Tartuffe (Molliere) Essays - Tartuffe, Molire, Le Tartuffe, Oregon

Tartuffe (Molliere) Christian Castellanos HUM1020 MWF 10-10:50 Robin Repper Tartuffe is a classic story of deceit by one who is trusted and respected. Tartuffe, the deceitful holy man, is living in the house of Oregon. Oregon has opened his doors to Tartuffe, and he greatly respects him for being the good holy man he was thought to be. The rest of the family believe that Tartuffe is a fake and a con. Oregon and Madam Parcelle are the two which believe in his holy reputation. Tartuffe convinces Oregon that he is an incredible man of great holy stature, and Oregon proceeds to sign over to Tartuffe all his possessions. Outward Appearances can sometimes be deceiving. This is evident in the way Oregon looked at Tartuffe. Tartuffe was thought to be a man of great holy influence. Oregon thought Tartuffe was a high holy figure, who was admirable because of his devotion to God. Tartuffe is actually a two- faced con artist who has no interests but that of his own welfare. Oregon is blinded by these ideals. Tartuffe takes advantage of this blindness and attempts to seduce Oregon's wife and con Oregon out of all his possessions. Another action by Tartuffe was the first steps of seducing Oregon's wife. He uses his rosary to pull her in closer. In this episode, Tartuffe is using a symbol of purity and holiness as a tool of lust and sin. At some points, he'd be eloquent and dignified, but at times he would be as if he was going after her. There is another aspect to the seduction by Tartuffe of Oregon's wife. Molierre has Oregon hiding under a table when Tartuffe is trying to physically seduce his wife. Oregon had never believed his family that Tartuffe was two faced. Oregon, seeing with his own eyes what Tartuffe was doing, finally believes them. This shows that sometimes people don't believe something until they see it with their own eyes. Moilere succeeded in making Oregon and Madam Parcelle stubborn and unmoving. Oregon was stubborn when he did not believe his family over Tartuffe. It was a bold action the wife undertook to convince Oregon that Tartuffe was a fake. Only an action so bold would convince him. Oregon felt the affect of this stubbornness when he was trying to convince Parcelle of Tartuffe's deceitfulness. He was outwardly frustrated at her remarks about him and Tartuffe. Again, she needed outward proof, and she received it when the eviction notice came as Oregon was trying to convince her. The voice of reason and control in this play comes from a character by the name of Cleante. This character counters Oregon's stubbornness and irrationality by providing stability and control over the situation. Cleante is Oregon's brother- in- law. When Cleante notices that Tartuffe has taken over the household, he organizes a meeting to come up with a solution or plan to the situation. The actor playing Tartuffe would frequently face the camera and make faces showing his deceitfulness toward the camera. This gives the audience and insight which is not seen by the rest of the characters in the play. These actions lead to dramatic irony which introduces new aspects to the play. Camera angles played an important and interesting role in this production of Tartuffe. During the scene of the attempted escape by Oregon, the camera angle was shot in the first person of Oregon. It showed Oregon's point of view as he was exiting. This method was used a couple more times in the production. Also, camera angles were oddly placed at times. While the family was planning, the camera at one point was shooting between two chairs at the table, giving a different perspective of the planning period. Also, the Camera would sometimes be moved and hurried, giving a sense of confusion. Lighting played a small role in this production. The most prominent example of the use of variation of light was in the speech given by the guard towards the end of the production. A bright white light was cast from behind making what he had to say more catching and seemingly important. The light also gave him a look of being omnipotent at the time of his speech. Tartuffe is a play emphasizing deceit, reputations, integrity, stubbornness, and the ability to be blinded by something that we see as good, but really is harmful. Outward appearances are sometimes misinterpreted. This is what happened to Oregon and Tartuffe. This play contains many conditions

