4 Pages 1077 Words July 2015Saved essays
In the wake of the obstinacies between the Protestantism and Catholicism in Northern Ireland many people found themselves torn by to different opinions. In fact, many people did not dare to speak their right words, at that time of being. Some families experienced great losses, due to the battle between tribes. This happened to the main character in Bernie McGill’s short story “No Angle” from the anthology The Best British Short Stories 2011. The main theme in this short story is how to move on after a tremendous loss. This essay will particularly focus on Annie and how her life goes on after her father’s, mother’s and brother’s death.
The narrator is a 1st person narrator: Annie who is the main character in the story. The language is based on flashbacks and non-formal words. The story is written as how Annie sees the situation, when she is in it; “Situation vacant: prospective daughter-in-law.1” The sentence constructions are fully made, and even though it is something she thinks, the reader reads it as if Annie read it to us. This makes the story narrative and detailed. The story changes between monologue and dialogue between Annie and her father. This adds opinion to the story; the story is not only seen from Annie’s point of view, but also through her father’s.
Annie’s character reflects the meanings and opinions of her father. She is (assumption wise) in her early forties, and has a boyfriend called Thomas. The reader does not know which side Annie’s family is on in the conflict in Northern Ireland. Yet the side Thomas’s family is on is not the side Annie’s family is on. This is first seen in the meeting between Annie and her parent-in-law; “They were far too middle class for religion to be an issue.2” The fact that Annie even points this out to the reader must mean that the two families are at opposite sides of the issues about religion. The contrast between the families is that Thomas’s fam.
Dette er et uddrag af siden Summary i webbogen No Angel | Analysis. Klik på læs mere nu for at få adgang til den fulde tekst.
Ordforklaringer findes her
Bernie McGill's “No Angel” tells the story of Annie, a middle-aged Irish woman who receives visits from her deceased father.
The story begins with Annie recounting her father's first visit after his death. It happened in the bathroom, while she was taking a shower. She does not seem at all surprised by the supernatural apparition, and they make small talk for a while, before her father's ghost disappears. We then get a second flashback, when her father appears on the train to Belfast. This second visit prompts Annie to reminisce about her parents, who used to travel before she and her brother were born.
The third visit occurs outside the restaurant where Annie had dinner with her boyfriend, Thomas and his parents. This time, the two have a longer conversation. They talk about Thomas, and her father expresses his dissatisfaction with Annie's choice of boyfriend. We then find out that Annie's brother was brutally murdered. Annie now reminisces about her dead brot.
Mini-Essay One: How do they do that?
“Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." -Plato
The Goal: The aim of this mini-essay is to perform a rhetorical analysis on a written or spoken text. How does a speaker argue effectively? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to know the speaker, audience, topic, and context. After identifying those things, it is possible to look at how the speaker uses ethical, emotional, and logical appeals to strengthen their claim.
The Text: You are able to choose any written or spoken argument for this assignment. I will be providing some suggestions in class (we’ll look at Hilary Clinton speaking on woman’s rights and Martin Luther King Jr. speaking on civil rights), but you are welcome to find a text on your own. It should be long enough for you to have enough “stuff” to fulfill this assignment. You must quote your text and cite your sources in MLA format.
The Questions: Answer the questions below to help guide your analysis.
Who is the speaker? Why are they speaking on this particular topic? What factors in their lives have influenced them and ar e important to note?
Who is the intended audience? Who is welcomed into the text by the speaker?
What is this all about? Why are they making this argument? Why is it important?
When and where did this text originate? What are other factors that influence the topic, speaker, and audience relationship? (Cultural, socioeconomic, institutional)
How does the speaker establish credibility? Why would an audience think they are trustworthy?
What emotions is the speaker trying to evoke?
How does the speaker use evidence to validate their argument? (Evidence, reasoning, data, statistics…)
Putting It Together: Your job in this mini-essay is to put together your analysis in a logical way. It is not enough to just know all of these parts. It is necessary for you to construct an argument about what this text is doing and how the speaker is using these rhetorical devices to persuade the audience.
750-1000 words Double-spaced 12 point professional font
MLA Format Works Cited
Everything's an Argument pages 32-37.
The note prompt below is optional, but is a good guide for what I want you to get out of this section of the text. I will be completing a note check tomorrow (8.27) during the bell-ringer.
Please use complete sentences while filling out the worksheet below.
Audiences for Arguments:
Draw the diagram from page 33 “Readers and writers in context,” below:
What is an intended reader? An intended reader is… ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What is an invoked reader? An invoked reader is…
What are real readers? Real readers are…
Who is the intended audience for Soul Sistah magazine? Why is it important that readers know this?
