various context ideas: year 12

Obama gun laws
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/president-obama-points-to-australian-gun-control-laws-as-an-example-of-why-the-us-should-be-ashamed/story-fncynjr2-1226950336777


Ai WeiWei video:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/video/2010/mar/18/ai-weiwei-turbine-hall-tate

Gun laws:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/gun-policy-recap/

http://prezi.com/fee_k9yiezee/gun-control/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10852109/Ai-Weiwei-review-a-punkish-fighting-spirit.html

Cause/

Christianity

The ‘Holy’ Bible perhaps epitomises such powerful ignorance as the evolution of humanity has indeed questioned the intricacies.

Even most devout Christian cannot deny the flaws with photographic imagery being able to contradict biblical hypothesis of world being flat & stationary earth.

Staggering 2.2 billion Christians around the world, clash of ideals inevitable.

Moved past theory of letting “women learn in silence with all subjection” in Australia in 1926-right to vote.

But there still remain a large majority that wish to remain stagnant and many are willing to fight for their beliefs.

However is the church unfairly stigmatized and it is actually (in a modern context) a progressive and evolving institution due to societal demands?

http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/2-12.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/home/2013/12/11/3050681/pope-francis-think-2013/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pope-francis-catholic-church-punish-pedophile-priests-article-1.1308895

Similarities between Brecht and Galileo :Year 12

Bertolt Brecht’s life and his play Galileo compliment each other perfectly. While one is an interesting study of a remarkable life and the concepts of sacrifice, the other raises the very vital question of scientific responsibility. In my eyes, Brecht is an enigma, since he was at the same time a lover of the good life and an ardent Communist, an atheist whose favorite book was the Bible, and so on. Through Galileo, we can know more about Brecht through his dramatization of Galileo's life and also examine questions about sacrifice and the supression of disruptive knowledge.

Brecht’s youth during the Great War is interesting in that it is representative of the philosophical and ideological struggles that so many young adults have to go through after periods of crisis. As is the case with others, Brecht grew wary of the prevailing order of the time and embraced alternative ideologies likeNihilism and Communism. Nihilism must have seemed particularly attractive during those bland and weary times, reminiscent of nihilism’s own dreary and cynical beliefs. Communism, however, seemed to be Brecht’s natural ideology since it reflected his atheist tendencies and his disgust with the established order. But this action is quite queer for a man who hardly demonstrated any ascetic tendencies himself. He was, like his Galileo, a lover of the good life. He enjoyed many women in his life and portrayed Galileo as someone who was equally attracted to comforts and good food. It is curious then that Brecht could embrace an ideology that ran quite contrary to his own lifestyle!

The second major enigma is found in Brecht’s devotion to the martyrdom. Why he would embrace the concept of dying for a cause with such fervor is an enigma. Certainly, the story of Jesus did have a powerful impact upon Brecht, an influence that directly translated into many of his early plays. But his fascination for Jesus’ sacrifice hardly accounts for the regret he felt at not having martyred himself at the hands of the Nazis. It could be said that the major influence upon him was the death of his close friendTratyakov and that of several Soviet intellectuals. This would certainly have plagued him much since several Russians had ‘confessed’ and willingly died for the good of the party, something that Brecht would have conceivably admired. This sacrifice of the Russians echoes the Communist principles that every individual must carry out actions for the greater good. Perhaps it was this parallelism that resonated in his heart and plagued him for the rest of his life.

It is now that we tread upon the central question- how, then, does Galileo function as a vehicle to convey the responsibilities of the Scientist? The similarities between Galileo and Brecht are startling. Both individuals were from the educated middle class, had a liking for the better things in life and eventually adopted ideas contrary to the belief of the Bourgeois. They did eventually flee martyrdom and regretted it. So it is clear that Brecht intends to deliver a message about his own self through his play, and ultimately about the responsibility of the Scientist.

Galileo represents the quintessential revolutionary, Galileo, in a class struggle. He is not of the peasantry or the bourgeois, but of the educated middle class, much like Marx, Lenin, and even Brecht himself. He has come upon a powerful new tool- modern astronomy, which could enable him to upset the traditional balance of power and thereby rid society of domination by the Church. The Church here represents theestablishment. It is the social structure upon which the entire European society is based. It permeates every sphere of being and is as crucial for order within society as it is responsible for oppression and philosophical stagnation. The question asked in the play is whether Galileo should proceed to fight the Church and ‘liberate’ the people or should he stay low for the sake of order and harmony in society. In act nine of Galileo, we witness a possible scenario that might have arisen if the Church-led social order had collapsed. Society could itself have crumbled in the terrible fires of anarchy, fuelled by the absence of moral and spiritual authority of any kind. It is to this dilemma that we can find different answers to in the play.

