Durham Saints @ Sunderland Spartans 25-11-07

Whatever next for the Spartans? After great performances against Teeside and especially Newcastle, Sunderland recorded a win against Hull with a thoroughly unconvincing display.
Next to Sandhill were the Durham Saints, playing their first season in the league. It was also the return of some old Sunderland coaches, who left 2 years ago, so the game had some extra spice.
The Spartans, playing in unfamiliar orange jerseys, entered the game knowing that anything less than a win against this team was unacceptable. The game started poorly with the Spartans playing some of the worst football of their entire history. 14-0 at half time to Durham meant that many harsh words were said and tempers started to grow. Strong words towards the referee at the Sunderland sideline meant that Durham were awarded numerous penalties, but Sunderland were lucky not to have a player ejected after the referee was told to ‘get lost’ in a less polite manner.
A change in formation and effort was what was needed by the Spartans and this immediately paid off at the start of the second half, with Will Smith running nearly the entire length of the field with the ball for a score. 14-6 -Durham. Soon after, a wide open a Spartans receiver caught the ball in the endzone for another score to Sunderland, the board now reading 14-12 to Durham. With the light deteriorating in the 4th quarter, Durham requested that the game be abandoned, with Sunderland politely refusing. Seconds later, the Spartans Quarterback ran the ball in to make the score 14-18 in favour of Sunderland. This prompted the head coach of Sunderland to request the game be called, only minutes after Durham had done so, this time The Saints were not so eager.
With some uninspiring football played in the final few minutes, due to very poor light, Sunderland held on for the win, to take their record to 2-2, going into a bye week.
Although 2 wins on the bounce looks good on paper for The Spartans, a great improvement will be needed to record a win against Newcastle in two weeks time, before a long winter break.

Requiem for a dream

One of the most gritty any powerful movies I have ever watched. For anyone with an addiction, this film really highlights the bitter truths of what can come about due to addiction. This film isn’t a horror, but it sure is scary. Scary because it is believable.
The film follows four main characters all linked together either through friendship, love or family. The two main characters are Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto) and his mother Sara (Ellen Burstyn). All are addicted to something, either drugs, such as heroin, or in the more tragic case of the mother, television.
All the main characters experience delusion and desperation at some point in the film, but Sara’s experiences are perhaps the most tragic. Sara, an elderly widow, is stuck at home all day, watching infomercials.
One day she receives a phone call from a television studio, saying that she has won the chance to appear on the show. After which her life takes on a new purpose: to fit into the red dress which she wore to her son’s graduation, one of her proudest moments.
Trying new diets, which fail, she visits a doctor recommended to her by one of her friends, who inexplicably prescribes her amphetamines in order to lose weight, which she becomes addicted to. The pills give her a bit of pep, which her son notices and then begs her to stop using them. After a while, the high she gets from the pills wears off, so she takes more and more, with devastating effects.
She visits the doctor once again, who gives her a prescription of valium. She begins having hallucinations of herself on the TV show, or of the refrigerator moving violently.
Meanwhile, Harry and his friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) start to deal drugs and Harry envisions opening a shop with the money to sell clothes designed by his girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly), who is also a drug addict.
Inevitably, their fortunes take a turn for the worst, when their main source of drugs is murdered by a rival gang. Tyrone gets arrested and Harry spends most of the savings bailing him out of jail. Harry’s arm is also beginning to show signs of infection. After this his relationship with his girlfriend starts to deteriorate, which results in Harry persuading Marion to have sex with a former therapist for drugs money.
Meanwhile, Sara is still waiting for her information to be on the television show, and as a result her condition worsens, due to the pills. Sara ends up travelling, in a rather fragile state, to the television studio, in order to find out what has been going on.
During the winter months, Harry and Tyrone drive to Florida, believing there to be a wider source of drugs available, Harry’s arm is now severely infected, but ignoring this, he injects directly into the wound, causing his condition to worsen dramatically. Tyrone is forced to drive them to the hospital, where the doctor immediately spots them as drug addicts and reports them to the police without giving Harry and treatment.
Marion, now suffering from drugs withdrawal, visits “Big Tim”, a pimp, who she knows will give her heroin in return for sexual favours. Afterwards he mentions that there will be a party coming up that she should attend if she would like more. Marion declines Big Tim’s offer at first, but when her drugs run out she attends the party.
The film then climaxes with all the characters reaching their fate, which is one of broken dreams and failed lives. Harry is in hospital, with his arm amputated after the infection, Sara, now in a mental hospital after receiving painful and useless electrical therapy, completely detached from reality. Marion attends the party where she has to perform sexual acts with another woman for drunk and aggressive businessmen; she receives drugs in return for her ‘work’. Tyrone is now in prison where he is suffering from withdrawal symptoms as well as from the hard labour forced on him by the racist prison guards.
The movie ends with all four of the main characters lying in a foetal position.
The film is ultimately about loss, as all characters lose something along the way. Sara looses her mind, Marion looses her dignity, Tyrone looses his freedom and Harry looses his arm. Also, the relationships are broken between the characters, meaning that everyone has lost someone dear to them, mainly Harry, who looses his mother, his girlfriend and his best friend. At the end of the film he is crying out for his girlfriend Marion, the nurse says that she will be sent for, but deep down he knows that she will not come.
The director, Darren Aronofsky, stresses in the movie’s commentary, that by choosing to escape reality with denial and delusion, the characters are only destroying themselves further. They all long to be closer to one another, but by choosing the paths they do, they are only driven further away from those they love.
One thing that really stands out in this film is its incredible soundtrack, which was composed by Clint Mansell and performed by the Kronos quartet. The music has now been widely used, including being used in the film trailer for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
The style of the movie features many cuts, as was in the Aronofsky’s previous film π. An average 100 minute film has around 1000 cuts, whereas Requiem for a Dream has over 2000. This creates a fast moving tempo, especially towards the end of the film, when the final outcomes of the characters are about to be revealed and the focus is switched between characters.
Do not expect this to be a film that is there to be enjoyed. It is definitely a powerful piece of work, which I would recommend anyone to see, but entertainment it is not.
It is sometimes a very hard to watch movie, with some very disturbing scenes and some heartbreaking moments, especially watching the tragic story of Sara, and seeing what she is reduced to by the end of the movie.
Don’t be surprised if you are left with an empty feeling once the credits start to roll, as the shocking, desperate and above all believable lives you have just watched are far from being ones which you don’t care about.
Requiem for a Dream is something which I would give a very positive rating to, but it is something which I don’t expect to be watching time and time again. This is because of the power of the movie though and the effect it can have on the viewer, rather than it being a bad movie. This is a movie which people will still be talking about many years from now.

