Author: theamazingkeith

I am a predator. Created by an architectural genius, who designed me to have such swift elegance, yet such thunderous power.

Today, I will hunt again. My offspring need feeding and so do I. I often wonder whether starvation is good for me. It intrigues me to think something so deadly and threatening to my existence, may in fact be an advantage. Why? It fuels the soul, it kindles rage and hunger for a kill. It means I will eat and feed my babies. It means an unsuspecting creature will die tonight.

During the day, I admire the spectacular suburban landscape. I’ve seen the city, and it’s not a place for a creature like me. The city is grey and dull, the air thick with exhaust. It’s as if the city is trapped in a bubble, a bubble poisoning the once exquisite environment into a grimy grey industrial home. Which can only really be described as, ‘artificial’. Creatures like me, however, now thrive In the garden of Earth. The vibrant green of the treetops and grass, spectacularly clashing with the blues, whites and browns to create a picturesque masterpiece. However, this beauty is drained when the sun sets and the moon takes over. The moon, the torch for a murderer. When the moon flexes in the pitch-black sky, I leave for the hunt.

The day in the forests is so much different to the night. In the day, creatures will confidently go about their business; feeding, playing, resting, mating, exploring, anything they want to. But at night, even the largest of creatures will scurry back to their homes to sleep and cower away in the shadows. I do not sleep often. It is not a routine or prescription for me. Whilst one sleeps, they are vulnerable, and vulnerability is something I must always avoid.

Some may think my life is boring or repetitive. Well, its guaranteed those people haven’t ever needed to work to survive. Once used to it, it becomes a game. One must hunt for survival. It’s as simple as that, until you get to my age. Then you must hunt for you offspring’s survival, then your own. This is more difficult. Soon, killing another being will become habit. A lack of it will lead to a thriving thirst to pierce the flesh of an inferior being. To penetrate the tender skin of a rabbit, snake or squirrel. Now, I have a lust for it. I must kill tonight or face the consequences. I must dart down through the sky, the whipping cold caressing my body as I plummet down from the moonlight, through the treetops to the ground. Here, (and to my victims surprise) I will puncture the fragile bones of my prey, leaving no remorse. After all,

I am a predator.

Dear Ms. Kerr,

I am writing in disagreement of an article I recently read by you. It was on the topic of slang, and how you believe it’s bad for society and the English language. If you would, please find the time to take in my points and possibly re-evaluate your opinion.

Slang, as we know, is a type of language consisting of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, and typically restricted to a particular context or group of people. It is clear from your article that you feel slang is deteriorating the once eloquent foundations of the English language. You suggest “its already a constant battle for young people to prove we’re  not all apathetic, ASBO-wielding yobs who cant communicate properly”. Despite this, you actually use slang yourself- “yobs”. The irony!

Perhaps you need a small reminder that the actual creator of this ‘verbal abomination’ is William Shakespeare; Britain’s greatest ever writer. He made up thousands of words, from ‘assassination’ to ‘puke’, and he’s known globally as a literal genius! Additionally, countless plays, books and films have been written deliberately with slang to highlight and convey character and culture. for example; Clockwork Orange and Of Mice And Men. Slang is therefore not only for the uneducated and youthful, but a key aspect to modern day language which allows us to study character in more depth.

Furthermore, the use of slang isn’t just to irritate adults; it is in fact said by many youngsters that its used as a separation from the ‘adult’ world. What they mean by this is the use of slang allows them to escape the judgement of people like you. People like you who believe children who use  slang are nothing more than the dregs of society.

Frankly, your attitude disgusts me. You have the audacity to complain that people who speak using this language are bringing down the country and splitting it in two. But it is in fact you who is separating these two groups with such negative views. As mentioned before, people choose to use slang to escape judgement, and isn’t that understandable? Teenagers nowadays have to worry about school, jobs, homework, staying in shape, helping out at home and being sociable, plus 8 hours sleep all at once! the last thing they need is for bigots like you to be assessing them on his/her vocabulary in their free time.