An obvious opinion is that it is better to live to quietly further the movement than to die for momentary accolades. Not only does this make sense, but it also raises the point of the very futility of martyrdom. What does martyrdom really achieve? My answer to that would be symbolism of the highest value. It represents a member of the weaker side putting up a brave resistance till the end so that his comrades are inspired to work harder for the movement. But the applicability of this to Galileo and Brecht can only be assessed by studying the consequences of their possible martyrdom. If Brecht had not fled Nazi Germany and surrendered himself to a grueling term, or even death, in the blazing infernos of a hellishTreblinka, he would have achieved little except for the sense of accomplishment brought about by the realization of his dearly held ideal of martyrdom. Similarly, Galileo’s death would have provoked an uprising from some radical elements of society, which could have indeed lead to several changes in favor of the establishment of a new system in which the Bourgeois walked hand-in-hand with the peasantry to create a fairer system, not mired with negative elements like the intellectual corruption of the Church. But his further works on astronomy did much to further science and it could be argued that the truth proceeds to escape, no matter how closely guarded it is, through the course of time. It is maybe this that tore Brecht apart- the moral dilemma of adhering to one’s principles or doing what is practically justified. Perhaps, one of the very purposes of the play was to let us, the readers, be the judges and ascertain whether Brecht's and Galileo’s actions were justified. Going back to scientific responsibility, it is quite problematic to decide whether Galileo should have recanted or not. It is, like the issue about martyrdom, a sticky dilemma and really enigmatic. In retrospect, it seems proper that Galileo didn’t seek revolution and set the course for a gradual evolution into an era of enlightenment.

The play attempts to define the boundaries of scientific responsibility on a broader scale. It asks us when a scientist should draw the line between uncovering the truth and seriously damaging society and the human race. While discoveries such as the compass have brought us much knowledge, other inventions such as the atomic bomb have brought about untold misery. It should be kept in mind that there is no way of knowing what a discovery might translate into through the course of time, so there is little point in questioning the morality of the act of discovery itself. It is the application of science that has to be brought under scrutiny.

It is very difficult to decide whether it is Galileo’s duty as a scientist to bring out the truth whatever be the consequences or whether to act in the best interest of society and repress the information so no major upheavals are caused. Galileo is in the beginning a communist hero. He discovers new knowledge that threatens to break down the exploitative social order and to ignite a revolution. But here too we find the contradictions rife in the play since Galileo performs several acts, including the incident involving the telescope, for money. Even here it could be argued that he did what was practical and that he did not bother about lofty principles. In any case, he did fulfill the communist ideal in many ways. Later on, he refused to die for the cause and thereby killed the chances of a revolution. He now went against communist principles. But what about scientific principles? Did he violate them too by not bringing out the truth to the masses? The answer to that is extremely prickly. We know for a fact that the knowledge was eventually dispersed to the people, but then this very slow change could have set off progress by decades. Also, what would happen if every scientific discovery were allowed to be stifled in the same manner? There would be utter stagnation and intellectual penury. The only answer to this vexing dilemma is that there is a very thin line between that which is responsible and that which is rash. Actions that add to the wealth of human information without overbearing sinister consequences are responsible while others are rash. Thus, there do exist cases where scientific truth must be suppressed, or even quashed, for the good of mankind. Scientific philosophy is very similar to Communism in that it believes in the inherent goodness and selflessness of every man. The truth cannot be any more to the contrary. While science itself is not nefarious, it is we human beings that make it evil on so many occasions. This naïve view was the downfall of communism and also threatens to be the downfall of much else.

We have seen here that Galileo, and thus Brecht, were extremely complex individuals. Theirs’ is a parallel story because what is applicable for communism, sacrifice and Brecht is also valid for Galileo and the quest for truth. In a sense, the play is a damning condemnation of communism for it shows how its very naïve belief in the nobility of the average man can have disastrous consequences. Galileo must have realized this inherent imperfection in human nature and would have surely contemplated how his Bible-defying discoveries would only help chaos descend on an orderly society. He thus recanted for the greater good of his people. The play itself reveals much about the motivations and opinions of Brecht himself. It can be seen as an examintion by Brecht of guilt and torment he feels. He sees himself in the same light as Galileo and even though he earlier believed that they were both guilty of capitulations, he seems to conclude that ultimately it was the right thing to do.