What is the most immediate context?
What are some examples of broader contexts?
Why was context important in Sharon Clahchischilliage’s election and the way that she campaigned?
The short story No Angel is written by the Bernie McGill in 2010. She is an author who lives in Northern Ireland, where the story also takes place. It is from the anthrology The Best British Short Stories 2011. The story is about grief, loneliness and how to recover from a death of a loved one.
People got different ways to move on, but no matter what, it is terribly painful to lose a loved one, because you suddenly are alone. On the one hand you recover by trying to forget about the pain the loss has brought, but on the other hand you want to remember the one who passed away, because of the fear of loneliness and because the death is hard to accept. Others don’t want to accept the fact that they’re gone and will never be here again, and thereby they find a rather special way to keep the memory of the lost person. They create the lost one(s) inside their head, and pretending they see the dead(s) as ghosts or angels. This makes them able to talk to them and get advices from their beloved, even though they are no longer here. This is the way our main character of No Angel is using to handle her sorrows of her family’s death.
The main characters name is Annie. You get to know it when the father says “Have you forgotten what they did to your brother, Annie. ”(p. 3, l. 63). Annie has lost her brother and both of her parents and deals with being left on her own without them to support, guide and, most of all, love her. She still sees them after they’re dead as angels and talks to them. She convince herself that she can still spend time with her loved once and pretends that nothing ever happened, as if they never passed away. Already in the very first sentence and in several others is clearly shown how natural she believes it is to see her deceased relatives: “The first time I saw my father after he died, I was in the shower…” (P. 1, l. 1), “The next time I saw, him I was on the train…”(P. 1, l. 24), “The next time I saw my father after he died, it was.
Saturday 5 March 2011 00.07 GMT First published on Saturday 5 March 2011 00.07 GMT
M en who bluff and bully their way to enormous fortunes are Tom Bower's special subject. His targets have included Robert Maxwell, Tiny Rowland, Mohammed al Fayed, Conrad Black and Richard Branson, so it was probably inevitable that Bernie Ecclestone. the billionaire ringmaster of Formula One, would one day wander into his authorial cross-hairs.
The son of a Suffolk trawlerman, Ecclestone was already sharpening his legendary commercial acumen in the school playground. Bower is not the first to tell the story of how he would complete two paper rounds before setting off for school; the money he earned would be spent on buns, sold on at a profit to his classmates. The deals are somewhat larger now. His most recent coup – executed last year, shortly before his 80th birthday – was to sign an agreement under which the Russian government will pay his organisation $280m over seven years for the privilege of holding an annual grand prix in Sochi, a Black Sea resort, while spending probably as much again on building a circuit for the purpose. The deal was concluded in a private 15-minute meeting between Ecclestone and Vladimir Putin, the latest world leader keen to do business with the beguilingly sinister 5ft 3in impresario.
Putin is probably one of the few people in the world who is not frightened of Ecclestone. Another would be Slavica Malic, a 6ft 2in Croatian model who, in Bower's gruesomely entertaining account, became the second Mrs Ecclestone in 1985 and secured a £750m divorce settlement – probably around a quarter of his total wealth – after leaving him 23 years later. Elsewhere, and particularly within the Formula One paddock, his power is absolute and questioned only by those with no regard for their future in the sport.
That power was accumulated over a period of more than 30 years, during which, as Bower accurately notes, Ecclestone "transformed Formula One from a mere enthusiasts' sport into one of the world's most watched entertainments". After buying the Brabham team in 1971, on terms typically favourable to himself, and reorganising it with characteristic rigour, Ecclestone recognised that here was a little world ripe for the taking. With the assistance of Max Mosley, a qualified barrister and former driver and team owner, he assumed leadership of the teams in a war for control waged against the governing body, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, an organisation of blazered blusterers unused to being challenged. Deploying skills developed as a successful dealer in the tough postwar second-hand car trade, he made offers that amateurs could not refuse.
Ecclestone's great vision – which would set an example for sport in general, notably the English Premier League – was to see that the future lay in television rights, which had previously been distributed piecemeal and for peanuts, and to move his sport into the emerging markets outside Europe. When he successfully renegotiated the broadcasting rights, having leased them from the FIA, assigned them to his own company, started to charge real money and distributed a proportion of the proceeds to the teams, nobody objected. Even a minor percentage of something was better than the practically nothing they had been getting, and eventually that minor percentage made all the sport's leading participants very rich men indeed. Ecclestone himself, of course, had been getting richer still.
