Women Travel Writers :: Gender Femininity Literature Essays

Women Travel Writers After my own presentation, I wanted to dig a little deeper and see how women travel writers were representing nature in the 18th century. I wondered if the women's descriptions differed far from the men that I studied in my presentation. I want to focus on Dorothy Wordsworth (William's sister), Ann Radcliffe and Helen Maria Williams. I'm curious to know if they were guilty of over-representing women in landscape and nature scenes. At the very end, I'll put in my two cents about the gendering of Nature. First of all, Dorothy Wordsworth traveled with her brother a lot in the early 1800's; during this time she kept a journal and wrote, in rich details, about the landscape. Although she wrote predominately with a picturesque tone, she made an effort to pay attention to the sharp, jarring contrasts in nature, like crags, rough edges, and precipices. William Snyder's essay "Mother Nature's Other Natures: Landscape in Women's Writing, 1770-1830" suggests that it was Dorothy's intention to use the paradoxes in nature to focus on Nature's contrast. Snyder's source for his theory comes from his close readings of Dorothy's journals; he explains that her language and vocabulary are picturesque, but that she "presents Nature in need of care" (146). Snyder infers that for Dorothy, "maternal care flows out from the human heart, not to it from above or beyond" (146). Snyder comments that Dorothy made a point of highlighting the irregularities in nature and draws her inspiration on the irony of ord ered chaos. Snyder concludes that Dorothy likens Nature to a dress-maker, the "female as pattern-maker" (148). He suggests that she places emphasis on what "the hands, not the breasts, do" (148). Snyder also points out that Dorothy usually referred to Nature with "the impersonal pronoun 'it,' and not with 'she' or 'her'" (147); Snyder believes that Dorothy deliberately "overlooks possibilities for maternal symbolism or personification" (147). Dorothy does not view maternality with fertility and bounty, but with "protection and intimacy" (148). However, she does use the feminine pronoun in some of her works, but Snyder explains that "she," the metaphoric woman, is a "craftsperson, not a mother" (147). Unfortunately Snyder's argument does not convince me; how can Nature be a "pattern-maker" while being in need of care? I think the image of "pattern-maker" indicates originality and creativity, Nature as innovative and refreshing, not Nature in need of help, as Snyder indicates early in his argument.