28 Weeks Later - Plot

28 Weeks Later follows on from the 2002 film 28 days later directed by Danny Boyle. This time the director is Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, but the action and story is no less intense.
The film rejoins the story 28 weeks after the original rage virus had tore through Britain devastating the population. At the end of that film we find out that Britain had been put under quarantine and that the rest of the world had been living on as normal.
The movie starts with Don, played by Robert Carlyle, in a safe house with a group of other people, including his wife. After hearing a young boy at the door, he foolishly lets him in and the infected tear through the house and quickly overwhelm those inside. Don sees his wife Alice get bitten by one of the infected and decides to leave her behind, knowing that the virus will soon overcome her and she will become infected. He is the only one to escape the house and gets away on a small boat.
We then find out that 7 months later, at the Isle of Dogs, in London, that American soldiers are planning on re-introducing people to Britain in order to re-populate the country as they believe that it is now safe and that the infected have died out. Don is re-united with his son and daughter and has to explain to them how he had to leave her behind when he escaped.
An American medical officer, Scarlett Ross, is angry to find out that the children have been let into the country, believing that it is still too soon for such young people to be around. The children quickly decide that they will escape the secure area and visit their old house. Once there, they discover their mother, still alive and apparently uninfected. Once back at the secure area, tests are done on the Alice and it is found out that she is actually carrying the virus, but her body is immune to it and it can have no effect. Scarlett believes that she and the children could be the key to figuring out the virus.
Once Don and his wife are re-united, they share a kiss and Don quickly becomes infected and proceeds to kill his wife and wreak havoc around the area.
Once the Americans find out that there is an infected person spreading the virus, they order that every person seen with the virus to be killed, but the virus spreads too quickly and they order an extermination of everyone in the area, infected or not, so no chances are taken.
Scarlett tries to escape, along with the children, believing them to be the only way to understand the virus, and one of the soldiers who disagrees with the way the outbreak has been handled. The soldiers are told to regroup at a nearby football stadium in order to evacuate the country. Scarlett and the children make it and manage to escape, but only after one of the children has been bitten. However he shows no signs of infection and seems to have inherited the immunity that his mother has to the virus.
The movie then cuts to 28 days later, and chaos in the streets of Paris, as groups of infected people run through the streets.

