TOPIC: Gay Marriage

Bidstrup, S. (2004). Gay marriage: the arguments and the motives. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Cline, A. (2009). Common arguments against gay marriage: moral and religious arguments. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/ContraGayMarria.htm

Kinsley, M. (2003, July 3). Abolish marriage. In D.U. Seyler (Ed.), Read, reason, write: an argument text and reader (8th ed.) (pp. 574-576). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Masci, D. (2008, April 24). An argument against same-sex marriage: an interview with Rick Santorum. The pew forum on religious and public life. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=180

Schiffren, L. (1996, March 23). Gay marriage, an oxymoron. In D.U. Seyler (Ed.), Read, reason, write: an argument text and reader (8th ed.) (pp. 579-581). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sullivan, A. (2003, June 30). The conservative case for gay marriage. In D.U. Seyler (Ed.), Read, reason, write: an argument text and reader (8th ed.) (pp. 577-578). New York: McGraw-Hill.

About the articles:
I can use Bidstrup’s article because it shows arguments from both points of views. I liked this article mostly because it gives beliefs of why people are against gay marriage, which I find interesting.

Cline’s article can be useful in my essay because it shows religious views of why people oppose gay marriage, which can bring a better understanding in detail to why people oppose same sex marriage.

Kinsley’s article can be helpful because it talks about a solution to make both parties happy. It is also a very interesting and rare solution.

Masci’s interview can be helpful because it is an interview with a gay man, which I can use quotes from easily for support.

Schiffren’s article is a counterargument to the side I am choosing to take, so I can use it as contrast to my view.

Sullivan’s article fully supports the side I am taking in this controversy. From this article I am planning on using the part that discusses how other countries let homosexuals have their freedom in getting married and being able to actually call it marriage and compare it to the decision of the opposite in the United States.



2. SAMPLE ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY - MLA STYLE - Allison L (Merritt, 2005)

TOPIC: EUTHANASIA

*Euthanasia.com: Information For Research On Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Living Wills, Mercy Killing. 2005. 11 November 2005 .

This website provides numerous resources for the euthanasia debate. It provides facts, like the history of euthanasia and its status in different countries, as well as arguments both for and against euthanasia.

*Kuhse, Helga. “Why Killing is Not Always Worse—and Sometimes Better—Than Letting Die.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 1998. Rpt. in Bioethics: An Anthology. Ed. Helga, Kuhse, and Peter Singer. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. 236-239.

This article was written as a rebuttal to Nesbitt’s argument against euthanasia (see below). Kuhse attempts to discredit and dismantle Nesbitt’s argument, while providing support for her own argument that there are some instances when euthanizing a person is morally acceptable.

*Nesbitt, Winston. “Is Killing No Worse Than Letting Die?” Journal ofApplied Philosophy. 1995. Rpt. in Bioethics: An Anthology. Ed. Helga Kuhse, and Peter Singer. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. 231-235.

In this article, Nesbitt argues that euthanizing (or killing) a person is never better than letting a person simply die. He elaborates on the many ethical and moral dilemmas that arise from allowing the practice of euthanasia, thereby concluding that it is not justifiable.

*Singer, Peter. Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: Ecco, 2000.

In this book, the author argues in favor of euthanasia. He sets several criteria for situations that would justify euthanasia (such as the certainty that the patient is rational when his/her request to be euthanized is made), and provides examples of cultures that have already legalized this practice.

*Smith, Wesley J. Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder. Dallas, TX: Spence, 2003.

This book addresses the many facets of the euthanasia debate, making use of the “slippery slope” argument (i.e. if we allow the terminally ill the right to die, than we’ll have to allow everyone else that right). The author argues against many of the arguments in favor of euthanasia, and elaborates on the many alternative options to assisted suicide.

3. SAMPLE OUTLINE - Chris C (Holy Names, 2003)

OUTLINE: The Effect of Technology on Youth’s Driving Habits

I. Intro
New technological advancements and their effect on driving habits has become a major debate topic throughout the years. Such items brought upon the huge American consumer market are: Radar detectors, cellular phones and highly efficient unleaded gasoline engines. Many believe that with certain regulations of the use of some of these technological breakthroughs driving habits will become slightly improved, whereas the opposing side are more liberal stating that the use of objects while driving is completely safe and non-hazardous.

II. Pro-Arguments
-The commentary, “Come on - do radar detectors really work anymore?” by Driver4t5 emphasizes the positive views of radar detector use. Many have been proven very effective saving people’s lives and money for speed related tickets.
-Morally, since this is the United States of America and the moto is ‘the land of the free,’ people should thus be guaranteed to the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The allowance of the use of these items while driving should be our inevitable right!

III. Con Arguments
- The article, “Speed limit rhetoric plays fast and loose with facts.” by Fumento, Michael. This is strictly against the use of such objects claiming that they distract important attention away from where sight should be focused; the road ahead. The loss of a national speed limit would definitely allow for many to take advantage of the added governmental leeway.
- “Investigation of the use of Mobile Phones While Driving” by Cain, A. & Burris, M. Strong compliance with state laws and regulations regarding the use of cellular devices while driving is the issue at hand within this article.

IV. Moderate Arguments
- “Let the going get tough - we have our SUVs” by Fraser, Ronald R. This argument does not choose a side. It basically states the benefits of technology’s effect on driving habits as not being harmful, although it can be harmful if the privilege is taken advantage of.
-It all comes down to how safe people decide they want to drive. Educational courses are provided by many driving schools to inform those risk-takers of the possibilities resulting from the abused of valued privileges.

V. Conclusion
My views, as a result of interpreting many informative articles, sides with the ‘moderate arguments.’ Knowing many teenagers myself, I recognize that at almost every opportunity they get to break national street and highway rules in their technologically advanced vehicles, they do so. Current laws are strong enough, therefore the government should not place further overbearing rules upon the drivers. The drivers should understand that if they get caught breaking the law, they will not be let off easily. Disciplinary action must take place, but how far?