Great Expectation Essay

Compare the filming techniques used in Pip’s first meeting with Miss Havisham with two adaptations of Charles Dickens’s â€Å"Great Expectations†Ã‚  The two film clips that this essay will be based on, and comparing, is a version by Julian Jarrold which appeared on TV screens in 1999 and a much older cinema appearance by David Lean from 1946. The first noticeable difference is that the earlier film is played in black and white and therefore has certain lighting limitations and, as a result of technological disadvantages, has limited camera shot availability. However, there are a number of useful factors available for analysis. Both films attempt to build up a sense of mystery and increasing tension all the way through the scenes and the task in hand is to focus in on all the different types of filming techniques used to do so. On the whole, the 1999 version is darker than the 1946 edition and this increases the tension factor. Each scene takes us from Pip entering Miss Havisham’s room to when he leaves and incorporates all of the insults and belittling from Miss Havisham and Estella, although even this is played differently in the two films; David Lean makes very obvious insults as though Estella is actually telling him he is lower than her yet in Jarrold’s version Estella either insults Pip to Miss Havisham or to herself in an undertone. There are six main techniques used by each director which this essay will analyse, they are: shot types and framing-how each camera shot affects the â€Å"mood† of the scene, camera angles and lens movement-how the camera is positioned and what bearing that has on the scene, editing, music and sound effects-the backing sounds and its effect on the viewer, costumes-what each actor is wearing and what it does for the characters personality/appearance, lighting and visual effects-how the light and dark areas of the screen portray different ideas. Firstly, there are a few similarities between both scene’s Shot types and framing/Camera angles and lens movements/Editing. The first is that both incorporate a long shot as Pip enters to show the huge room in front of him and show that this room really is intimidating as Pip looks tiny compared to the huge open space ahead. Secondly, both films show Pips reaction as a close up shot after the insults from Estella, this gives the viewer a real sense of pity for Pip and shows us what exactly is going through his mind at the time. The final similarity is as the game of cards unfolds, both films fade into the game to show a passing of time and both use an extreme close up to show us what is happening and, Miss Havisham is sat high on a chair in the middle, with Pip and Estella on the floor either side, with a medium shot, making Miss Havisham look very dominant and the children look almost patronised. The 1999 version has a lengthy amount of time when Pip is wondering around the room looking at certain objects, building up mystery and tension, which Jarrold misses out and skips from Pip entering straight to his conversation with Miss Havisham. This â€Å"added† section has a mixture of medium close ups, close ups and extreme close ups, but all the way through the shots are positioned a bit higher than Pip so it gives the audience the idea that somebody has a watchful eye on him, and this, to a certain extent, is almost creepy, certainly builds up mystery and also borderlines on scary. For example, when Pip is walking past the dummies the camera is high up so it is as though the viewers are looking through Miss Havisham’s eyes. The other main camera uses are when Pip sees Miss Havisham in the mirror, she looks virtually ghost like and it is almost scary, but just before she appears, its looks again as though he is being watched, and as Miss Havisham waves her arm to tell Pip to play, there is a close up of her arm to show her dominance and shortly after a close up of Pip’s face to show the confused reaction. This section of the scene is very clever camera work by Jarrold, and really does freak the audience out. Both films use shot types, framing, camera angles, lens movement and editing differently, but there a number of specific differences between the two. When the two films join back up, there are many different camera uses and consequences of such. In the 1946 version, there is a long shot as Pip walks up to Miss Havisham and a medium close up as they talk to one-another and as Pip advances further, the camera moves in an arc to keep him and Miss Havisham on the picture at the same time. When they are closer, it allows an even closer shot than before of their faces and therefore portrays both expressions and the reactions to each others expressions individually. An addition to this version of â€Å"Great Expectations† is how the camera zooms in on a cobweb covered bible to show the lost faith of Miss Havisham, and explain to the audience that something terrible has happened earlier in her life to make her do so. A two shot of Miss Havisham and Pip is on screen, and, as Estella joins the camera â€Å"slides† horizontally to follow her in. As Estella whispers in Miss Havisham’s ear there is a two shot to portray Miss Havisham’s expression. When Miss Havisham asks Pip his opinion of Estella he is made to whisper it in her ear but as he does so there is a medium close up showing all three expressions at the same time, i.e. Pip’s horror as Miss Havisham tells Estella what he has just said and Estella’s delight of hearing such approving words. As Pip approaches the gate to go home, there is another fade in to show more time has passed by. This can be compared with the 1999 version which has a much briefer conversation between Pip and Miss Havisham as much time is spent when Pip walks around, but, when Pip is whispering about Estella, the camera zooms in on Estella’s face to show her reaction after being praised by Pip. Finally, when Pip and Miss Havisham are talking, there is a two shot of them to show each reaction as each person says something.