Race, Class and Gender in TKAM: Year 10

Hi Year 10,

Check this link on race, class and gender that Christian found! Also, don't forget to do questions from "The Trial 16-20".

http://youtu.be/mDS32LEe1Ss

Have a great weekend :)

Some extra contextual ideas to look at : Year 12

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/uganda-kill-the-gays-bill/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-McCarthyism

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/26/aids-south-Africa

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm


http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/environment-climate-change-denier-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

Another link for LOG: Year 12

Read and highlight key ideas :)http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/conflict-of-questions-20130322-2gjny.html

A good overall link to start the play LOG: Year 12

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/brecht-explores-the-science-of-courage-20140501-zr2b2.html

Galileo Key term and events: year 12

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

· Galileo's masterpiece. Published in 1632, this text took the form of a dialogue in which one of the speakers fiercely argued for the truth of the Copernican system. It was this work that led to Galileo's trial for heresy before the Inquisition.



Geocentricity

· This theory, championed by Ptolemy, Aristotle, and the Roman Catholic Church, held that the earth lies at the center of the universe.



Heliocentricity

· The theory, developed by Copernicus and championed by Galileo, which places the Earth in orbit around the sun.



Inquisition

· The Inquisition was a judicial institution formed by the Catholic Church to suppress heretics, or anyone otherwise corrupting the faith. The Inquisition took the form of a series of trials and executions, and the Inquisitors were famous for their wil lingness to torture and kill in the name of "Christianity." Galileo's arguments in favor of heliocentricity led them to bring charges of heresy against him.



Jesuits

· A religious order founded during the Counter-Reformation, the Jesuits represented the most intellectual of the Church's arms, and the order produced many great scientists. However, the Jesuits passionately championed orthodoxy, and when they became rivals with Galileo over scientific issues, they worked to ensure his downfall.



Roman Catholic Church

· Headed by the Pope in Rome, Catholicism constituted the only Christian church in Western Europe during medieval times. In the 15th and 16th centuries, however, the Protestant Reformation created breakaway churches in northern Europe, and Catholicism became locked in a struggle with the dissenters.



Sidereus Nuncius

· Meaning "Starry Messenger," this was the title of the 1610 treatise in which Galileo described the early observations that he had made with his telescope. It described mountains on the moon, and other moons orbiting Jupiter, and became a sensational bestseller in Europe.



Counter-Reformation

· The Catholic response to the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation began as an initiative of the Council of Trent in the 1540s, and involved a fierce defense of orthodoxy and tradition. The Jesuits, a new religious order, served as the chief agents of this movement, and the movement led the Church into conflict with the rising tide of scientific discoveries.



Protestant Reformation

· This movement began under Martin Luther in northern Europe, and by the mid-15th century had spread across Germany into Scandinavia and England. It protested the worldliness and corruption of Catholicism during the Renaissance, but also the Catholic tradition in general, as it sought to uncover an "original," "pure" form of Christianity, more in keeping with Jesus's original teachings and less preoccupied with ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renaissance

· Literally meaning "re-birth," the Renaissance saw the rebirth, or reintroduction, of classical art and literature in the 15th and 16th century, following the "dark ages" of the medieval period, during which these works had been forgotten or lost. Art and culture flowered, and an air of vibrancy pervaded Europe, and especially Italy, which was the center of the movement. The Renaissance produced some of the West's greatest works of art; however, it was also a time of corruption in political spheres, as well as in the Catholic Church; the Church's moral decadence during these years led to the Reformation.

Crime research activity: Year 11

Research Project: Crime and Punishment, Year 11 2014

 

Types of crime

 

 

1. Crime against the person

ü  rape

ü  murder

ü  assault

ü  hate crimes

ü  child abuse

ü  muggings

 

2. Crime against property

ü  vandalism and arson

ü  burglary

ü  vehicle theft

ü  shoplifting

ü  film and music piracy

 

3. Crime against the State

ü  terrorist attacks

ü  selling secrets to another nation (e.g. military documents)

ü  false accounting in order to deceive the tax office

 

4. Religious Offences

ü  insulting God

ü  sacred religious artefacts

ü  making images of God/Prophets  which is illegal in some countries

 

Research activity:

 

You are to choose a research a crime that has been in the media in the last 12 months. You can choose a type of crime from the 4 categories above. It can be a low level or high level crime, it is completely up to your discretion. You are to prepare a presentation that outlines the following:

 

1)      What crime was committed?