My final point is addressing what confused me about your article most: do you even know what slang is? The use of slang is simply trends, new words made up  to replace other words. For example, the word ‘sick’ replacing the word ‘amazing’. Slang is not a title given for new inventions. You named your article ‘Twerking, Selfie and Unlike’. However, if you look at your own three examples, they’re all new inventions and additions (good or bad) to society. ‘Twerking’ is a new dance, ‘selfie’ is a new type of picture taking in a self-portrait mode and Unlike, the option to ‘unlike’ a photo. This isn’t slang! These are not random nouns made up to replace other words because, for example, there is no other noun used for ‘twerking’. What you have essentially done is heard a new word, didn’t like the sound of it and assumed it was slang. Therefore, your whole article is essentially pointless as you clearly don’t fully understand what slang is.

Please take my points into consideration and try to understand my point of view.

Safe!

Kai Mahindru.

Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelly in 1818. During this time, scientists had been beginning to explore and experiment on the dead, and if they could be resurrected. The often-gory experiments left the public intrigued yet suspicious, so subsequently the hot topic of that time. It was this which inspired Mary Shelly to write Frankenstein whilst trapped indoors during a storm. The novel was an immediate hit due to its controversy and secrecy behind the on-going experiments. It is now recognised world wide as a classic gothic-genrered story. Monstrosity is therefore a key theme presented in the book, additional to death, revenge and the fear of the unknown.

The book I will be comparing to Frankenstein is Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’. This book was written in the early 1600’s, and explores the supernatural and hierarchy. It is entwines with themes of monstrosity through the characters and their lifestyles. Shakespeare was influenced to write ‘The Tempest’ to test and explore other theories other than God.  Characters in the novel perform magic and have supernatural powers. This therefore removes any idea of ‘normal life’; only where God can perform supernatural powers.

I will focus of Caliban and Frankenstein’s creation, and how similar circumstances and parallels lead them to become monstrous. Additional to that, I will analyse how neither Caliban nor the creation were born evil, but driven to it by their life circumstances and the treatment they received. I will review each factor and analyse the effect of the presentation of monstrosity in each.

My first paragraph is on Caliban and the creations monstrous appearance. In both, their abnormal appearance restricts the characters from a normal life.  This shows that their monstrosity isn’t just presented in representations or connotations, but physically shown and expressed.

In Frankenstein, the creation comes across a child, it feels the child won’t judge him by his appearance as he’s innocent and judgemental due to his youth. However, when he confronts the boy, he screams;

“Monster! Ugly wretch! You wish to eat me and tear me to pieces- you are an ogre” Mary shelly chose to use particular language features to express and present the monstrosity the child saw in the creation.  Firstly, the quotation uses imagery to exaggerate monstrosity and evil in the creation “you wish to eat me and tear me to pieces” this paints a picture that the creation would violently slaughter the child, despite having to intention to do so. The use of exclamatory phrases has the same effect, raising panic. To conclude, Mary shelly uses particular language features to present monstrosity within the creations appearance. Similarly, Caliban is also presented as monstrous through his appearance. In Shakespearian times, the actor of Caliban would be black (or painted black) amongst other white actors. This was purposefully done to separate him from everyone else.

“A freckled whelp hag-born not honour’d with human shape”. This quote was Prospero describing Caliban. The use of literal language and imagery in “not honour’d with human shape” directly presents his monstrous appearance. Moreover, the use of an allusion in the quote directs our thoughts towards Calibans appearance being non-humane. To conclude, Marry Shelly and Shakespeare both use particular and purposeful language features in quotations to present their monstrous appearance.

Secondly, another factor used to present monstrosity in the Tempest and Frankenstein is their rejection from society. This occurs to both characters in each play. Firstly, Frankenstein’s creation quotes

“Who can describe and consternation on beholding me?”. This quote describes how the creation feels are constant rejection from other humans (for example the present family in the woods). It uses the language feature of a rhetorical question to express the creations frustration and helplessness, as nobody is there (or able) to answer it. This is a key way that Mary Shelly presents the creations drive to mental monstrosity. Similarly, Calibans rejection from society also presents his mental drive to monstrosity.