4. SAMPLE OUTLINE - Lisha K (Merritt, 2005)

Outline for Euthanasia
A. Intro-
a) Definition and Description of Euthanasia
b) Types of Euthanasia, when they are used
c) My thesis

B. Individual perspective
a) Pro Views-Thought of those patients who don’t want to suffer the pain
b) Anti Views-Thought of those patients who want to be the survivor
c) My Views

C. Family perspective
a) Pro Views-Thought of Terry’s husband who support the Euthanasia
b) Anti Views-Thought of Terry’s family who don’t support the Euthanasia
c) My views

D. Doctor’s right
a) Pro Views-Those physicians who wants to make patient comfortable
b) Anti Views-Those physicians who wants to save the people’s life
c) My views

E. Legal perspective
a) Religious & Oregon Law
b) Other state’s law in US

F. Conclusion comments
a) Restate my thesis
b) Personal experience that relate to the serious illness
c) My recommendation

5. SAMPLE RESEARCH PAPER - Julia Bissinger (Merritt, 2005)

GMOs - PROPAGANDA OR FACT?

Imagine these headlines on your news venue: “Local Vegans Run in Fear of Chicken Genes in their Strawberries” or, “Transgenic Crops Will Wipe Out All Other Strains of Corn on the Planet.” What biotechnological disfigurement of nature could arouse such peculiar ideas? It is DNA recombinant technology, the science of which produces Genetically Modified Organisms, also know as GMO, “Frankenfood” or transgenic crops. How much does the public really know about GMOs? How much of what they know is based on truth and how much propaganda? These bandwagoneers just jump right in and makes assumptions that all GMOs are bad. Would they ban their gluttonous consumption of fluorescent orange macaroni and cheese if it contained a GMO? Might they allow more trees to be cut down to increase the amount of land needed to produce a substantial yield of an organic crop?

The basis of evolution is survival of the fittest. Natural selection and pollination are contributing factors to the natural genetic changes that take place over the course of years. Eventually everything is genetically modified; it’s just what is going to happen with or without science. Before the ages of injecting foreign genes into plants, botanists were already experimenting with plant genetics, attempting to create better breeds. This was done within the same species or genus. “Agricultural practices have been ‘unnatural’ for 10,000 years, and with the exception of wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the grains, fruits and vegetables in our diets have been genetically modified in some way” (Miller C1). In addition to these “unnatural” methods, the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens performs this type of gene transfer in nature, and is in fact one of the tools molecular breeders use to move genes around (http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html). As we study the nature of genetics we learn how to manipulate its already existing tools.

So what exactly is a GMO? GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. With respect to a crop, it refers to the transference of genes from another organism, “where such introduced genes have been shown to produce a gene product (a protein)” (Nafziger GMO’s Q&A Page uiuc.edu). In other words the cross-breeding of chicken and berries will not result in a “Frankenfood” strawberry with a beak or feathers. The goal of the scientist is not to mix an animal with a plant, but rather to have a protein that is present in the one organism, due to a tiny specific fragment (DNA sequence), become present and express itself in the new slightly modified plant. It could be compared to adding additional instructions, and better tools to a lemon pie recipe. If the beating technique of the recipe is changed to use a vinegar rinsed copper bowl, the resulting pie would have a fluffy meringue. One of DNA’s functions is to provide the instructions to create a protein (Reed 443). DNA from every organism is created from the same functional units, just in a different order, as well as expressed or not expressed. Why would a genetic engineer seek to cross breed different types of organisms? The point is to create crops that have a higher yield with the use of fewer pesticides, and produce a higher or distinctive quality crop. This is also the goal of non GM farmers, and plant breeders. According to the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois, “such changes, which have been going on ever since crops were domesticated, involve the addition of genes over time, but such additions are with few exceptions from within the same species, or at least the same genus. Such changes also include such things as mutations, even those induced on purpose, as long as they were done within the genus” (Nafziger GMO’s Q&A Page uiuc.edu). Historically speaking, gene manipulation has been occurring for centuries.

In attempts to remove the guesswork of traditional breeding, and the occurrence of unwanted traits, genetic engineers seek to pinpoint specific traits. Some of those traits may even be species specific. “It allows, for example, a single gene from a cold-hardy plant to be introduced into a strawberry to help increase its tolerance to cold weather.” Many researchers also merit the other values of cross-breeding. Without it we would not have the bacteria that make human insulin, which has been shown to not have negative effects on the diabetics that have come to rely on it for their well being (http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html).

Have you noticed on the labels of snack foods - this product may contain peanuts or be produced using machinery exposed to peanuts? Food allergies are starting to become a public concern, so much so that many airlines no longer serve peanuts on flights. Many schools monitor children’s lunches to prevent any accidental exposure to particular food types which have been determined to have a high prevalence of severe allergic reactions among youth. Many environmentalists and health conscience consumers believe that GM crops might result in severe food allergies. Fortunately, prior to release of a GM crop, researchers compare the GM crop to a non altered crop and identify the differences. The goal is to determine if these differences can cause any adverse health effects due to the unexpected genetic traits. “Typically, these comparisons are made by analyzing major classes of food and nutritional components, as well as toxins, toxicants, antinutrients, and any other characterizing components” (Masters). In a public briefing on behalf of the National Academies and the Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, Betty Sue Masters remarks that if a particular GM crop presents some ill effects or safety concern, post testing and monitoring will continue (Masters).

Another detail to note is that GMOs typically deal with a specific gene transfer, which relates to a specific protein. This single protein can easily be tested for allergic effects. This information would be invaluable to scientists and regulatory agencies. Database queries could be done to look for indications that a particular protein from a food was known to illicit an allergic reaction. The FDA can regulate and monitor potential issues, both prior to the release of a GMO, as well as the proposal of genetic transfer of a particular gene. Products containing these known allergens can easily be labeled to show there could be a possible allergic reaction. “Luckily, 90 percent of food allergies occur in response to specific proteins in only eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soybeans, shell fish, fish and wheat. If there is any reason for the FDA to conclude that any product is unsafe, it can be banned” (http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html).

University websites such as Colorado State (TransgenicCrops/faq.html) and Ohio State University (http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html) clearly point out a plethora of public objections including topics such as potential allergies, super weeds and strange crop concoctions. Fortunately not all the media about GMOs is negative. GMOs have been shown to assist with global problems such as world hunger. GM crop farms, unlike the unsoiled contestant of organic farms, will produce a greater yield of crops and can grow on a smaller plot of land using less water and land resources (Brody).