Virginia Woolfe - A Room of One's Own - Keywords

“A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction”
This sentence, which appears at the start of Woolf’s essay, can be seen as ironic. Over history, women without money and a quiet space to work have still managed to write great literature. (Although these things can certainly help)
However, Woolf is referring to a mans view of how women write literature. In those days it was rare that a woman would have a great deal of money that belonged to her, as well as her own private space. In even earlier times this was even less common, yet women have still been able to write good literature.
“In the first place, to have a room of her own, let alone a quiet room or a sound-proof room, was out of the question, unless her parents were exceptionally rich or very noble, even up to the beginning of the nineteenth century”

Discrimination
“Ladies are only admitted to the library if accompanied by a fellow of the college or furnished with a letter of introduction”
Woolf encounters, or at least mentions various acts of discrimination towards women throughout her essay. The first is that she is denied access to a library because she is a woman, which angers her greatly.
Another act of discrimination or at least a view of women being of a lower status than men was when she reads Professor Trevelyan’s essay “History of England”, and its views of wife beating:
“Wife beating, was a recognised right of a man, and was practiced without shame by high as well as low.”
This also highlights the difficulties which women must have faced when writing fiction at this time, along with professors marking examination papers, one of which said: “Irrespective of the marks he might give, the best woman was intellectually inferior of the worst man”

Questions
“What conditions are necessary for the creation of works of art? – a thousand questions at once suggested themselves”
Throughout her essay, especially in the first two chapters, Woolf asks a lot of questions, mostly rhetorical and often sarcastic. This could represent how unable she is to understand, or unwilling to accept the role that women have been given in literature.
“Why are women poor? –Until it became fifty questions; until the fifty questions leapt frantically into mid stream and were carried away”
“It is useless to ask such questions; for nobody can answer them”

Irony and Sarcasm
“We burst out in scorn at the reprehensible poverty of our sex. What had our mothers been doing then that they had no wealth to leave us? Powdering their noses? Looking in shop windows? Flaunting the sun in Monte Carlo?”
Virginia Woolf uses a great deal of irony and sarcasm during her essay, and this quote incorporates both. She is taking the male view of that time that her sex is “poor” and using it ironically. Then she sarcastically suggests reasons why mothers did not have any money to leave their daughters, by suggesting ridiculous ‘typically ladylike’ things to do, such as “Powdering noses” and “looking in shop windows”
She also sarcastically mentions how women submit to their husbands without question, when she mentions the issue of earning money.
“It is not a matter that interests me very greatly, I had better leave it to my husband”

Relationships between British and Irish during and after ‘The Great Famine’, ‘The Rebellion of 1798’ and 'The Easter Uprising'

Over history, Great Britain and Ireland have not had the greatest of relationships. Even today, some people remember history and find a reason to strongly dislike the other country. The reasons that they disliked each other differ as they have very different perceptions. The Irish were greatly repressed as they were thought of as being as second-rate beings. The fact that they were under British control and were treated so poorly is the main factors why the Irish disliked the British.
Three incidents which highlight the strained relationships of these two countries are the Irish Rebellion in 1798, the handling of The Potato Famine between 1845 and 1844 and the Easter uprising in 1916.
In my essay, I examine the three events and suggest reasons as to why the two countries had a relationship like they did.
The Irish rebellion of 1798 was an uprising of the Irish people against the British, who at that time were in control of the “Kingdom of Ireland”. The main organisers of the rebellion were known as the “United Irishmen” who were a republican revolutionary group who embraced Catholics, Protestants and dissenters. The rebellion was one of the most concentrated outbreaks of violence in Irish history. Over the course of 3 months, there were an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths. The rebellion resulted in the 1801 act of union which brought Ireland tighter under British control.
The rebellion was inspired by the French revolution and the Irish had a lot of admiration for the new democracy which was in place in the United States. The United Irishmen sought a reformation of the Irish parliament. To achieve this they united Protestants, Catholics and dissenters in Ireland to join one single movement.
“From the beginning, Dublin Castle, the seat of government in Ireland, viewed the new organisation with the greatest suspicion and with outbreak of war between Britain (and Ireland) and France in February 1793, suspicion hardened to naked hostility. The unabashed admiration of the United Irishmen for the French seemed akin to treason.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/irish_reb_01.shtml)
Dublin Castle was determined to stop this movement of the United Irishmen and by the spring of 1798 it looked as if they had been successful. It seemed almost impossible for the French to become involved, many of the organisations leaders were in prison and the organisation in general seemed in disarray.
Despite theses difficulties, the rebellion went ahead as planned, in the towns outside the capital. The rebellions outside of Dublin were meant as a distraction from the main uprising in the capital. However, a lack of co-ordination prevented Dublin from rising the way it wanted. The North Cork Militia reported half-hangings, floggings and pitch capping. This caused panic and terror and helped contribute to a full scale rebellion. The news of 34 suspected United Irishmen that were killed, along with 35 prisoners spread fast and everyone was prepared to rebel. The rebels also managed a victory in open engagement at Outlart. This encouraged many who were unsure over whether to rebel, to do so.
Upon hearing the news of the fighting in the south of Ireland, there were loud protests in the north over their particular failure to support the rebellion. The leader at the time was accused of having completely betrayed the people of both Leinster and Munster and was quickly relieved of his duties.
On the 21st of June, the British army surrounded Vinegar Hill, where the rebels were based, and attacked with around 20,000 men. After a large battle, the rebellion had been defeated.
Relationships between Britain and Ireland were hardly improved after the rebellion either, mainly due to the reaction of the British afterwards. The BBC history website describes the reaction as: “Little other than universal rape, plunder and murder.” The rebellion did very little to improve the relationship between Britain and Ireland and after the rebellion the two countries had more of a reason to hate each other. In political terms, Ireland became more under the power of Britain, as the hold by the British government became tighter after the 1801 act of union and the chances of the Irish gaining more power were diminished.