Medieval Weapons and Protection essays

Medieval Weapons and Protection essays The Middle Ages hold many of the worlds most curious weapons. Knights used many different types of weapons. These included swords, daggers and lances. Some were for long-range, such as the longbow, short bow and cross bow and some were for close encounters. They protected themselves with suits of armor (closely woven metal, and metal sheets) and shields. There were also gigantic weapons used to tear down whole castles. Swords, daggers and lances were very good for fighting battles that were up close and very dangerous. There were different kinds of swords like the thrusting sword (14th century), the falchion sword (13th century), and the hand-and-a-half-sword (14th century). At the end of the 13th century, swords were more pointed and the section of the blade was diamond-shaped rather than flat. That made the sword stronger. There was even ones that were serrated to cut wooden axe handles and one called the two-handed sword; it could cut through bone. These are used by knights on foot and is longer and heavier than other swords. (Knight-Meyr) A knights sword was his most important weapon. There were two different types of daggers. They were the 15th century bullock dagger, and the 14th century rondel dagger. Sometimes, people could hide daggers in walking sticks. Lances were for knights on horseback to knock off the enemy knight. They used the lance for battles and jousting. The jousting knight us es a lance to knock his opponent from the horse. It is second only to the sword as a knights weapon, and is used in battle or tournaments. (Knight-Meyr) A very unusual weapon was the bola. It was a spiked ball on a short chain that is attached to a wooden handle. The ball reached high speeds when swung and delivered forceful, crushing blows. Long-rang weapons were used in battle, but were more discreet and could be used from a distance. The long-range weapons are the crossbow, longbow ...

Analysis Of A Linear Accelerator

Analysis Of A Linear Accelerator Nowadays patient with cancer are treated by radiation, surgery, chemotherapy or with a combination of these options. The radiotherapy treatment unit used to deliver radiation to cancerous cells and tissues is the linear accelerator, also known as linac. The linear accelerator has been defined by Khan F. M. (2003) as a device that uses high-frequency electromagnetic waves to accelerate electrons, to high energies through a linear tube. The electron beam itself can be used for treating superficial toumors, or it can strike a target to produce x-rays for treating deep-seated toumors. The energy used for the radiotherapy treatment of deep situated tissues varies from 6-15 MV (photons) and the treatment of superficial toumors (less than 5cm deep) is between 6-20MeV. (Khan, 2003) The purpose of this essay is to describe a linear accelerator, analyse its components in the stand and the gantry of the linac, and explain the principles of operation and then discuss why it is best situated to the task for which it was designed. Some advantages and disadvantages of the linac will also be included in the discussion part of the essay. Main body: Figure 1:http://www.cerebromente.org.br/ As you can see from the schematic picture above, the major components of a linac are: Klystron: source of microwave power Electron gun: source of electrons. Waveguide (feed and accelerating waveguide): microwaves travel through the feed waveguide and then to the accelerating waveguide, where electrons are accelerated from the electron gun. Circulator: a device that prevents microwaves of being reflected back from the accelerator. Cooling water system: cools the components of the linac. Bending magnet: â€Å"A bending magnet is used to change the direction of the accelerated electron beam from horizontal to vertical.† (Hendee et al, 2005) X-ray target: electrons hit the target and produce x-rays. Flattening filter: even out the intensity of the beam. Ionisation chambers: they control th e dose leaving the head of the linac. Beam collimation: shape the radiation beam to a certain size Klystron: There are two types of microwave power. The klystron and the magnetron. Magnetrons are used for lower energy linacs. In the high energy linear accelerator klystron is used. All modern linacs have klystrons. Both klystron and magnetron are special types of evacuated tubes that are used to produce microwave power to accelerate electrons. (Karzmark and Morton, 1998). â€Å"The tube requires a low-power radiofrequency oscillator to supply radiofrequency power to the first cavity called the buncher.† (Hendee et al, 2005) In the bunching cavity, electrons produced from the electron gun, are bunched together to regulate their speed. The microwave frequency is thousands times higher than ordinary radio wave frequency. For a linac to work, the microwave frequency needed is 3 billion cycles per second. (3000MHz) (Karzmark and Morton, 1998) Electron gun: The electron gun is part of the klystron. Here, electrons are produced and then accelerated to radiofrequency cavities. The source of electrons is a directly heated filament made from tungsten, which will release electrons by thermionic emission. (Bomford, 2003) Tungsten is used because it is a good thermionic emitter with high atomic number, providing a good source of electrons. Klystrons usually have 3-5 cavities, used to bunch electrons together and increase microwave power amplification.

HEALTH ECONOMIC Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

HEALTH ECONOMIC - Assignment Example According to this article, pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money on promotional talks. They have now turned to using the medical providers to advertize their drugs. Thus, the report says that all of these companies have a financial relationship with doctors. For example, in 2013, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson spent a total of $142,600, $111,200 AND $100,000 on doctors. They used these moneys to pay doctors whom they were working with. This explains why people like Dr. Mare Cohen got $270,000 after being consulted by 6 companies. The economic argument behind this report is that it is very important for the development of health sector in the country. First, it can help in strengthening the relationship between the medics and pharmaceutical companies. Besides, it can help in motivating the medical care providers. For instance, when they are used as consultants by these companies, they can get a lot of money in return. Lastly, it can help in restoring the confidence of the patients. By being diagnosed and treated by recognized consultants, they will feel proud and contented. Once their drugs are recommended by these doctors, they will readily accept to use them as