Why else might environmentalists, health conscience citizens and organic farmers be concerned about GMOs? There have been concerns that GMOs could potentially cross pollinate with weeds, causing a new breed of insect-resistant weeds. But according to recent studies by Dr. Stewart, a cross between a canola GMO and its relative weed did not produce a super weed. “The offspring were typically less fit than other weeds, because along with the insect resistance they also inherited other canola genes - genes that are fine for the coddled life of a crop but unsuitable for the harsher life of a weed” (Pollack). The cross pollination of rice would not be an issue because rice is self pollinating. Additionally, crops that are typically genetically modified such corn, soybean, cotton, or potato do not have “weedy relatives in the United States” (http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html)

Another potential concern is the cross pollination of GMO crops and organic crops. There are strict regulations governing the production of organic crops. A crop could be rejected from market if it were shown to contain GMO genes, a certain percentage of pesticides, or not follow the regulatory guidelines for the production of certified organic products. This would result in a loss of income for organic farmers. Does this mean that the ban of GMO crops should occur? Why not work out a solution where GMO and organic crops could be grown and control the possible cross contamination? Appointed commissions and councils studied this issue. “Scientists at Colorado State University conducted a pollen drift study and concluded that a buffer zone of 150 feet could ensure a less-than-1% inadvertent, or adventitious, presence of GM pollen or other materials in non-GM corn crops” (Pollack). Certified organic products can still be certified organic, even if there is a trace percentage of pesticide drift from a nearby farm. Why is it that a percentage of a pesticide in an organic crop is considered acceptable, where as a small percentage of a GMO not? It is a peculiar concept that something unnatural as a chemical pesticide that accidentally drifts into an organic crop be acceptable. Why is a genetic change which could potentially occur in nature not acceptable? Perhaps governing agencies should reevaluate this policy and establish an acceptable trace percentage of GMOs in an organic crop? In addition to the potential of cross contamination due to pollen drift, there is yet another vehicle for contamination; seed contamination could occur during the transportation of seed to industry. These two factors alone could explain why regulation and control are important. There could be an alternate solution to banning GMO crops. Be mindful of vehicles used for transportation; be mindful of what type of crop is being grown and how it pollinates. Make educated decisions and continue to research how organic crops and GM crops can co-exist. Allow GM crops and organic crops to be grown, monitor and watch where potential contamination could occur. This regulatory watch in conjunction with the allowance of a trace percentage of a GMOs in an organic crop could help solve this dilemma. This in turn could eliminate the potential loss of income from an organic farmer and allow organic farmers and GM farmers to be neighbors.

On a continual basis, the general public is bombarded with negative press. Online news, television broadcasts, and even the local Whole Foods Market pour anti GMO messages down on the susceptible American consumer. With this rain of negativity its no wonder the general public has fears. But on the other side of the world there are bigger concerns. Third World countries do not have the luxuries of your everyday American. When was the last time you heard a friend or a relative say with despair that their child is really ill due to a vitamin A deficiency? Staunch environmental groups would never approach the World Hunger issue with a scientific approach like this. Instead Green Peace refers to Golden Rice as the “Trojan Horse to make GM crops more acceptable”, claiming it contains approximately the same amount of vitamin A as traditional rice varieties (Trials of Rice 7). However Golden Rice 2 “contains 37 micrograms of provitamin A per gram, 23 times as much as the first variety” (Trials of Rice 7). Why would an agency that seeks to improve the quality of environment not care about preventing starvation and malnutrition? In addition to Green Peace, yet another big wig Anheuser- Busch opposes GMO rice. Anheuser- Busch pulled its rice productions from Missouri due to their fears that pharmaceutical rice, a type of rice that is used “to grow lactoferrin and lysozyme proteins to be used in products for diarrhea and dehydration” (Norton 34) would potentially pollinate the rice crops used for its beer production. However, it is documented in the recent journal, The Scientist, rice is self pollinating (Norton 34). Doesn’t this make you question their motivations and their decisions? Are their assumptions based on fact or are they are they based on pleasing a jaded over-marketed public for monetary gain?

Clearly cooperation amongst farmers is the key to resolving this debate, just as farmers have cooperated in the past they can do so in the future. Consulting firms like Britain’s PG Economics and law professors interject that the standards for organic farming do not allow farmers to use pesticides, or GMOs. However pesticide presence is allowed if traces of pesticides have drifted in from a nearby farm. This ruling accounts for pesticides, but not GMOs (Pollack).

The good news is there are several agencies that do control and govern GMOs:
· The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the field testing of genetically engineered plants and certain microorganisms.
· The Department of Health and Human Service’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) governs the safety and labeling of drugs and the nation’s food and feed supply, excluding meat and poultry.
· The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ensures the safety and safe use of pesticidal and herbicidal substances in the environment and for certain industrial uses of microbes in the environment.
· The Department of Health and Human Service’s National Institutes of Health oversees guidelines for the laboratory use of genetically engineered organisms. They are generally voluntary, but are mandatory for any research conducted under federal grants. These are widely followed by academic and industrial scientists around the world.
(http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html)

As with any new development in science, education, research, laws and regulations are paramount. Uninformed consumers may make faulty assumptions on over labeled foods displaying “Does Not Contain GMOs;” these so called warnings and other forms of propaganda contribute to confusion. California grape growers are concerned about the negative association that GMOs could have on their industry. If GMO fearing countries thought California wines contained GMOs, they could lose substantial market share. This explains why there is such controversy about allowing GMO crops to be grown in California. Locally, Marin grape farmers fear GMO grapes in California (Doyle B1). California has a prestige with respect to its produce and is seen by other parts in the United States as its “Health Food State.” You might still even recall the California Raisin commercials from decades ago – healthy grapes, healthy California raisins. In addition to maintaining this healthy reputation, California seeks to compete in the wine making industry. GMOs in Europe are severely frowned upon. With this in mind it makes sense for California vintners to be concerned. California is known for its wines and strives to keep its reputation in tact with other competing wine producing countries, especially those that fear and have proposed a ban on the use of GMOs.