In the 1940’s it is estimated that over 1 million people died of hunger on Ireland (this was around 12% of the population). The famine (or ‘Great Hunger’) occurred between 1845 and 1849 and was partly down to the failure of the potato crop, which was one of the main food sources of the Irish people.
Around 2 million refugees are attributed to the great hunger. Around another 2 million emigrated afterwards, mainly to Great Britain, the US, Canada and Australia.
The Great Famine started as what was an extremely large natural catastrophe; however the effects of it were worsened by the actions (or inactions) of the Whig government in the years 1846 to 1842, which were crucial years.
The handling of the famine by the British government, who at the time were in control of Ireland, was not adequate and resulted in many more deaths than it should have.
The gap created by the loss of the potato was so enormous that it was impossible to fill with the grain produce, even if none of it was exported. Around the late 1840’s, probably 3 times more grain than was entering the country was leaving it.
“Thus there was an artificial famine in Ireland for a good portion of the late 1840’s as grain imports steeply increased. There existed – after 1847 at least – an absolute sufficiency of food that could have prevented mass starvation, if it had been properly distributed so as to reach the small holder and labourers of the west and south of Ireland” – BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/history/
With Ireland being such a small and compact country, it should not have posed Britain much of a problem to deal with the famine, especially as it was one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world at that time and was only a short distance away.
There were various steps which the British government could have taken to prevent the catastrophe from happening on such a large scale:
They could have prevented the export of grain from Ireland; they could have continued the ‘soup-kitchen’ scheme, which fed around 3 million people every day. (This was inexpensive and highly effective); they could have done something to prevent the mass eviction of tenants from ruthless landlords (as many as 500,000 people were evicted from their homes between 1846 and 1854)
“Last, and above all, the British government should have been willing to treat the famine crisis in Ireland as an imperial responsibility and to bear the costs of relief after the summer of 1847. Instead, in an atmosphere of rising ‘famine fatigue’ in Britain, Ireland at that point and for the remainder of the famine was thrown back essentially on its own woefully inadequate resources.”
The view of the Irish by the British was not a very good one. The British thought that the Irish should be left to cope with the famine on their own, with their own resources (which were not enough for them to sustain themselves). The view of the British by the Irish was also not good, even before the famine. This was worsened by Britain’s handling of the famine. The face that Britain was prepared to exploit Ireland and then cast it away when times were bad angered the Irish greatly and it is something which is still not fondly remembered, even today.

The Easter uprising was an attempt by the Irish to win independence from Britain. The rising lasted from April 24th (Easter Monday) till April 30th, 1916.
The uprising was largely organised by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, which is described as: “a secret fraternal organisation dedicated to fomenting armed revolt against the British state in Ireland in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century” by Wikipedia. However it was mainly carried out by the ‘Irish Volunteers’.
The plan of the uprising was to seize various strategic buildings around Dublin in an attempt to cordon off the city and prevent any attack from the British army. If the plan was successful then the rebels would have held strategic points around Dublin surrounded by canals and circular roads. However, they did not have nearly enough men and left several crucial points in the city, most of all Dublin Castle and Trinity College in control of the British, meaning that their own men were separated from each other. As a result the positions of the rebels left them isolated and they were able to be picked off one by one by the British troops.
In the west of Ireland, local volunteers were to hold the west bank of the river Shannon for as long as they were able. These troops, however, did not have the numbers, or military experience to be able to do this effectively. “Overall, the insurgents' hope was that the British would concede Irish self-government rather than divert resources from the Western Front to try to contain a rebellion in their rear.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Uprising
From the start of the rebellion, there was a breakdown of law and order in the city of Dublin. People from the slums of the city took to looting shops and were actually ordered to be shot if caught looting, a decision which was quickly overturned.
Sean Connelly was thought of as the best tactical mind of the group and many fell under his command. He wrongly predicted, though, that a capitalist government would not use artillery against its own buildings. (Something that the British army did very quickly).
Brigadier General Lowe, who was in charge of the British army, decided that defending Dublin Castle be the main objective of the troops.
The British troops managed to isolate most of the Irish in their positions until they were forced to surrender.
After the rebellion, General Maxwell quickly signaled his intention “to arrest all dangerous Sinn Feiners,” including “those who have taken an active part in the movement although not in the present rebellion”
A total of 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested, but most of these were set free eventually. A series of courts, which began on may the 2nd sentenced 90 people to death.
“Most historians would agree that the decision to shoot the rebels backfired on the British authorities. However, from the authorities' point of view, given the circumstances of the time and the nature of the offences, it is difficult to see that there was any other appropriate punishment. Britain was fighting a war on an unprecedented scale, a war in which many thousands of Irish volunteers in the British forces had already lost their lives. Armed rebellion, in time of war and in league with the enemy, was always going to attract the most severe penalties.” – Wikipedia.org
Originally, the people in Ireland were opposed to the rebellion and the public jeered at the prisoners because of the surrender. Many people, including some prominent Irish newspapers, such as the Irish Independent and The Irish Times actually demanded executions. However, the swiftness and large number of executions of the prisoners, along with the large number of arrests and deportations, not to mention the destruction of Dublin’s city centre, changed the opinion of the Irish people and upon the return of the prisoners, they were given hero’s welcomes.
Although the rising was thought of as unsuccessful as it did not bring about immediate independence, it was the first stepping stone to Ireland achieving its independence in 1922. With many survivors of the rebellion going on to be leaders of the country, it cannot be said that the rebellion was an overall failure.
The way that the executions took place could not have improved relations between England and Ireland, as they were already not on the best of terms. Over time, there were more and more bad memories that the British were inflicting on the Irish and this one was just the latest in a long line.