2)      Who was involved (victims and perpetrators)?

3)      What legal proceedings ensued?

4)      What was the outcome?

5)      What is your overall opinion on the case?

 

You are to discuss this case to the class as part of your oral component in Term 2. You may use material that you research in your writing for your folio.

 

Here’s a link to help you start thinking about which case you might want to research:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/29/top-10-crimes-2013_n_4460380.html

 

You must also make sure you have completed your Border Crossing themes sheet by the end of the week and your first expository essay.

Life of Galileo Timeline, Weeks 3-8 : Year 12

Life of Galileo timeline Weeks 3-7

LJL

Week 3:

Contextual comprehension: Encountering Conflict.

Intrapersonal/interpersonal/extrapersonal  + cause/response/consequences/resolution.

AOS2 explanation: Statement of Intention.  Creative/expository/persuasive.

Background and Context of LOG : Galileo and scientific revolution/Brecht/Cold War.

Genre and language: History play/parable or teaching play/epic theatre/language.

Begin Scene by Scene analysis (study guide handout): Insight Study Guide

Stimuli questions per lesson.

Homework: Read the Examiner’s VCCA report on Creating and Presenting from the 2013 examination.

Homework: Research the Scopes Trial in 1925. Write a research page.

Homework: Have contextualisation document finished.

Practice Prompt: “Progress encourages conflict”. To be done in a form of your choice.

 

Week 4:

Continue Scene by Scene analysis discussion and questions(study guide handout).

Revision of what constitutes each writing form in workshop groups. Suggestion of ideas for chosen form.

Stimuli questions per lesson.

Complete Section 7: Characters from INSIDE STORIES. (on Schoology).

Homework: Research McCarthyism and HUAC. Write a research page. Make connections between Brecht and Galileo’s experiences.

Homework:

Practice Prompt: “Unwillingness to move beyond stagnant beliefs will invite conflict”. To be done in a form of your choice.

Week 5 and 6:

Continue Scene by Scene analysis discussion and questions: INSIDE STORIES(study guide handout).

Booklet activities.

Workshop groups for chosen forms: expository/persuasive/creative.

Stimuli questions per lesson.

Homework: research extra contextual areas of anti-intellectualism in Australia, gay marriage, Roman Catholic church in modern context, Russian revolution, Syria, women’s rights, segregation.

Practice Prompt: “Conflict is a true test of human relationships”.

Practice Prompt: “Conflict is a clash of expectations”.

 

 

 

Week 7:

Prompts handed out.

Deconstructions of Prompts with the class.

Practice writing for chosen form.

Feedback from LJL.

Practice SAC early in the week (date to be decided by class).

 

Week 8:

 SAC WEEK (date to be decided by class).

4 down…2 to go!

J

 

 

 

Research project TKAM: Year 10

Research Project for To Kill A Mockingbird

AIM: Contextualisation

You are to compile notes on your allocated topic and present your findings to the class. It would be advantageous to visual representation as well.

Your objective is to outline and discuss your particular topic to your classmates so they can understand more about the historical and social context of the times when the novel was set.


Topic 1: the Great Depression: Nicola, Gabby, Steph

Topic 2: Alabama in the 1930's: Erica, Ari, Christian

Topic 3: Jim Crows Laws : Ashley, Simone, Rowena

Topic 4: Lynching and the KKK: Emma, Kira, Charlotte

Topic 5: The role of women in the 1930's: Nathane, Jemima,Carly

Topic 6: The Scottsboro trials: Ben,Kate, Sophie

Topic 7: Harper Lee: Ashleigh, Tom, Robbie

Act 5, Romeo and Juliet: Year 9

Summary: Act 5, scene 1

Then I defy you, stars.

On Wednesday morning, on a street in Mantua, a cheerful Romeo describes a wonderful dream he had the night before: Juliet found him lying dead, but she kissed him, and breathed new life into his body. Just then, Balthasar enters, and Romeo greets him happily, saying that Balthasar must have come from Verona with news of Juliet and his father. Romeo comments that nothing can be ill in the world if Juliet is well. Balthasar replies that nothing can be ill, then, for Juliet is well: she is in heaven, found dead that morning at her home. Thunderstruck, Romeo cries out “Then I defy you, stars” (5.1.24).