“Lawmakers, courts and the food industry are starting to consider how to ensure co-existence or determine liability. Even Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, mentioned to Missouri farmers last month that he was considering an insurance plan to protect organic growers. Who will be held liable for cross pollination of organic crops that now have been tainted with GMO crops” (Pollack)? Measure M is a ballot proposing the ban of genetically engineered crops for 10 years in Sonoma County. This would be the fourth county in California to outlaw the use of GMOs and have an economic impact of an excess of $525 million a year (Doyle B1) as well as impose large fines for violations. This measure was not passed, however as noted in Doyle’s post election follow up article, however there will be an increased focus on the issue of labeling of products containing GMOs (Doyle B5).

The thought that GMOs would be banned presents a tremendous threat to the quality of lives of billions of people. Without GMOs there would be grave suffering for those who depend on the pharmaceutical industry for medicines that keep them alive, the American farmers that depend on it for their economical survival, as well as the global health concerns and the many lives that could be saved in less fortunate Third World countries. It just seems to make more sense to offer people the option, the choice to decide if they want to consume products containing GMOs. It is my hope that as the development of GMOs grow, that the public will get a better perspective of both sides of the story, and make well educated decisions based on fact, not propaganda. With this in mind, and what has been noted to be successful before in the past, enforcing the proper labeling of GMO containing products. Just as wine reads “Contains Sulfites”, and candy reads “May Contain Peanuts,” GMO products could be properly labeled. Granted there is validity to the public’s concerns, however banning GMOs is clearly not the solution.

Bibliography

Brody, Jane E. “Facing Biotech Foods Without the Fear Factor.” NYTimes.com.11 Jan 2005. The New York Times 14 Nov 2005

Doyle, Jim. “Campaign 2005: Sonoma County Measure to Ban Genetically Altered Crops Causes Split Farmers, Ranchers and Grape Growers Have a Lot at Stake.” San Francisco Chronicle 26 Oct 2005: B-1.

Doyle, Jim. “Election 2005: The Bay Area Sonoma County. Backers of Ban on Bioengineered Crops Regroup After Failure at Polls. Future Efforts May Deal With Labeling, Blocking State Law.” San Francisco Chronicle 10 Nov 05: B-5.

Masters, Bettie Sue. “Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects.” National Research Council Institute of Medicine, Public Briefing 28 Jul 2004: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s0309092094?OpenDocument

Miller, Henri I. “Halting the March of Unreason, Including Organic Foods.” San Francisco Chronicle 16 May 2005: C-1.

Nafziger, Emerson. “Genetically Modified Organisms FAQ.” StratSoy: http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/faq/faq.pdl?project_id=28&faq_id=583 27 Nov 05.

Norton, Amy. “The Corn Next Door: Can Organic and Biotech Crops Coexist?” The Scientist V.19 (26 Sep.2005):34.

Pender, John et al. “Strategies to Increase Agricultural Productivity and Reduce Land Degradation: Evidence from Uganda.” Agricultural Economics Vol. 31, Issues 2-3 Dec. 2004: 181-195.

Pollack, Andrew. “Can Biotech Crops Be Good Neighbors?” The New York Times 26 Sep 2004: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/weekinreview/26poll.html?ei=5070&en=c2efc89abc0291a8&ex=1133240400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1133130009-1kd58tgueOzGLBupABNhWQ# 27 Nov 05.

Reed, Rob et al. Practical Skills in Biomolecular Sciences 2nd ed. Harlow, England: Pearson Prentice Hall 2003: 118, 443-448.

“Trials of Rice.” New Scientist 2-8 April 2005: 7.

6. SAMPLE RESEARCH PAPER - Victoria T (Holy Names, 2005)

VIVISECTION: AN ETHICAL PRACTICE?

Vivisection, the cutting of or operation on a living nonhuman animal for physiological or pathological investigation (Webster, 2005), has been an accepted practice dating back to 1908, when Viennese researchers Karl Landsteiner and his assistant Erwin Popper injected a substance from the spinal cord of a boy who had died of polio into the spinal cord of two monkeys (Syufy, 2006). Although Landsteiner’s work and the practice of vivisection have led to important discoveries and the subsequent development of some vaccines and cures, many people since then have questioned the ethicality of animal experimentation for medical research.

Through the years many important philosophers have logically argued that vivisection is unethical. One of the first was Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism. Others who have argued against vivisection include John Stuart Mills, Arthur Schopenhauer, S. and R. Godlovitch, J. Harris, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Michael E. Berumen and the English social reformer Henry Salt. Counter-arguments have been offered by other prominent philosophers, most notably Rene Descartes, Julien Offay de La Mettrie and Immanuel Kant, as well as Jan Narveson, Peter Carruthers, and Roger Scruton.

Traditional Western philosophy/theology seems to warrant most forms of vivisection. Judeo-Christian thought, beginning with the creation story of Genesis, states that nonhuman animals are on earth for human purpose. Mankind will (quoted in Barry & Olen, 2002) … fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth (451). Biblical injunctions such as these, along with centuries of Christian theology, support the concept of man’s dominion over and use of nonhuman animals. The Old and New Testaments and the writings of the apostle Paul, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas all furthered the idea that animals were created for the benefit of humans (Barry & Olen, 2002). A notable exception is St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals, who considered animals his brothers and sisters. Overall, however, the Judeo-Christian tradition implies support of vivisection for medical research as an ethical and god-given right.

In determining the ethicality of animal research for medical purposes, philosophers analyze a number of different factors, but those against vivisection do not always agree on what those factors should be. Some consider animal self-awareness and sentience, defined as responsiveness to or consciousness of sense impressions (Webster, 2005), as the determining factors. Others focus on human and nonhuman animal essence, defined as the real nature of a thing (Webster), as the significant issue. Still others consider liberty, the quality or state of being free (Webster); autonomy, the quality or state of being self-governing (Webster); and equality, the quality or state of being equal, (Webster) as the determining factors.

Although some philosophers argue against vivisection from the perspective of animal rights, others claim that rights are irrelevant and consider the consequences of animal research as the deciding factor. Speciesism, defined as prejudice or discrimination based on species, (Webster) is also relevant to some arguments. The philosophical arguments poised by various philosophers both for and against vivisection often differ in their reasoning.