These three events are remembered still today, by both countries, although some prefer to try and forget these terrible times. Many have not forgiven the way the British controlled Ireland and this feeling has been passed down through generations and there are still some who carry this bad feeling, which is understandable as the famine happened only just over 150 years ago and the Uprising less than 100. It is obvious that the strained relationships between these two countries have more behind them than just politics. There is definitely a cultural difference there too, with the way that the British treat the Irish after the rebellion. These are events which are probably best forgotten, from both sides of the Irish Sea; however they are of historical significance and explain a lot about some modern day feelings from the Irish towards the British.


Bibliography:
Internet sites:
Professor Thomas Bartlett. The 1798 Irish Rebellion. 13th June 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/irish_reb_01.shtml

Jim Donnelly. The Irish famine. 13th June 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml

Irish Rebellion of 1798 – Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. 13th June 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1798_rebellion

Great Irish Famine – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 13th June 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine

Easter Rising – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 12th July 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Uprising

The Unreliability of Narrators in 'The Great Gatsby' and 'Gulliver's Travels'

In literature, the term, ‘unreliable narrator’ can refer to someone who cannot be fully trusted, or believed. There can be a number of reasons for not trusting the narrator. They could be suffering from personal anguish, mental problems, or they might have a personal bias against another character which may be unfair, have a hidden agenda or, even, be naïve or lack intelligence. Unreliability should not be confused with irony, sarcasm or satire, where although the narrators cannot be taken literally, it does not mean that they are trying to deceive, either accidentally or on purpose. In my essay, I will examine the unreliable nature of Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby and Lemuel Gulliver in Gulliver’s Travels.
In the case of Nick, his unreliability starts around chapter 7 of the novel. Before this he seems to be a fairly reliable narrator, claiming to tell events as honestly as he can. Nick seems to be following Gatsby’s actions and it seems that the more bizarre Gatsby’s actions become, the more Nick becomes unreliable. By chapter 7, it is obvious that Nick’s mind is not entirely focused on what is going on around him. There is a large confrontation between Gatsby and Tom which Nick mainly gives a commentary of rather than giving his opinions, which he usually does.
He does not respond to when he is asked a question by Nick:
“‘Want any of this stuff? Jordan? Nick?’
I didn’t answer.
‘Nick?’ He asked again
‘What?’”
It is obvious that his mind is on other things at that moment, mainly Gatsby’s and Daisy’s affair. After the argument between Gatsby and Tom, Nick mentions that the afternoon “slipped away”. After such a confrontation it is unlikely that the afternoon would pass without any incident worth mentioning. Nick has his mind on the argument that has just happened and does not commentate accurately on the time shortly after that accurately. Another argument to suggest that he is not fully aware of what events are happening around him comes next when he even mentions that he just remembered that that day was his birthday. “Thirty – The promise of a decade of loneliness, a thinning list of single men to know, a thinning brief-case of enthusiasm, thinning hair.” Also he does not like the idea of becoming older and it could be another negative effect on his mind which is making him unreliable as a narrator.
If becoming old is a problem for him and his mind is on other things at this point in the story, such as the argument between Nick and Gatsby then he would not be able to recall this time accurately. He does actually acknowledge the fact that his narrative may not be completely accurate, when, in chapter 7 Gatsby appears from behind a hedge to ask about whether it was him who had killed Wilson’s wife. This happened after the argument when Daisy was driving Gatsby’s car too fast.
“Gatsby stepped from between two bushes into the path. I must have felt pretty weird by that time, because I could think of nothing except the luminosity of his pink suit under the moon.”
Gatsby mentions the accident in a quite matter of fact way at first and it seems like he is not too concerned by it. Then he tells us that his reaction is because he “must have” felt weird, so he isn’t sure at all about how he really felt at that moment. For this reason, it is hard for Nick’s narrative to be taken as unbiased, as he is telling second hand information about an accident which Gatsby actually admits he will lie about in the future to save Daisy. The story of how Daisy knocked the girl down is actually Nick re-telling Gatsby’s story, so it cannot be guaranteed as accurate.
In Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travel’s, the protagonist and narrator is equally as unreliable, although it is in a different way to Nick in The Great Gatsby. Whereas Nick’s state of mind is what is stopping him from recounting an accurate story, it is Gulliver’s naivety and gullible nature which makes it difficult to take his stories at face value. He seems to take everything that he hears as truth although sometimes it does not make sense for him to do so.
In ‘A voyage to the country of the Houyhnhnms’, he discovers a race of people who are very similar to humans in appearance, but their nature is much less civilised. He learns from the ‘Houyhnhnms’ which are in essence, civilised horses that are the dominant race of the land, that these creatures are called ‘Yahoos’ and are terrible creatures that do have any purpose in life. Gulliver quickly gives his respect to the Houyhnhnms and they convince him to adopt their opinion of the Yahoos.
Although they are basically the same race as him, he develops a hate for them, which has a lot to do with the Houyhnhnms. Gulliver bows to the horses and even refers to the leader as his master. He tries to be more like the Houyhnhnms and by the time he gets back to his normal life at home he considers himself as better than humans because of the time he has spent away. “My wife and family received me with great surprise and joy […] I must freely confess, the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt; and the more, by reflecting on the near alliance I had to them.” (Page 219) He has an extremely weak mind when it comes to accepting other people’s opinions and seems extremely impressionable.
When Gulliver is recounting the events which happen to him, he is telling the truth as accurately as he can, but there is a feeling that he is unable to effectively interpret what he is seeing and experiencing and therefore the reader gets a blurred version of events. Another problem for him is that in the case of the Houyhnhnms he does not know the language so he attempts to learn it from listening to the horses. He does not know if what he is translating is anything like what is being said, but he expects the reader to believe him. For this reason also, he cannot be seen as completely accurate.
One similarity between The Great Gatsby and Gulliver’s Travels is that the protagonist is also the narrator. They expect the reader to take everything they say as the truth. However, in both these stories the narrators have a flaw. The difference being though, that Nick’s problem is more one of mental anguish. This prevents him from being able to give an accurate account of the events which happened to him. Apart from chapter 7, he seems to be a fairly reliable narrator. In Gulliver’s Travels, the narrator suffers from a flaw in his character which makes it difficult to accept his story as reliable. He is very gullible and he always seems to believe other people’s opinions as the truth. It is possible for the reader to see Gulliver as an open-minded character, but he is in fact very narrow minded, the main example of this being when he hates his wife, mainly because of what he has been told about a certain creature in another land. Both stories have an element of unreliability in them from the narrator’s point of view, but they have different reasons for their inability to accurately give an account of their experiences.

Reference:
“Unreliable Narrator” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 6 June 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

Romeo and Juliet - Keywords

Death
“Well we were born to die” – Capulet. Act 3, Scene 4.
Death seems to be a recurring theme throughout the play and it seems to be a common occurrence. Most of the main characters in the play die. Romeo, Juliet, Paris, Mercutio and Tybalt are all central characters to the play, but end up dead before the end. It is Romeo’s love for Juliet that causes him to kill himself, and Juliet’s love for Romeo which causes her to kill herself.

Name
“‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy” – Juliet. Act 2, Scene 2.
The names of Capulet and Montague are mentioned a lot throughout the play. They are the names of the two main families from which Romeo and Juliet come. It is historical that the two families do not like each other and the tradition was carried on. When the play is set, the people of the two houses are only defending the two names because history says that they have to. It is also only the reputation of the two names disliking each other which is the problem which Romeo and Juliet have. Juliet acknowledges this when she says that the only problem is history, rather than a physical thing: “What’s Montague; It is nor hand nor foot, nor arm nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O be some other name.”

Reputation
“Two households both alike in dignity” - The Prologue
The houses of both Montague and Capulet feel that the names of their houses are something which has to be protected. They are always trying to uphold what they believe are the good names of their houses. The planned marriage of Juliet to Paris is also because of his reputation. He is related to the prince, so he has a good reputation, and is someone who can give the name of Capulet a better reputation.