He tells Balthasar to get him pen and paper (with which he writes a letter for Balthasar to give to Montague) and to hire horses, and says that he will return to Verona that night. Balthasar says that Romeo seems so distraught that he is afraid to leave him, but Romeo insists. Romeo suddenly stops and asks if Balthasar is carrying a letter from Friar Lawrence. Balthasar says he is not, and Romeo sends his servant on his way. Once Balthasar is gone, Romeo says that he will lie with Juliet that night. He goes to find an apothecary, a seller of drugs. After telling the man in the shop that he looks poor, Romeo offers to pay him well for a vial of poison. The Apothecary says that he has just such a thing, but that selling poison in Mantua carries the death sentence. Romeo replies that the Apothecary is too poor to refuse the sale. The Apothecary finally relents and sells Romeo the poison. Once alone, Romeo speaks to the vial, declaring that he will go to Juliet’s tomb and kill himself.

Summary: Act 5, scene 2

At his cell, Friar Lawrence speaks with Friar John, whom he had earlier sent to Mantua with a letter for Romeo. He asks John how Romeo responded to his letter (which described the plan involving Juliet’s false death). Friar John replies that he was unable to deliver the letter because he was shut up in a quarantined house due to an outbreak of plague. Friar Lawrence becomes upset, realizing that if Romeo does not know about Juliet’s false death, there will be no one to retrieve her from the tomb when she awakes. (He does not know that Romeo has learned of Juliet’s death and believes it to be real.) Sending for a crowbar, Friar Lawrence declares that he will have to rescue Juliet from the tomb on his own. He sends another letter to Romeo to warn him about what has happened, and plans to keep Juliet in his cell until Romeo arrives.

Analysis: Act 5, scenes 1–2

The sequence of near misses in this section reveals the inescapable work of fate. There is no reason for the friar’s plan to go wrong. But an outbreak of plague forces Friar John into quarantine and prevents him from delivering Friar Lawrence’s letter to Romeo, while Balthasar seeks out Romeo with news of Juliet’s death. Just as the audience senses an inviolable fate descending on Romeo, so too does Romeo feel himself trapped by fate. But the fate the audience recognizes and the fate Romeo sees as surrounding him are very different. The audience knows that both Romeo and Juliet are bound to die; Romeo knows only that fate has somehow tried to separate him from Juliet. When Romeo screams “Then I defy you, stars” he is screaming against the fate that he believes is thwarting his desires (5.1.24). He attempts to defy that fate by killing himself and spending eternity with Juliet: “Well, Juliet,” he says, “I will lie with thee tonight” (5.1.34). Tragically, it is Romeo’s very decision to avoid his destiny that actually brings fate about. In killing himself over the sleeping Juliet he ensures their ultimate double suicide.

Through the irony of Romeo’s defiance rebounding upon himself, Shakespeare demonstrates the extreme power of fate: nothing can stand in its way. All factors swing in its favor: the outbreak of the plague, Balthasar’s transmission of the message of Juliet’s death, and Capulet’s decision to move Juliet’s wedding date. But fate is also something attached to the social institutions of the world in which Romeo and Juliet live. This destiny, brought about by the interplay of societal norms from which Romeo and Juliet cannot escape, seems equally powerful, though less divine. It is a fate created by man, and man’s inability to see through the absurdity of the world he has created. Now, in this scene, we see Romeo as agent of his own fate. The fortune that befalls Romeo and Juliet is internal rather than external. It is determined by the natures and choices of its two protagonists. Were Romeo not so rash and emotional, so quick to fall into melancholy, the double suicide would not have occurred. Had Juliet felt it possible to explain the truth to her parents, the double suicide might not have occurred. But to wish someone were not as they were is to wish for the impossible. The love between Romeo and Juliet exists precisely because they are who they are. The destructive, suicidal nature of their love is just as much an aspect of their natures, as individuals and couple.

In the character of the Apothecary, once again, Shakespeare provides a secondary example of the paradoxical and pressing social forces at work in the play. The Apothecary does not wish to sell poison because it is illegal, banned by society. But it is the same society that makes him poor, and which insists on validity of the differences between rich and poor. The Apothecary is pushed to sell the poison by external forces that he, like Romeo, feels completely unable to control.