Some philosophers attempt to dispense with animal rights, examining the concept of moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents, individuals with a capacity for making moral judgments, are able to freely choose to act or not to act as morality requires and therefore can be held morally accountable for what they do. A normal adult human being is considered a moral agent. In contrast, human infants, young children, and the mentally deranged or enfeebled of all ages are moral patients. These individuals lack the ability to formulate moral principles and determine what is right or wrong and act accordingly. They therefore are not held morally accountable for what they do (Regan, 2004).

Despite the question of ethicality, animal experimentation for medical research has flourished since 1908 for many reasons and the number of nonhuman animals killed each year is beyond understanding. Worldwide, more than 300 mammals and birds are killed every time your heart beats; tens of millions of animals are annually consumed in biomedical research (Wise, 2002). The U.S. medical economy is entangled and dependent on vivisection, and the massive industries which have developed around animal experimentation and thrive from it would be destroyed were the practice of vivisection to stop. Although animal experimentation for medical research has contributed to some important and life-saving discoveries, are the benefits morally justified and do they outweigh the suffering experienced by animals? Is it ethical to experiment on animals for the purpose of medical research?

The 17th century French philosopher Rene Descartes was one of the first to argue the ethicality of vivisection. He proposed that animals are unconscious automata machines that lack thoughts, feelings, mental lives and sentience. (quoted in Regan, 2004) It is nature which acts in them according to the disposition of their organs, just as a clock, which is only composed of wheels and weights, is able to measure the time more correctly than we can with all our wisdom. (p.3) Descartes did not deny that some animal behaviors, such as moaning or yelling, infer the sensation of pain, however, he interpreted these behaviors as similar to the noises that a machine makes when being disassembled. Since animals are non-conscious, they are incapable of suffering and feeling pain, and therefore vivisection is ethically warranted (Regan, 2004). Though logical, Descartes’ argument is no longer taken seriously because science tells us that animals are sentient, conscious beings.

Some philosophers argue that animals suffer from immediate pain, such as pain from an electric shock or from being stabbed, but not psychologically from the knowledge that they will experience pain in the future. Since they are incapable of suffering from the knowledge of future pain, they have no interests or desires to avoid harm and danger. Consequently, vivisection is ethically warranted because it does not violate any interests or preferences of animals (arguments summarized in Singer, 2002).

In his book Drawing the Line, Tom Wise, a pioneer in the field of animal rights law, claims otherwise. He argues that some animals have advanced mental abilities that add up to “practical autonomy.” According to Wise an animal has practical autonomy if it can desire; can intentionally try to fulfill those desires; possesses a sense of self sufficiency that allows it to understand that it wants something and that it, itself, is trying to attain that want. In order to support this claim, Wise worked with some of the world’s foremost animal experts analyzing the minds of particular animals. Based on scientific knowledge and observation, he concluded that some animals are autonomous (Wise, 2002). Wise’s argument contradicts and invalidates the theory that animals have no interests or desires to avoid harm and danger.

Philosophers such as Carl Cohen offer stronger arguments in support of vivisection. Cohen argues that sentient animals do not and cannot have moral rights, a point of view held by many philosophers and strongly applauded by the vivisection industry. According to Cohen, a right is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exert against a single person, a group, a community, or all humankind. Cohen’s argument focuses on whether animals have (quoted in Nobis, 2004) “the right not to be used like inanimate tools to advance human interests…,” (p. 44) as is the case with vivisection. He claims that they do not have the right because the mental life of animals is less sophisticated than the mental life of humans (Nobis, 2004).

Human beings are moral agents, while animals are moral patients, unable to consider their actions morally or to choose to act in accordance with moral law. Only humans can restrict their own behavior out of respect for others. Cohen’s argument, which is often referred to as the “kind” argument, is as follows: (1) If an individual is of a kind that lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then he or she does not have moral rights.(2) Each animal is of a kind that lacks the capacity for free moral judgment.(3) Therefore, animals do not have moral rights (Nobis, 2004). Animals do not and cannot have rights because they are not of a kind which is capable of exercising and responding to moral claims. It is unethical to experiment on infants, the mentally retarded and the mentally enfeebled, all of whom are also moral patients, because they are of a kind that is capable of being moral agents (Nobis, 2004).

Philosophers Jan Narveson and Peter Carruthers share a similar position with Cohen. They claim that morality is seen as a contract between rational, self-interested people (Wikipedia contributors, 2006). Narveson’s position is that beings whose interests are unable to enter into such an agreement cannot possibly have rights. Animals are not directly protected by the restrictions of morality. Narveson states that his perspective, which is known as rational egoism, (quoted in Regan, 2004) … puts animals out of reach of morality without denying that they are capable of suffering, etc. The harm done to animals as a result of vivisection is of no moral significance; it is only significant if it affects humans’ interests. Narveson reasons that we extend morality to infants because (quoted in Regan) …most of us want to have our own children protected, etc., and have really nothing to gain from being permitted to invade the children of others.” (p.158) Therefore, vivisection is warranted and only unethical in so far as it affects human beings.

British philosopher Roger Scruton takes a similar outlook which is based on Kantian ethics. Kant’s argument restricts animal rights only to animals which are kept in human custody, which he believed was to benefit primarily the moral sensibilities of humans. We do not have a duty to care for wild animals, although they may be worthy of respect because they are beautiful or interesting (Wikipedia contributors, 2006). Therefore, it is ethical to vivisect animals that are not kept in human custody, but unethical to vivisect those which are kept in human custody.

In her 2006 article Vivisection: A Warranted Practice?, Michelle Carter argues for a multi-criterial approach to rights, an approach that accepts the idea of thresholds and includes a variety of considerations which permits vivisection in some circumstances but not all. Qualities possessed by a being such as rationality and sentience are morally relevant, but social relationships are relevant as well. Human beings are naturally social creatures and the bonds that they form, such as that of a mother and child, are part of their moral intuition and are central to the formation of societies and moral systems (Carter, 2006).

It is necessary that people be submerged and nurtured within a moral system in order for it to continue. Nurturing is accomplished through our social bonds and our greatest obligation is to keeping those social bonds alive in order to keep the moral system alive. (Carter) We are more obligated to help a homeless person than a homeless animal, not only because of the qualities possessed by the person and the animal but because of our social ties to humanity and the obligations that they create. (p.11) According to Carter, justified vivisection acknowledges sentience, but takes into account and finds that our strongest obligation is to moral agents and others with high moral status, and that this obligation is fulfilled when vivisection continues.