Appearance
“Young men’s love then lies not truly with their hearts, but in their eyes” - Friar Laurence. Act 2, Scene 3
It should be noted the speed that Romeo and Juliet fall in love. It can be argued that it was something more than physical appearance which caused them to fall in love, but it cannot be much more. They know very little of each others personalities, which shows that physical appearance plays a major part in them being in love.

Goodfellas

“As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster”

Shot in typical slick Martin Scorsese fashion, “Goodfellas” is the true story of Mob figure Henry Hill in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, based on Nicholas Pileggi's book "Wiseguy".
The movie follows his turbulent life as he rises through the mob hierarchy. The story follows the typical lifestle of a gangster and those around him, in this case Jimmy Conway (Robert Di Niro) and Tommy Di Vito (Joe Pesci)
Henry struggles to juggle family life along with the demands of being a gangster. Scorsese gives a real feel for the glamorous and not-so-glamorous side of being in the mob.
Eventually it’s the greed of the characters and the determination to save their own skins which is their downfall.
Like any Scorsese film, this contains slick filming, editing, witty dialogue and a very captivating story. The acting from Ray Liotta (who plays the main character, Henry Hill) and Robert Di Niro shows the two to be right on their game with Di Niro giving the performance which many consider to be his finest in acting. However, the real star of the show comes in the shape of Joe Pesci who portrays Henry’s psychotic and unpredictable friend, Tommy.
Whenever Pesci is on the screen its impossible to not know he’s there and most of the time he’s incredibly funny although his change of moods can be quite disturbing. In one scene he shoots a barman dead who has the audacity to answer him back. The dark humour of the movie is evident in this scene, as Jimmy is very angry at Tommy, as he doesnt want to dig a hole for the grave that night. It’s no surprise that Pesci won an Oscar for Best Supporting Role for his acting in this film.
Eventually the inevitable happens and Hill's life starts to head downhill as the crimes get worse and he is dealing with drug addiction and paranoia after he had to raise money selling drugs following a stint in jail.
I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone who is disturbed by graphic, realistic violence and strong language. Although the violence may seem a little dated following the clever special effects of more modern movies, it doesnt make it any less believable. For anyone else, I would recommend this movie as one of my favourites of all time. Even if you are not a fan of the usual gangster/mafia story, there is still so much to love about this movie. Though it was made in 1990 it will undoubtedly become timeless and will go on to be mentioned as one of the greatest movies of all time for years to come.

Sweden and The Euro

For many years it has been argued around Europe and in Sweden about whether Sweden should join the European currency, “The Euro”.
Sweden is currently part of the European Union (EU) but it is not, however, part of the European Monetary Union (EMU)
There are currently 25 members of the EU and 12 of them are part of the EMU. Those who are not part of the EMU include the UK and Sweden.
Would it be a good idea for Sweden to join the EMU and embrace the Euro as its new currency?
In September 2003, Swedish citizens were given the chance to vote in a referendum to decide whether they would prefer to have the traditional Swedish Kronor replaced by the modern Euro currency.
They were given the choices of ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Blank Vote’.
82.6% of the population who were eligible to vote did so. Of these, 2.1% handed in a blank vote, 42 % were in favour of the Euro, and 55.9 voted against it.
A popular opinion outside of Sweden was that people were not really voting about the currency as such, but voting about the economics, sovereignty and democracy of their country.
Another factor which surely influenced the voting behaviour was the murder of the Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, who was a strong supporter of Sweden joining the EMU and the face of the yes campaign in Sweden.


Reasons Sweden should be a part of the Euro
In his report 'to be or not to be in the Euro?', Lars Jonung stressed that the reasons that Sweden should become a part of the Euro is that competition, employment and economic growth would all rise as a result of the larger market that the Euro would provide. Competition is always good, especially for consumers, as more competition forces prices to be lowered and development of products to increase. For this, more jobs would be created and overall be better for the economy of Sweden.
He also mentions that the Euro is a good way of keeping the peace with other countries around Europe. Sweden could feel more connected to other countries around Europe and this could lead to better relationships with these countries. He mentions that a common identity is created amongst countries which share use of the Euro.
Trade involving Sweden would also increase, because businesses could make both long and short term investments because of the diminished risk, created by the stability of the Euro.
A huge benefit for the average everyday citizen is that travel becomes easier and cheaper around Europe and the world. Goods are easier to buy, it becomes much easier for consumers to compare prices and the Euro is a currency which is widely accepted around the world.