←

Act 5, scene 3

→

Summary

In the churchyard that night, Paris enters with a torch-bearing servant. He orders the page to withdraw, then begins scattering flowers on Juliet’s grave. He hears a whistle—the servant’s warning that someone is approaching. He withdraws into the darkness. Romeo, carrying a crowbar, enters with Balthasar. He tells Balthasar that he has come to open the Capulet tomb in order to take back a valuable ring he had given to Juliet. Then he orders Balthasar to leave, and, in the morning, to deliver to Montague the letter Romeo had given him. Balthasar withdraws, but, mistrusting his master’s intentions, lingers to watch.

From his hiding place, Paris recognizes Romeo as the man who murdered Tybalt, and thus as the man who indirectly murdered Juliet, since it is her grief for her cousin that is supposed to have killed her. As Romeo has been exiled from the city on penalty of death, Paris thinks that Romeo must hate the Capulets so much that he has returned to the tomb to do some dishonor to the corpse of either Tybalt or Juliet. In a rage, Paris accosts Romeo. Romeo pleads with him to leave, but Paris refuses. They draw their swords and fight. Paris’s page runs off to get the civil watch. Romeo kills Paris. As he dies, Paris asks to be laid near Juliet in the tomb, and Romeo consents.

Romeo descends into the tomb carrying Paris’s body. He finds Juliet lying peacefully, and wonders how she can still look so beautiful—as if she were not dead at all. Romeo speaks to Juliet of his intention to spend eternity with her, describing himself as shaking “the yoke of inauspicious stars / From this world-wearied flesh” (5.3.111–112). He kisses Juliet, drinks the poison, kisses Juliet again, and dies.

Just then, Friar Lawrence enters the churchyard. He encounters Balthasar, who tells him that Romeo is in the tomb. Balthasar says that he fell asleep and dreamed that Romeo fought with and killed someone. Troubled, the friar enters the tomb, where he finds Paris’s body and then Romeo’s. As the friar takes in the bloody scene, Juliet wakes.

Juliet asks the friar where her husband is. Hearing a noise that he believes is the coming of the watch, the friar quickly replies that both Romeo and Paris are dead, and that she must leave with him. Juliet refuses to leave, and the friar, fearful that the watch is imminent, exits without her. Juliet sees Romeo dead beside her, and surmises from the empty vial that he has drunk poison. Hoping she might die by the same poison, Juliet kisses his lips, but to no avail. Hearing the approaching watch, Juliet unsheathes Romeo’s dagger and, saying, “O happy dagger, / This is thy sheath,” stabs herself (5.3.171). She dies upon Romeo’s body.

Chaos reigns in the churchyard, where Paris’s page has brought the watch. The watchmen discover bloodstains near the tomb; they hold Balthasar and Friar Lawrence, who they discovered loitering nearby. The Prince and the Capulets enter. Romeo, Juliet, and Paris are discovered in the tomb. Montague arrives, declaring that Lady Montague has died of grief for Romeo’s exile. The Prince shows Montague his son’s body. Upon the Prince’s request, Friar Lawrence succinctly tells the story of Romeo and Juliet’s secret marriage and its consequences. Balthasar gives the Prince the letter Romeo had previously written to his father. The Prince says that it confirms the friar’s story. He scolds the Capulets and Montagues, calling the tragedy a consequence of their feud and reminding them that he himself has lost two close kinsmen: Mercutio and Paris. Capulet and Montague clasp hands and agree to put their vendetta behind them. Montague says that he will build a golden statue of Juliet, and Capulet insists that he will raise Romeo’s likeness in gold beside hers. The Prince takes the group away to discuss these events, pronouncing that there has never been “a story of more woe / Than this of Juliet and her Romeo” (5.3.309).

Analysis

The deaths of Romeo and Juliet occur in a sequence of compounding stages: first, Juliet drinks a potion that makes herappear dead. Thinking her dead, Romeo then drinks a poison that actually kills him. Seeing him dead, Juliet stabs herself through the heart with a dagger. Their parallel consumption of mysterious potions lends their deaths a peaceful symmetry, which is broken by Juliet’s dramatic dagger stroke. ThroughoutRomeo and Juliet, Shakespeare has held up the possibility of suicide as an inherent aspect of intense love. Passion cannot be stifled, and when combined with the vigor of youth, it expresses itself through the most convenient outlet. Romeo and Juliet long to live for love or die for it. Shakespeare considers this suicidal impulse not as something separate from love, but rather as an element as much a part of it as the romantic euphoria of Act 2. As such, the double suicide represents both the fulfillment of their love for each other and the self-destructive impulse that has surged and flexed beneath their love for the duration of the play. The Friar’s embodiment of good and evil are united in a single act: suicide. Juliet tries to kill herself with a kiss: an act of love as intended violence. When that fails she stabs herself with a “happy dagger,” “happy” because it reunites her with her love (5.3.168). Violence becomes an assertion of autonomy over the self and a final deed of profound love.