The key to his ultimate triumph was the election of Mosley as the president of the FIA. Together they battled the EU over the ban on tobacco sponsorship, and fought off the European competitions commissioner's disapproval of Mosley's extraordinary decision to extend his friend's lease on the sport's commercial rights to 100 years. An accomplished double act, suave patrician and brusque street-fighter, they specialised in keeping their opponents on the wrong foot, often expressing divergent opinions on some contentious issue or other before effortlessly reuniting in victory.
About 10 years ago Ecclestone saw the chance to make a real killing from his unique domination of a sport into which sponsors, equipment suppliers, motor manufacturers, broadcasters and governments were pouring billions. In a series of complicated manoeuvres, through which he sold and took back the commercial rights three or four times and pocketed several billion pounds in the process, the ownership of Formula One's revenue streams ended up in the hands of a private equity firm which made the purchase with the aid of £2.9bn borrowed from RBS's Fred Goodwin. The new owners employ Ecclestone as chief executive at a salary of £2.5m, plus fuel for his £40m private jet, on the unarguably correct grounds that no one else can do the job nearly as well as a man now in his ninth decade.
Bower does his best here, but Formula One's business dealings have always been camouflaged by smokescreens of secrecy and evasion, and to understand fully the events described between pages 223-237 and 260-267, for example, you would probably need to be Ecclestone himself, sitting at the centre of a web of holding companies with tax-shelter addresses. Somewhat clearer, although not new, is the description of his success in making further fortunes by toying with the existence of the British Grand Prix, an event he treats with the refined cruelty of a particularly vicious cat holding a fieldmouse between its paws.
Ecclestone himself has not been left entirely unscathed by success. His nose was bitten off by a Las Vegas casino owner's Alsatian dog a few years ago, and he has been expensively mugged outside his London home on a couple of occasions. The most recent assault took place at the end of last year, when his £25,000 watch was among items snatched by thieves. Since no opportunity to make money can be neglected, a few days after the incident the watch's manufacturer took out a newspaper advertisement showing his badly bruised face next to the slogan: "See what some people will do for a Hublot".
Nothing, however, has damaged him as badly as his encounter with New Labour in 1997, when he was invited to make a £1m-donation to Tony Blair's election campaign and encouraged by Michael Levy to turn it into an annual unrepayable "loan", on the clear understanding that Downing Street would reciprocate by helping Formula One in its fight to maintain its income from tobacco companies. In exposing the squalid machinations and duplicities of Blair, Levy, Peter Mandelson, Derry Irvine, Gordon Brown and their functionaries, Bower allows Ecclestone to emerge as the victim, the great manipulator caught, helpless and humiliated, in a net of politicians' lies.
Bower is not at ease with the language or the history of motor racing. Teeth will be ground at the assertions that 96 spectators were killed in the appalling crash at Le Mans in 1955 (the correct number is 83), that the Renault team copied Ferrari in introducing turbocharged engines in the late 1970s (the reverse was the case), or that the original venue for the 1981 Las Vegas Grand Prix was to have been the Bellagio hotel (which was not built until 1998). Important names are misspelt, sometimes repeatedly, including those of the car dealer John Coombs (not Coomb), the Fiat boss Sergio Marchionne (not Marchione) and the engineer Alan Permane (not Permayne), who was "Witness X" in the notorious Crashgate hearings of 2009. These and other errors are mere details, perhaps, in Bower's attempt to paint a sweeping portrait of a very unorthodox tycoon, but they do tend to undermine faith in the description of more complex matters.
Perhaps nothing exemplifies Ecclestone's modus operandi as amusingly as the apparently coincidental publication, a couple of weeks before No Angel. of another biography. Susan Watkins, the wife of Formula One's long-time resident surgeon, is an old friend of Ecclestone and her book, completed in 2005, was intended to be the authorised version of his story. The subject, however, exercised his right to suppress the manuscript, which disappeared into limbo. Now, having granted Bower an unprecedented degree of access to his intimate circle, he has also quietly permitted the appearance of Bernie: The Biography of Bernie Ecclestone (Haynes), which inevitably paints him in an almost wholly favourable light. Thus, with the minimum of effort, a little thunder has been stolen from a book which had been expected, on Bower's past form, to contain more explosive revelations than turns out to be the case. Look after the small victories, Ecclestone might say, and the big ones will take care of themselves.
Richard Williams's The Death of Ayrton Senna is published by Penguin.