“What a thrice double-ass was I, to take this drunkard for a God, and worship this dull fool”. In context; this quote is said at the end of the play, where everything is resolved and forgiven. Every character is given freedom except Caliban, who goes back to being a slave. Derogatory terminology is used on himself to lower his status, addition to a biblical reference/link; using the word ‘God’ to describe his masters truly shows Calibans lack of power, and how they are so much more superior than him. It shows how Calibans rejection from society has lead him to except being a slave unjustly, presenting his hidden fury, shown by his acts of attempted rape. Driving him to monstrosity.

My next point is on Caliban and Frankenstein’s creations anger from their loss and underestimation of power.  Both are perceived to be physically large. Caliban as a slave is seen frequently carrying logs and other objects requiring lots of strength, and Frankenstein’s creation is constantly described as vast and physically powerful. However, both have had this label taken away from them from Caliban being a slave and the creation being lost in life. This is seen to frustrate and present their monstrosity from the following quotations. For the creation; when confronting with somebody attacking him, he says

“I could have tore him limb from limb” showing his dominance through his choice not too. Moreover, he quotes when finally seeing his creator again;

“Slave I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condensation. Remember I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful on you. You are my creator, but I am your master—Obey!” this is an extremely powerful quotation from the novel, clearly presenting the creations wrath from his loss and underestimation of power. It uses an imperative “Obey!” to highlight its anger, as well as a figure of speech to represent how he feels un-literally. This can also been seen as symbolism, the quote “I can make you so wretched that even the light of day will be hateful on you.” This could connote how Frankenstein created him to be so monstrous that even the most innocent things, like children hate the sight of him. It uses irony and powerful language to show its and monstrosity though its rage. In comparison, Calibans anger from loss and underestimation of power is shown in the following;

“This islands mine, by sycorax my mother, which thou takest from me. When thou camest first” this shows Calibans loss of power, and his rage is seen in this following quotation;

All the infections that the sun sucks up from bogs, fens, flats on prosper fall and make him by inch-meal a disease! [Thunder]” this strong quote also uses a number of language features to present Calibans monstrosity as we see in this violent quote. Firstly, there is clear use of hyperbolic language used to portray him monstrous rage. There is also clear imagery in Calibans sematic fields of punishment (another language feature).  Finally, pathetic fallacy is used (thunder) to express the mood of Caliban, thunder connotes violence and aggression, so is used whilst Caliban is talking to link with his feelings. Hinting to a build up of anger, which leads to his monstrous act of attempted rape. To conclude this point, Mary Shelly and Shakespeare used specific language features for a purposeful effect to portray monstrosity in the characters’ build up of rage from their loss and underestimation of power.

Tightly linking to the previous point, both Caliban and Frankenstein’s creation have a clear build up of rage and monstrosity through their poor treatment from masters. Caliban is a slave to Prospero, so his treatment is naturally poor. The creations treatment is also poor, he was abandoned when first created and ever since has been avoided by Frankenstein. This is proven by the quotation for the creation, said by Frankenstein;

“Devil, cease; and do not poison the air with these sounds of malice”. The use of a biblical reference in “devil” connotes the creation with pure evil and therefore strongly presents monstrosity. This quotation shows how the creation is treated by his master, he’s abandoned and ran away from. For Caliban, his poor treatment is presented by the way he’s spoken to in the following;

“Thou poisonous slave, got by the devil himself upon thy wicked dam, come forth!” Ironically, these quotes are very similar. Both characters are spoken using derogatory langue, both comparing them to the devil and both using the word ‘poison’ to describe them, expressing how they are the dregs of society, only capable of damage or death, but as we know, poisons are mostly man made for effect… these have been used to present how Prospero and Caliban feel the characters are so monstrous.

Finally, the creation and Calibans confusion and depression of their existence is a key factor that drives then into monstrosity in the plays.

“Cured, cursed creator! Why do I live?” Again, a rhetorical question is used, as well as alliteration, repetition and an exclamatory phrase to indicate the creations hurt from existing. This presentation of his helplessness can be the reason he is driven to monstrosity by murdering. In comparison, Caliban says in the novel;

“[…] and hiss me into madness” (On the subject of his life). The use of sibilance can be perceived as Caliban believing he is evil himself, the repetition of the ‘s’ representing the sound  of a snake, which is famous for being in the story of Adam and Eve, where the snake tricks them. He can therefore been seen to be describing himself as a wreckage to innocence. These have been used by Shakespeare and Mary Shelly to present their drive to monstrosity.

