, must acknowledge that names do not necessarily hold precise, descriptive meanings as well as he’d like. Moran, however, differs from Lousse in that when he realizes his name does not correspond with the person it describes, he, “unmindful of his preferences…, force himself to say Molloy” (113). Unlike her, Moran does not simply bury the evidence of non-correspondence in this situation, but admits the reality thereof. Sometimes, however, Moran does not realize the lack of correspondence in his qualifying names. When he travels to Bally, the name again conveys the idea of a word that inherently relates to the nature of the thing it describes, this time the suffix –y (e.g. “tricky,” “glassy,” “sticky” etc). To be ball-like conveys an image of perfect, spherical unity,]; however, the system by which one differentiates the lands of “Ballyba” also applies to Moran’s home of “Turdy, hub of Turdyba” (134). The naming system that Moran thinks of as one “of singular beauty and simplicity” (134), or, as one could call it, “ball-y,” is, in reality, “turd-y,” fecal, and, far from beautiful, simply waste.

Both concepts, forcing things to fit with names and names with things, share the common theme of imposition. To actually produce an ideal name, a thing must, by virtue of its own quality, name itself. In other words, a thing needs somehow to earn a name that somehow perfectly represents it. This ideal is ultimately no more than a mere flight of fancy—literally impossible, but Molloy shows the reader an attempt at achieving it in clothing. Moran speaks of having “always been very sensitive to clothing, though not in the least a dandy” (170), indicating that he chooses his clothing carefully, paying close attention to the stamp by which others define him before actually knowing him. In this way, Moran, so partial to fixing the essence of signifiers, can choose his own name. These ideal clothes “cleave so close to the body [that they] are so to speak inseparable from it” (170), echoing the theme of names actually contacting the things they represent. However, his clothes slowly begin to disintegrate. After his drawers have “rotted,” and “the seat of his breeches…sawed [his] crack from Dan to Beersheba” (170), Moran fails to realize that the crack in the whole (Dan to Beersheba) belies the notion of achieving ideal naming through clothing. The ideal would be whole and indestructible by its very nature; Moran’s clothing is not so. His clothes quite literally don’t make the man.

The image of rain illustrates well the attitude of humanity towards the reality of the naming process. Rain represents how labels are applied to objects. Like rain falling from above, language comes from a higher, mental world. However, until the rain touches the ground, it is disjointed and in particles. Running parallel to this idea, the words produced by intellectuals are inconsequential and arbitrary until they meet the physical things which they represent. The entire process of naming simply applies arbitrary droplets to an object until the droplets puddle up and become fluid as they contact the thing itself. However, as with all the problems of naming so far, the thing being rained on has no say in whether or not it gets wet, no say in what its name should be. Like Moran trying to name himself through his clothing, most people in the rain in Molloy, do not want to be affected by the arbitrary naming system. When rain falls, they begin “hastening angrily to and fro, most of them, some in the shelter of an umbrella, others in that perhaps a little less effective of the rainproof coat” in order to avoid the system they necessarily must eventually face (62); the water cycle makes rain cyclical as well, and the rain will keep coming back. Also trying to escape the inevitable, Moran, when caught in the rain, faces “the following dilemma. [To] go on leaning on [his] umbrella and get drenched or…stop and take shelter under [the] open umbrella” (171). Moran ponders on the issue, but “most often” he stops and waits under the umbrella rather than pushing on with no protection from the rain (171). However, unlike those in part I, Moran realizes his dilemma “a false [one], as so many dilemmas are” (171). Moran will be soaked either way, but he refuses to accept the process of arbitrary naming without some form of resistance. Trying to block as best he can the concept of broken, arbitrary language falling to the ground and puddling in names which ultimately bear no relation whatsoever to the things they represent, Moran realizes that one cannot escape the rain’s effects ultimately breaks the cycle of self-denial in which those earlier rain-escapers are caught. Grasping the dilemma itself is Moran's form of freedom from it.