The Lend-Lease Act in World War II

The Lend-Lease Act, formally known as the An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States, was passed March 11, 1941. Championed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the legislation allowed military aid and supplies to be offered other nations. Passed before the United States entered World War II, the Lend-Lease Program effectively ended American neutrality and offered a means for directly supporting Britains war against Germany and Chinas conflict with Japan. Following the American entry into World War II, Lend-Lease was expanded to include the Soviet Union. During the course of the conflict, around $50.1 billion worth of materials were supplied on the premise that it would be paid for or returned. Background With the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the United States assumed a neutral stance. As Nazi Germany began winning a long string of victories in Europe, the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt began seeking ways to aid Great Britain while remaining free of the conflict. Initially constrained by the Neutrality Acts which limited arms sales to cash and carry purchases by belligerents, Roosevelt declared large amounts of American weapons and ammunition surplus and authorized their shipment to Britain in mid-1940. He also entered into negotiations with Prime Minister Winston Churchill to secure leases for naval bases and airfields in British possessions across the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic coast of Canada. These talks ultimately produced the Destroyers for Bases Agreement in September 1940. This agreement saw 50 surplus American destroyers transferred to the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for rent-free, 99-year leases on various military installations. Though they succeeded in repelling the Germans during the Battle of Britain, the British remained hard-pressed by the enemy on multiple fronts. Royal Navy and U.S. Navy sailors inspect depth charges aboard Wickes-class destroyers, in 1940 before their transfer to the Royal Navy. Library of Congress The Lend-Lease Act of 1941 Seeking to move the nation towards a more active role in the conflict, Roosevelt wished to provide Britain with all possible aid short of war. As such, British warships were permitted to make repairs in American ports and training facilities for British servicemen were constructed in the U.S. To ease Britains shortage of war materials, Roosevelt pushed for the creation of the Lend-Lease Program. Officially titled An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States, the Lend-Lease Act was signed into law on March 11, 1941. This act empowered the president to sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article. In effect, it allowed Roosevelt to authorize the transfer of military materials to Britain with the understanding that they would ultimately be paid for or returned if they were not destroyed. To administer the program, Roosevelt created the Office of Lend-Lease Administration under the leadership of former steel industry executive Edward R. Stettinius. In selling the program to a skeptical and still somewhat isolationist American public, Roosevelt compared it to loaning a hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire. What do I do in such a crisis? the president asked the press. I dont say... Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it - I dont want $15 — I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. In April, he expanded the program by offering lend-lease aid to China for their war against the Japanese. Taking swift advantage of the program, the British received over $1 billion in aid through October 1941. An American light tank is unloaded at a central ordnance depot in England, part of a lend-lease shipment from the United States. Library of Congress Effects of Lend-Lease Lend-Lease continued after the American entry into the war following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. As the American military mobilized for war, Lend-Lease materials in the form of vehicles, aircraft, weapons, etc. were shipped to other Allied nations who were actively fighting the Axis Powers. With the alliance of the United States and the Soviet Union in 1942, the program was expanded to allow their participation with large amounts of supplies passing through the Arctic Convoys, Persian Corridor, and the Alaska-Siberia Air Route. As the war progressed, most of the Allied nations proved capable of manufacturing sufficient frontline weapons for their troops, however, this led to a drastic reduction in the production other needed items. Materials from Lend-Lease filled this void in the form of munitions, food, transport aircraft, trucks, and rolling stock. The Red Army, in particular, took advantage of the program and by wars end, approximately two-thirds of its trucks were American-built Dodges and Studebakers. Also, the Soviets received around 2,000 locomotives for supplying its forces at the front. Reverse Lend-Lease While Lend-Lease generally saw goods being provided to the Allies, a Reverse Lend-Lease scheme also existed where goods and services were given to the United States. As American forces began arriving in Europe, Britain provided material assistance such as the use of Supermarine Spitfire fighters. Additionally, Commonwealth nations often provided food, bases, and other logistical support. Other Lead-Lease items included patrol boats and De Havilland Mosquito aircraft. Through the course of the war, the United States received around $7.8 billion in Reverse Lend-Lease aid with $6.8 of it coming from Britain and the Commonwealth nations. End of Lend-Lease A critical program for winning the war, Lend-Lease came to an abrupt end with its conclusion. As Britain needed to retain much of the Lend-Lease equipment for postwar use, the Anglo-American Loan was signed through which the British agreed to purchase the items for approximately ten cents on the dollar. The total value of the loan was around  £1,075 million. The final payment on the loan was made in 2006. All told, Lend-Lease provided $50.1 billion worth of supplies to the Allies during the conflict, with $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.