Reasons for Sweden not to be part the Euro
The main reason against Sweden not joining the Euro is that the European Monetary Union will have control over the decisions made concerning the banks and the monetary policy. The central bank of Sweden, the “Riksbank” currently has this control.
Lars Jonung wrote in his report that when the Swedes said no to the Euro, they chose to keep their currency “based on a floating exchange rate combined with inflation targeting by the Riksbank”.
This could be used as a strategy to support their export during difficult times, but it only provides a short period of safety, as these problems will arise in the long run anyway.
Another disadvantage which Jonung mentions is that Sweden will lose power because they will have to follow and respect the decisions and rules of the European Central Bank, instead of the Swedish Riksbank. However, with the introduction of the Euro, Sweden will gain power inside the European Union as it would become a more prominent member and have a more active role. He says that with the Euro, Sweden has the opportunity to “be able to influence policies to a larger extent as a member of the euro area than as an outsider”

There are lots of economic, political and social benefits for Sweden in joining the Euro, as I have already mentioned. The problem at the moment seems to be one of tradition, and the Swedes being too proud to change what they believe is their heritage. If Sweden were to join the Euro the people would see the benefits in only a short space of time and it would definitely be a change which would be for the better.


Adapted from a piece of work by Monique Rozeman

Cologne

During my stay in Holland I took a trip to the German city of Cologne. The travel time was a little over 2 hours and for the relatively short travel, the difference between the two countries. Though being two modern and cosmopolitan countries, the two still hold their own distinct identities. Each having their own way of life and being proud of their differences in food, culture, language, music and even beer.
On driving into Cologne from any direction, the first thing that anyone will see is the Cologne Cathedral, or "Kölner Dom" as it is known in German. Its quite a sight for any tourist and what really stands out is the sheer size of the structure. Not just the towers which stand at over 157 meters, but the width and bredth of the thing also.
Upon finding the hotel, which is by far the best hotel I have ever stayed in, it was time to explore. A stones throw from the hotel was the Hohenzollernbrück bridge, which we had to cross to reach the city centre. What really struck me in particular about this bridge was it's resemblance to the Tyne bridge in Newcastle. The main difference being that it is a hell of a lot bigger! Its about 3 Tyne bridges long, and 3 Tyne bridges wide. Now thats pretty big!!!!
A must in Cologne is to take one of the numerous tour boats which travel along the Rhine. This is a great way to see the city and find out things which you probably would never have known from the tour guide. It is a very pleasant experience to see most of the sights from a different angle. When on the boat, it sinks in that there is so much in Cologne to see and everything is so close to each other. Cologne is definitely a place that has more than just a famous fragrance (Eau de Cologne, which took its name from the city.)
Once in the city centre, I found that Cologne has most things that you would expect from a large European city, designer stores, cafes, bars, restaurants and a few art galleries. The old part of town is what was the most interesting though. From the outside, the old town doesnt look so big, but once you are in there, following the narrow cobbled streets it doesnt take long to realise that there is plenty to see and do here and the atmosphere was extremely pleasant and upbeat. There were a couple of decent sized market squares which were quite lively, even in the middle of the day, which looked like the place to go for a party once the sun goes to sleep.
From here, it was decided that a thing which had to be done was climbing the steps of the cathedral. Something which seems a good idea until you are about a quater of the way up. The narrow spiral staircase was busy from the bottom to the top and it seems to take a lifetime to reach the top. Every now and then, on the way up, it is possible to catch a glimpse of outside through one of the thin windows and really see how quickly you are climbing. Once you reach the top and manage to get past all of the tired and out of breath people the view is quite spectacular and you forget the journey you just took to get there. On a clear day you can see for miles and miles around the city and looking down at the people who look like ants down below is something which will be impossible to forget. You also have to think about the effort which went into designing and building something as huge and dramatic as this building (It was started in 1248 and wasnt completed until 1880.) In the night sky, with the spotlights shining up onto this cathedral, it looks like something from a horror movie, almost unreal. Still today, it is the second highest gothic structure in the world. Although I didnt see it myself, the cathedral holds the shrine which is thought to contain the bones of the three wise men. Im sure this would be quite a sight and probably quite a moving experience for people who are religious.
The bars I visited in Cologne I found to be of a good standard. All had a friendly atmosphere around them and none seemed to ever be quiet. Before visiting Cologne, I was warned by some German friends (and even someone who lives in Cologne) not to drink the Cologne beer, as its the worst in Germany, but I found nothing wrong with it. I think its something to try for yourself!
The natives of Cologne all seemed to be very friendly and helpful and this helped to create the friendly, feelgood feeling that is apparent all around the city.
Back across the bridge to the hotel, where we were treated more like royalty then just normal people in Cologne for a weekend. The facilities were second to none and there was nothing better than relaxing in the hotel jacuzzi after the exitement of a new city.
Two nights after arriving it was time to leave and I couldnt help but notice how fast the time had went by since I arrived. The thought in my head when I left was that I will definitely visit this place again and no doubt will discover one or two things I didnt find before.