For those not of a philosophical mind, a much more simple argument is taken which does not involve morality or rights per se. It states that the fact that human beings possess more enhanced mental abilities than animals, regardless of what those abilities are, is enough to ethically warrant vivisection because it deems human life inherently more valuable (“The ethical argument against vivisection”). Anti-vivisection proponents strongly disagree. (quoted in Regan, 2004) “The question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?” (p.95) This was said by Jeremy Bentham, one of the first philosophers to oppose vivisection during the 18th century. He addressed the issue of suffering and sadism, basing his argument on the notion of animal suffering, not that of animal pain. Not all painful experiences, such as mild headaches and sore muscles, constitute suffering unless they are severe and of duration. The question is can we cause animals pain that makes them suffer. Bentham states that the capacity for suffering is the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. Vivisection causes suffering; species and lack of rationality do not warrant that suffering: therefore vivisection is ethically wrong.

Peter Singer, a modern day utilitarian and one of the best known proponents of animals’ liberation, makes similar claims and basis his argument on the principle of equal consideration of interests. In his book Animal Liberation, Singer explains that we grant humans moral consideration on their ability to suffer, not on the basis of intelligence; their ability to rationalize or moralize; or on any other attribute that is inherently human. Animals suffer, and therefore, excluding them from consideration is a form of speciesism, which Singer compares to racism and sexism (Singer, 2002). (Singer)…If we examine more deeply the basis on which our opposition to discrimination on grounds of race or sex ultimately rests, we will see that we would be on shaky ground if we were to demand equality for blacks, women, and other groups of oppressed humans while denying equal consideration to nonhumans. (p.3)

Singer claims that equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. Human beings are not all equal; we come in different shapes, sizes, intellectual abilities, etc. We would have to stop demanding equality if equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings; equality is based on equal consideration, not ability, intelligence, moral capacity, etc. Possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends; how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?

Singer asserts that we do not owe animals equal or identical treatment, but rather equal consideration which will grant them rights that apply to them. He does not deny that there are differences between humans and nonhuman animals, but what we must focus on are those issues that apply to animals. We do not debate whether or not men should have the right to an abortion because it doesn’t apply to them, just as we do not debate whether or not animals should have voting rights. The ethicality of vivisection and the suffering that it causes is an issue that applies to animals. If a being, such as a rock, is not capable of suffering or experiencing pleasure, then vivisection does not need to be taken into account. Suffering is a principle of equality applicable to all sentient beings; vivisection is unethical because it fails to take this into account (Singer).

Singer provides support for his claim that animals experience pain and suffer. Although we cannot directly experience anyone else’s pain, we can infer from their external behavior that they are in pain. Nearly all those external signs can be seen in animals, and therefore, we can infer that animals are feeling pain. The animals’ nervous system is virtually identical to ours and responds physiologically to pain the same as ours do. Our nervous systems share a common origin and a common evolutionary function, and the animal nervous system did not diverge from ours until the main features of our nervous system were fully formed. To assume that the animal nervous system would respond differently to vivisection than that of humans’ is unreasonable. Therefore, Singer claims, vivisection is unethical.

Philosopher Michelle Berumen’s views are similar to Singer’s. He believes that although rationality is a requirement for moral agency, morality does not pertain only to rational beings. Membership in what he refers to as the “moral realm,” includes anything that is capable of losing consciousness or suffering, such as animals and human beings. Animals can suffer and die, and these things must be taken into consideration before violating the fundamental principles of morality (Wikipedia contributors, 2006). It is not clear if Berumen views vivisection as completely unethical, although it is evident that in most instances he claims it is unethical.

Some anti-vivisectionists base their argument on why it is considered unethical to experiment on human beings. Society does not force humans into research experimentation that involves captivity, injury, or death because we recognize in humans the innate urge to survive, avoid pain and retain their health and freedom. When these urges are violated, we suffer greatly. Animals share these urges just as strongly as we do. When they are violated, they too suffer (“The ethical argument against vivisection”). Therefore, vivisection is unethical.

Philosopher Tom Regan bases his argument on the concept of rights, a view which is known as the rights views or direct-duty view. He claims that animals which are “subjects-of-a-life” are bearers of rights like humans. Beings that posses a psychological presence; a variety of sensory, cognitive and volitional capacities; experience physical pleasure and pain and other psychological states and dispositions qualify as subjects-of-a-life. Not all rights activists agree as to which animals are subjects-of-a-life. Regan claims that all normal mammals of at least one year of age qualify, while others assert that all animals qualify (Regan, 2004).

Regardless of this difference in opinion, the rights view recognizes the inherent equal value of those that qualify. Moral patients that are subjects-of-a-life have the same equal right to respectful treatment as do moral agents (Regan, 2004). Unlike Singer, it is not a matter of equal consideration, but a matter of equal rights. Animals are not capital goods or property intended for the benefit of humans. Vivisection infringes upon animals’ fundamental rights to possess their own lives, bodies, and pursue their own ends (Regan). Therefore, vivisection is ethically wrong.

Although it has been estimated that world-wide animal experimentation has decreased by 30-50% in the last 15-20 years (Menache, 2006), I believe it will be some time before vivisection is completely abolished. The cause of animal liberation and animal rights has increased through the years, brining great hope to anti-vivisectionists. The majority of animals used in medical research, about 90 percent, are mice and rats (Faqs). Despite these improvements, much work needs to be done to end vivisection.

In my opinion, the fact that animals suffer and feel pain is enough to make vivisection unethical. I have long opposed vivisection, and never have the words equality, liberty, autonomy, rights, speciesism, moral agents, moral patients, consideration, rationality, or enhanced mental abilities crossed my mind as reasons why it is unethical. Jeremy Bentham’s quote (quoted in Regan, 2004) “the question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer” (p.95)? epitomizes my argument and sentiment. That they can suffer and do suffer as a result of vivisection makes vivisection an unethical practice from my point of view.