Social and private forces converge in the suicides of Romeo and Juliet. Paris, Juliet’s would-be husband, challenges Romeo, her actual husband, pitting the embodiments of Juliet’s lack of power in the public sphere against her very real ability to give her heart where she wishes. Through the arrival of the Prince, the law imposes itself, seeking to restore the peace in the name of social order and government. Montague and Capulet arrive, rehashing family tension. None of these forces are able to exert any influence on the young lovers. We have seen Romeo and Juliet time and again attempt to reconfigure the world through language so that their love might have a place to exist peacefully. That language, though powerful in the moment, could never counter the vast forces of the social world. Through suicide, the lovers are able not just to escape the world that oppresses them. Further, in the final blazing glory of their deaths, they transfigure that world. The feud between their families ends. Prince Escalus—the law—recognizes the honor and value due the lovers. In dying, love has conquered all, its passion is shown to be the brightest, most powerful. It seems at last that Friar Lawrence’s words have come to be: “These violent delights have violent ends / And in their triumph die” (2.5.9–10). The extremely intense passion of Romeo and Juliet has trumped all other passions, and in coming to its violent end has forced those other passions, also, to cease.

One senses the grand irony that in death Romeo and Juliet have created the world that would have allowed their love to live. That irony does exist, and it is tragic. But because of the power and beauty of their love, it is hard to see Romeo and Juliet’s death as a simple tragedy. Romeo and Juliet’s deaths are tragic, but this tragedy was fated: by the stars, by the violent world in which they live, by the play, and by their very natures. We, as an audience, want this death, this tragedy. At the play’s end, we do not feel sad for the loss of life as much as we feel wrenched by the incredible act of love that Romeo and Juliet have committed as monuments to each other and their love. Romeo and Juliet have been immortalized as the archetypes of true love not because their tragic deaths bury their parents’ strife, but rather because they are willing to sacrifice everything—including themselves—for their love. That Romeo and Juliet must kill themselves to preserve their love is tragic. That they do kill themselves to preserve their love makes them transcendent.

Class 1: Term 2 : YEAR 12

Hi All,

I'm very excited about starting Term 2 as I have been doing lots of thinking and writing over the holidays and am very eager to make a start on Life of Galileo.

As you know, our orals are first and these will commence Week 2:

Seb's class: Monday

Miet's class: Wednesday

The orders for both classes are as follows:

Mon the 28th:

Aiden

Tahli

Nicola

Pax

Thursday the 1st:

Mill

Jazzle

Ruby

Yennez

Sammy

Friday the 2nd:

Bronte

April

Alex T

Julz

Bellz

Monday the 5th:

Seb

Isi

Alex H

Marteene

Other class:

Wednesday the 30th:

Juk

Gigi

Aaron

Elsa

Thursday the 1st:

Madie

Loch

Stone

Miet

Oli

Friday the 2nd

Ewan

Marcus

Boal

Jackson

Monday the 5th

Ryan

Andrew

Hamish

Shorty

As already noted in previous email, the orals have been shifted a day because of my absence on the 29th due to a school commitment.

Please also note that you are to bring your books to every class as the speeches will NOT take all class and we will do Life of Galileo for the second half of the lesson.

Other matters:

1)Please print out Insight Text Article - Life of Galileo on Schoology under the Creating and Presenting, Life of Galileo section.

2) Start up a research document for contextualisation for LOG:

Please research the following and do in a word document or in your books:

Answer must be detailed in order to build your comprehension of the social and historical context of the play.

1) Galileo

2) Bruno Giordano

3) Nicolaus Copernicus

4) Clausius Ptolemy and the Ptolemaic System

5) Geocentric

6) Heliocentricity

7) the telescope

We will add to this as we go : DUE MONDAY

Also:

I'm cross-marking Language Analysis tomorrow and then will put your final marks on the system. I do not know when they will be handed back as I have not been told ( so PLZ don't ask every lesson :) )! I would assume Week 2 or 3.