Reconstruction Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Reconstruction - Essay Example The rise was initiated by various factors that included social, economic, legal, and political. The big business era was a source of wealth and capitalization for many Americans most of who were involved in various national corporations that controlled markets (Wilson 214). Sufficient resources such as oil, coal, and iron were foundations for the building of the states after the war. Adequate iron led to the production of iron and steel that were part of inputs in the big businesses. Steel was used to make railroads and cars that were used in the transportation of various products ranging from coal, ores, and agricultural produce from a state to another (Symonds). Oil was a precious good after its discovery, which was used in homes and to power machinery in some of the industries. Coal powered factories were efficient compared to water-powered; hence, the discovery of coal-fueled the increase of steel mills in the U.S. There was a rise in the number of immigrants to Southern States that provided a foundation for investors, investors, and labor. The immigrants worked in the big businesses and agricultural sector; hence, providing cheap labor. The high population required enhanced transportation methods leading to the increase in railroad networks. The increased demand led to a change in the social life of some of the citizens due to enhanced wealth sources. The banks offered loans that were sources of investment capital. Investors in the big businesses would seek assistance from banks to set up steel mills and railroads as part of the reconstruction. Stock markets were used by trusts such as Rockefeller’s to trade shares and purchase other corporations. The Federal Government did not regulate the operations and establishment of businesses. They were free to pool and set cartels that would increase competition opportunities. However, this factor led to the growth of monopolies in the

A Psychoanalytic Reading of Hedda Gabler :: Hedda Gabler Essays

A Psychoanalytic Reading of Hedda Gabler Attempting a psychoanalytic reading of a given text is a bit like attempting to understand a city by examining its sewer system: helpful, yet limited. There are several reasons for using psychoanalysis as a critical literary theory; the critic might be interested in gleaning some sort of subconscious authorial intent, approaching the text as a "cathartic documentation" (my own term) of the author's psyche; the method might be useful in judging whether characters are well-rendered, whether they are truly three-dimensional and, therefore, worth our while as readers (thus satisfying the pleasure principle); finally, in a larger sense, the psychoanalytic approach can be employed to actually tell us something about our own humanity, by examining the relative continuity (or lack thereof) of basic Freudian theories exemplified in written works over the course of centuries. If we are indeed scouring the text for what I call "cathartic documentation," we must, at the outset, look at the period in which the work was written. Pre-Freudian works, that is to say those poems, plays, short stories, and novels written before the late 19th century, are the major candidates for success with this approach. However, 20th century works, beginning with the modernist authors, pose a problem. How are we to be sure that the writer is not consciously playing with Freud's theories, perhaps even deliberately expanding and distorting them for additional effect? Herein lies the problem with Hedda Gabler: The play was written at roughly the same time that Freud was just beginning to publish his theories. The question is "who influenced whom?" Obviously Freud was taken with Ibsen's realizations of certain fundamental ideas which were to be the foundation of his (Freud's) work: repression, neurosis, paranoia, Oedipal complex, phallic symbols, and so on; all of these factors are present in Hedda Gabler. The question remains, however, whether Ibsen had caught wind of Freud's work and decided to utilize it in the play. Perhaps I am wrong, but having read A Doll's House and An Enemy of the People, both earlier works by some ten years, Hedda Gabler seems to embody Freudian concepts to so much farther an extent that the possibility of a conscious effort to create Freudian neurotic types and set them loose on one another does not seem altogether outside the realm of possibility. Whether consciously or unconsciously, however, Ibsen has created extremely well-developed characters.