Some pro-vivisectionists refer to the similarities between the nervous systems of humans and non-human animals as the basis for the validity of vivisection. But, if animals’ nervous systems are enough like humans to make the practice of vivisection valid, then animals deserve the same moral and ethical protection as humans with regards to pain and suffering. If they are not enough like us, then vivisection must be an invalid science. You cannot have it both ways. If animals are not like us, then vivisection is not a valid science and must cease. However, if they are enough like us, then they deserve the same treatment as us and vivisection is unethical.

The pro-vivisectionist argument that I find the most valid and valuable is Michelle Carter’s argument for a multi-criterial approach which permits vivisection under some circumstances. I agree with her that social relationships are relevant and important to the formation of societies and moral systems, and that keeping social bonds alive keeps the moral system alive. We have social ties to humanity that create obligations to our fellow man. However, I do not believe that our greatest obligation is to keep those social ties alive. I believe that we live in a broader society with wider obligations than those referenced by Carter. We share a fundamental bond with all sentient beings that is rooted in our common evolution and further strengthened by the shared environment in which we live on this planet.

As human beings with enhanced mental abilities and enhanced technologies and opportunities available to us, I believe it is our duty to protect and look out for those who are not afforded those things. In my opinion, the strength and awareness of a society is measured by how it treats its weakest beings. It is our duty to protect our children, just as it is our duty to protect the old and the enfeebled. Although these individuals are incapable of making significant contributions to society, we assign their lives worth and do all we can to protect them. Animal life too is worthy and deserves our protection. If an adult human being hurts or coerces a child into a wrongful act, society views that adult as having taken advantage of the child and having exerted wrongful force over a powerless being. Vivisection takes advantage of beings that are powerless and unable to fight back, and is an act of violation on our own kind. We are all animals.

Will vivisection ever be completely abolished? I don’t know the answer to that, but my intuition says no. The majority of Americans seem to be unaware of the injustices and atrocities occurring within their own society and around the world, let alone against animals. Overall, America is not educating its people or children to be morally aware and ethically responsible. In the 21st century, people are starving, living in refugee camps, and dying over diamonds and from diseases, while the majority of Americans worry about the newest car, ipod, video game, breast enhancement, cool fashion and flat screen TV. Asserting that vivisection is unethical because animals suffer and feel pain can seem moronic when considering the current level of human awareness. If humankind is so unaware of the pain and suffering of its own kind, how can it possibly be concerned about the pain and suffering of non-human animals?


-EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL PAPERS-
-POETRY AND LITERATURE-

1. SAMPLE INFORMAL RESPONSE - FAIRY TALES - OiSze C (Merritt, 2004)

Among all fairytales, my favorite one is "Cinderella." When I was young, I already loved reading fairytales; I love those protagonists, the happy endings, the magic power, and the message in the stories. Some people may think that fairytales are silly stuff, and it is only suitable for children. However, I think fairytales are really good for everyone, for example, they can give people a dream, they will not scare the children, and they can provide a communication time for the parents and their children.

Fairytales can give a dream to everyone. I think most women, who have heard fairytales, will agree with that being Cinderella or Snow White is their dreams in childhood; I am one of them. I love to be Cinderella. Although she was always abused by her stepmother and sisters, she tried her best to do her work and did not rebel; finally, she can marry with the prince, and lived happily. Nowadays, even children know that magic power is not a real thing, and people cannot get help from a fairy; however, this story can tell people that life is not always smooth, yet you will get rid of those unlucky happenings if you do your part well. This message stored in my heart when I heard the story long time ago. If people do not have dreams, they cannot do anything.

Adults can find relaxation in fairytales; as adults already have analytic ability, they can find out the message of the stories easily, and use it as advice in their daily life. Thus, fairytales are suitable for both children and adults.

Although some fairytales may contain some scary parts these only increase the excitement of the story; as most fairytales always have a happy ending, children will not feel uncomfortable after listening the whole stories. On the other hand, those scary parts can magnify the tragedy of those bad guys of the stories; this can teach the children not to do bad things and harm others.

Fairytales can also provide a time for the parents and children to communicate. When parents read the stories to the children, this can establish a bridge between the family members, and know more about the children; so this can minimize many misunderstanding things which may happen in the future. Unfortunately, the original edition stories this is really too violent and bloody. For example, in "Cinderella", as her sisters tried to put their feet inside the shoe, they cut their toes for fitting in the shoe. When I heard the difference at the first time, I really feel shock about that. However, that is the reason why fairytales can provide a communication time for family. I think no matter how violent the story is, the storyteller should interrupt it; this is the responsibility of being a teacher and parent to tell the correct message. So fairytales can help families communicate.

2. SAMPLE INFORMAL RESPONSE - MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM - Amy C (Laney, 2003)

One of Shakespeare's themes in A Midsummer Night's Dream is that of sight. As a theatre major (albeit, many years ago) I have insight to the play that those who have only read it might not - A Midsummer Night's Dream is arguably the most visually pleasing Shakespeare production. It is a feast for the eyes: four young lovers, fairies, love, and magic - it's a visual bonanza. As such a striking play to watch, it is no surprise that sight figures so prominently in the play itself.

Early on in Act I, Scene I Helena opines that Demetrius "eyes are lode-stars because he is "doting on Hermia's eyes." While Hermia tries to console her friend by telling Helena that Demetrius "no more shall see my face" because she and Lysander intend to flee "and thence from Athens turn away our eyes." In fact, in the first scene of the play there are more than a dozen references to sight, including in Helena's soliloquy at the end of the scene where she says "Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; / And therefore is wing'd Cupid painted blind: / Nor hath Love's mind of any judgment taste; / Wings, and no eyes, figure unheedy haste."

These sight references, or echo words, are woven through out the play. Even the play-within-the-play in Act V, Scene I continues the theme. Pyramus exclaims:
O grim-look'd night! O night with hue so black!
O night, which ever art when day is not!
O night, O night! alack, alack alack,
I fear my Thisbe's promise is forgot!
And thou, O wall, O sweet, O lovely wall,
That stand'st between her father's ground and mine!
Thou wall, O wall, O sweet and lovely wall,
Show me thy chink, to blink through with mine eyne!