This term, there will be some time allocated for computer usage with the Creating and Presenting element but strictly NO mobile phones for the rest of the year. I am not to see them!

First 10-15 mins of class will always involve me talking to you about the structure of the lesson and goals to be achieved etc (as I have done all year) so there will be strictly no devices in the opening of the class. Do not come in a pop your computer screen up. Class time is for CONTACT. I'm a little bit over "policing" so if we can all implement a more harmonious arrangement in regards to devices, the more constructive class time will be!

Excellent!

Ok, so we will work on speeches for the rest of the week, I am looking forward to reading all of them and fine-tuning. The ones I have already read look fantastic and I think there will be some brilliant deliveries. 

See you tomorrow and get ready for an action-packed term.

Organisation is Key (persuasive technique: cliche)!

Mrs Luscombe

Vocabulary for LOG: Year 12

Some words you can use for your creative/expository/persuasive pieces.....

Galileo Words LJL

Diffident

Physicist

Compromised

Paradoxical

Dichotomous

Progressive

Elusive

Seduced

Intellectual

Belligerent

Naive

Pugnacious

Bellicose

Academically antagonistic

Heretic

Nonconformist 

Dissenter person who holds different belief

Recusant

Schismatic

Schismatist

Antipathetic : opposing

Creationism

Fundamentalists

Evolution

Darwinian

Literal

Scientific

 

 

 

Play

Didactic

Parable

Exemplum

Historical

Fictionalised

Allegorical

Analogy

Brectian

Ver

 

Conflict:

 

Synonyms:

altercation, animosity, antagonism, antipathy, brawl, cacophony, clamor, clash, collision, commotion, contention, difference, disagreement, discord, discordancy, disharmony, dissension, dissidence, dissonance, enmity, feud, friction, harshness, hassle, hostility, hubbub, imbroglio, raucousness, riot, row, squabble, squall, strife, tension, warfare.

 

confrontation (noun)

Synonyms:

challenge, confrontation, defiance, dispute, encounter, engagement.

 

confutation (noun)

Synonyms:

abnegation, abrogation, confutation, contradiction, denial, disaffirmation, disavowal, invalidation, rebuttal, refutation, rejoinder, repeal, repudiation.

 

contention (noun)

Synonyms:

argument, contrariety, controversy, opposition, resistance.

 

difference (noun)

Synonyms:

aberration, abnormality, asymmetry, counterpoint, deviation, discrepancy, disparity, dissemblance, dissimilarity, distinction, distinctness, disunity, divergence, diversity, inequality, mismatch, non-uniformity, variance, variation, variety.

 

disagreement (noun)

Synonyms:

complaint, disaccord, divisiveness, nonagreement, rejection.

 

discordance (noun)

Synonyms:

discordance, incompatibility.

 

enmity (noun)

Synonyms:

adverseness, alienation, averseness, bad blood, bitterness, coldness, combativeness, coolness, dislike, hard feelings, hatred, inharmoniousness, inimicality, loathing, malevolence, malice, polarity, quarrelsomeness, rancor, resentment, spitefulness, surliness, unfriendliness, wrath.

 

opposition (noun)

Synonyms:

adversary, counteraction, hindrance, impediment, inhibition, interference, objection, obstinacy, obstruction, repression, repulsion, suppression.

 

warfare (noun)

Synonyms:

aggression, bloodshed, crusade, guerre, jihad, offensive, war, warpath.

 

battle (verb)

Synonyms:

battle, campaign, combat, contest, drive, engage, fight, scramble, scuffle, struggle, tussle.

 

conflict (verb)

Synonyms:

altercate, antagonize, bicker, blast, broil, collide, contend, differ, disagree, dissent, spar.

 

confute (verb)

Synonyms:

abnegate, abrogate, confute, contradict, deny, disaffirm, disavow, disprove, invalidate, negate, rebut, refute, rejoin, repudiate.

 

contend (verb)

Synonyms:

argue, confront, contrast, defend, face, oppose, protest, quarrel, resist, stand, vie, withstand, wrangle, wrestle.

 

contrast (verb)

Synonyms:

deviate, differentiate, diverge, diversify.

 

disagree (verb)

Synonyms:

complain, defy, demur, object, reject.

 

oppose (verb)

Synonyms:

check, counter, counteract, counterattack, cross, hinder, impede, inhibit, intercept, interfere, meddle, obstruct, oppress, rebuff, repel, repress, repulse, suppress.