In conclusion, in both novels, the authors constantly use language effects in specific was to present Caliban and the creations monstrosity (and drive to it) leading to their acts of attempted rape and murder. Despite this, their actions are not justified, but we as readers still synthesize with the characters as we know through the text their lifestyle is horrific. They weren’t born monsters, but treated like them so much they eventually became them.

Thank you.

The burqa

It is 2014; a day and age where the majority of the world lives enriched in multiculturalism and equality. Naturally, anybody of any age or gender or race or class can wear what they want and with freedom. So why should the burqa be an exception?

Firstly, a burqa is a long, loose garment covering the whole body from head to feet, worn in public by women in many Muslim countries. It shows no skin, body shape or even facial features, and is, in most cases black. So what’s the issue? If anybody can wear whatever they like- surely the burqa isn’t doing anybody and harm? or is it?

Well, some Brits would argue that wearing the burqa is anti-social; and that it becomes increasingly hard to try to socialise with people wearing this garment. Others state how there is no need for the burqa to cover so much, and that the Qur’an doesn’t actually state women need to cover their faces in addition to the rest of their body. In fact, studies revealed that 55% of Brits surveyed want to see a ban on full face veils in all public places, similar to the laws in France. With the vast majority admitting to feeling ‘uneasy’, ‘nervous’ and ‘threatened’ by the full face veil.” But the most frequent argument is that it is a security issue. Every year, many cases occur where a burqa has been used to a criminal’s advantage, from robbing stores without facial recognition, to attempted terrorist attacks. The burqa, in almost all cases, is used as an excuse to cover up without suspicion. Is it fair that a man wearing a balaclava and saggy jeans can be blanket searched without hesitation, but a person wearing a burqa is a lot less likely to be searched?

However, can’t we argue the case of equality? The UK let’s in tens of thousands of immigrants from across the globe into the UK per year, coming for a better quality of life for themselves and their family. Who is anybody to tell another person in a multi-cultural society how to dress, and what is and isn’t ‘appropriate?’ Just as one may choose to cover up more doesn’t mean that you cannot talk to them; if you think it’s harder to socialize that’s completely you’re opinion, not a fact. Additionally, thousands more crimes are done wearing hoodies, which can also cover up the face, why not ban those? Wearing a burqa is part of the Islamic religion, which is welcomed into this country just as any other religion, like Jewish people wear skullcaps. The burqa is not insulting or harmful, but can simply give closet racists the chance to express their Islamophobia.

London is renown for its diversity and freedom. Naturally, nobody is discriminated against for race, class, gender or religion. It should therefore be a no-brainer to allow Islamic women to wear burqas! Moreover, in horrific recent events, Paris has been the centre of extremist Islamic terrorist attacks. Is it a coincidence that this is also the place that have actually banned the burqa? This is in no way, shape or form is an excuse or valid reason for terrorist attacks, but could undoubtedly be a major factor into the rage and fuel to these peoples actions. Ultimately, nobody (especially in such culturally  advanced places like London) should have the right to choose what clothing is and isn’t allowed to be worn, it simply causes unnecessary friction and separation between religions and communities.

Frankly, the idea is ridiculous and embarrassing. How can we lead a society to a new world were everyone is treated fairly, when higher powers are attempting to choose what people can and can’t wear? If the ban was to take place, imagine the irony,  imagine the feelings Islamic believers in London will endure. A feeling of rejection and unjustly dismissal, as if we were ‘better’ than them. If you see somebody wearing a burqa, don’t feel threatened or awkward as that’s the only factor causing a cultural separation. Instead, feel proud that our glorious city is able to accept and live entwined in diversity.

In conclusion, I personally feel that the burqa should not be banned, and people who feel this way should seriously consider there reasons why, and weather they’re valid, and can’t be compared equally to garments like hoodies and balaclavas. Or are just indirectly expressing hate to a multi-cultural society.

Thank you.