The Rules

* We should follow the rules so that we can maintain peace and organization within our society, economy, and even our country. Without rules no one would be able to work together. * Two different kinds of people can be heard to utter that question, â€Å"Why have rules? † One of them does not believe in rules; the other believes in rules and adds a few more words to the question, â€Å"Why have rules, if you are not going to enforce them? † I would like to examine both sides of this argument.Many people say that if we had no rules, there would be total anarchy and chaos. Some say that if there were no law against murder or theft, normal good people would murder and steal. I agree that there would be more murder and theft. But, I cannot imagine that normal people would murder and steal. Wouldn't you be repelled by murder and theft? Wouldn't there be implied constraints (implied laws, if you will) against murder and theft? Wouldn't the Golden Rule apply, even if it weren' t given to us in the Bible? Aren't there always implied rules? Sixty-nine percent of students who obey the rules say that the rules are there for guidance and protection, with 20 percent feeling that the rules are there to scare them into obedience. * We follow rules because they are necessary to coordinate individual actions in a social setting. Some rules are self-enforcing, i. e. , it is in each individual's interest to obey them. For example, once more than 50% of car operators drive on the right side of the road in a particular area, more and more drivers will notice that adapting to this rule reduces their risks of accident, and the rule will become more and more accepted.A driver who decides to break the rule will risk incurring a high cost. * A related reason why we follow rules is that we don't know the consequences of particular decisions: rules are, as Hayek says, â€Å"a device for coping with our constitutional ignorance. † * In certain instances, we follow rules because we want to guard against particular decisions that may, on the spur of the moment, bring satisfaction, but have long term consequences we wish to avoid. You may use a loud, or repeating, alarm-clock, or put it out of reach, because you know hat you may be tempted to stay in bed when the time comes. * Rules are indispensable, but there must be ways to challenge them by trying new ones. Much of the art of social, and personal, life is about knowing which rules to follow and which rules to disobey. * Most of the time we put people into one category or the other. You either accept the rules and play by them or you’re a rebel who likes to break the rules. * A third variety that we often forget about is the rule questioner.And the rule questioner is in a better position to learn and succeed than the pure rule followers and rule breakers. * Why you shouldn’t follow all the rules * The rule followers believe that rules are in place for a reason and that we should foll ow them all. Groups of smart people created laws and company procedures and social norms and school policies so we should accept them and follow them. * Blindly following the rules doesn’t require you to think much. You accept rules the way they are even if they don’t seem to make sense. The problem is that circumstances and environments and people and societies change. We learn better methods. Technology changes our procedures. Rules become outdated. * If you blindly follow all the rules, you don’t account for these changes. * Why you shouldn’t break all the rules * While some of us like to believe we’re rule breakers, most of us realize that we need rules to have a functioning society. (That is, unless you’re an anarchist. ) * Rule breakers really aren’t that different from rule followers.Instead of blindly following the rules, they blindly break the rules. * Why? * Maybe you think you know better. * Maybe you like the feeling of re bellion. * Maybe you want to be different. * Maybe you think the rules are absurd. * The underlying problem with both rule breakers and rule followers is that they don’t use their brains to think about whether they should follow or break the rules. * Question the rules * Instead of following all the rules or breaking all the rules, we should become rule questioners. * Do the rules make sense?If so, then follow them†¦if not, think about about how you might be able to change them. * Most people believe that if you don’t question the rules, you’ll get farther in life, but success awaits those who are willing to break the right rules. * Painting inside the lines * I’m definitely a rule follower. * I was reminded of my tendency to follow the rules last weekend when I attending a Paint By Wine Class with some friends. A local art shop provides paint, a blank canvas and an artist to teach you to create a painting while you sip wine and chat with friends. Ev eryone is supposed to follow the instructor’s guidance to create the same painting. I didn’t really like the colors in the painting, but I followed each of the artist’s instructions and recreated something that looked exactly like her painting. She complimented me on how straight my lines were. * It wasn’t until I looked around, that I noticed that other people weren’t following the rules (gasp! ). Some of my friends used different colors. Others put their flowers in different locations. Others were going even more rogue and painting roses instead of daisies. I blindly followed the rules without even thinking about how I could put my own touch on the painting. I didn’t even like what I was creating, but I found myself proud that I had followed the directions so closely (although certainly not perfectly). * What was I left with at the end of the night? Besides a fun time hanging out with my friends, I had an exact replica of a painting I didn ’t really like. (Yes, the featured image in this post is my â€Å"work of art†. ) * Use your brain to question the rules Whether you’re more of a rule breaker or a rule follower, we can all improve by questioning the rules before following or breaking them. * I’m not suggesting that you pick only the rules you feel like following. Please don’t drink and drive because you think the rule doesn’t make sense. Don’t steal from the grocery store to feel like a rebel. * But do use your brain to ask reasonable questions. *   Rules are important because without rules there would be chaos. Everyone would be doing whatever they want and no one would agree and bad things would happen.   Rules are important because it lets society know what is expected of them. If you break the rules there are consequences and you are aware of that as well. Rules keep us in order. * We should follow the rules so that we can maintain peace and organization with in our society, economy, and even our country. Without rules no one would be able to work together. * Rules are needed to stop anarchy and to provide order. People need to be accountable for their actions so rules are needed. Without rules, no one would own up to any responsibility and things would never get accomplished. *