Shakespeare has also left clues that this is a play easy on the eyes. The characters are beautiful. Hermia is described by Theseus as a fair maid, exclaiming, "…your father should be as a god; / One that composed your beauties…" And Helena admits that "through Athens I am thought as fair as she [Hermia]." The settings are lit romantically, often using the moon, moonbeams or moonlight to set the mood. Shakespeare also writes of color and hue, painting a canvas for his audience. In Act III, Scene II Titania speaks of the gifts she wishes to bestow on Bottom, saying "Feed him with apricocks and dewberries, / With purple grapes, green figs and mulberries."

Shakespeare made vision a cornerstone of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Beyond the echo words, present on almost every page of the play, he included luscious descriptions of sight - great beauty and rich colors are woven throughout the play. His words, on their own, are inspired but his true gift in this play is the composite effect, allowing his audience to really envision the beauty of his words.

1. SAMPLE PAPER - "CHARACTER ANALYSIS OF HERMIA" from CourseworkBank.com (2000)

When we first meet Hermia she is the typical girl in love against her fathers wishes. Obviously we see from the start that she is very devoted to Lysander, her love, and she does not like to be forced to do things that she does not want. She does not want to marry Demetrius even though her father has pretty much told her it is that or death. Yes, she could always go live in a nunnery or live a life of chastity but who really wants that. So from the start we see that she is very adamant and very in love.

Before going into Hermia's inner self I must address her physical appearance. She is Egeus' daughter and she is a tiny woman with a dark completion. She is often mocked for this like when Helena and her were quarreling in the woods Hermia says this in regards to height - "Now I perceive that she hath made compare between our statures: she hath urged her height, And with her personage, her tall personage, Her height, forsooth, she hath prevailed with him." (Act III Scene 2 Line 292). So obviously she is aware of her lack in height and it seems to cause her a bit of pain. Though Helena is taller than Hermia even she admits that Hermia has "sparkling eyes and a lovely voice".

Hermia is very set in what she wants from the very first scene. She has eyes only for Lysander.So obviously she is very faithful. Even when faced with the decision her father gave her she did not waver for a second in her love for him.

Throughout the story Hermia's emotions were kind of tossed around and at one point she even says, " Am I not Hermia? Are you not Lysander? (Act III Scene 2 line 274). So we see that she gets a little confused and a bit hurt when hurt feelings we cast aside. At that point in the story I think she lost a part of her self. She had put a part of her self in side Lysander a he had just brushed it away. So when Lysander came back to her she then became herself again. So in that we see that she has intrusted herself in Lysander and had no doubt that he loved her. Boy did she get a slap in the face.

Hermia is a very key figure in the story so she has relations with almost all the characters in the story. The first and most important relationship Hermia had was with the man she loved, Lysander. From the start we see that Hermia loved Lysander with all her heart and he loved her the same in return. The only time that there was a flaw in their relationship was when Puck put the magic into Lysander's eyes and he fell in love with Helena. Hermia had very right to be mad and to feel rejected. But once Puck straightened out his goof up their relationship went back to the euphoric state like before.

The next relationship is that of Helena's and Hermia's. These two grew up together and were probably extremely close all their life. Then they hit womanhood and there it went crazy. Hermia was loved by everyone including Demetrius, the one Helena wanted. So obviously Helena was jealous and she had a right to be. So at this point in their lives there was a major strain in their relationship. In the end though it all turns out all right. Both of them are with who they want to be with.

Hermia and Egues' relationship is that of a typical father-daughter relationship. Egues only wants the best for is daughter and Hermia is only thinking about her own welfare. She loves Lysander and her father does not think he is the best man to marry his little girl. So as for that their relationship is completely healthy. Hermia just says - " I would my father looked but with my eyes." (Act I Scene 1 line 56). But fathers can definitly be that way at times. They see what they want to see.

Hermia and Demetrius are only but members in the same love triangle. There is truly no hope that Hermia will ever love Demetrius in return unless Puck comes along with his magic flower. So as far as that goes unless magic is involve there is really no hope. Hermia is very sure of who she loves.

Overall Hermia was very true to her emotions. She new what she wanted and eevn in the face of losing the love of her life she stayed strong yet hot tempered about the whole thing. Amazingly enough through out all the confusion Hermia stayed very much in control.

2. "DIARY OF LORD BYRON" by Jane S (USF, 2002)

Seventeen Hundred Ninety Eight

I am graduating my 5th year at Harrow this June. I am so excited. This year has been full of interesting and exciting events. At the beginning of the year I was having a really hard time because I missed my mother oh so much, mainly because we had such a great summer together touring Europe. She has been having a very hard time dealing with the abandonment that we have gone through since my father has left. I feel very bad for her, but not so bad that I can't live my own life. She is so frivolous with her money that I believe she deserves to live alone. This spares others from the heartache and problems of being near someone who spends money so wastefully. I remember being young and not having food because she was spending so much money on things that we didn't need.

The boys at Harrow are so promiscuous. Of course Harrow is an all boys school, so some would find this rather strange. I have been in contact with a few of the boys. I believe that in the future Harrow will not be such a distinguished school to attend, because people in town are starting to talk about the "rituals" that we have here. That is what they call it, we just call it having fun.

Eighteen Hundred

I have been writing poems for a long time now. I would like to say that my writing is a synthesis of medieval and classical inspirations with a hint of modern sensibility. I really enjoy Europe's mysterious medieval roots- I have a fascination with them. I also enjoy the romanticism that Napoleon encapsulates. I have even written a poem about him, I call it "Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte". He is such a great man, he has so much ambition, he rules as though none will come after he. If he was to die and a new Napoleon replace him, but this new Napoleon would lead the world to shame, because one could not possible be better than the original.

Eighteen Hundred Nine

I have been wrecked lately. I have been trying to publish by composition of poetry, "Hours of Idleness," and the Edinburgh Review has been causing more problems than I can handle. Damn them. It should not be so difficult to publish a book, I believe that I could have finished it myself already. What a waste of precious time. All these evils have been interfering with my writing. I am unable to concentrate on what is really important to me.

I have taken a seat in the House of Lords. My liberal politics are not welcome here. I believe that a trip overseas is exactly what I need. I have heard through the alleys of this strange machine, which can send a person into the future. I have been doing some research on this subject and I believe that I will take up the scientist on his offer, he said that he will send me more than two hundred years into the future. Image what I can write about then!

Eighteen Hundred Ten

The arrangements have been put in place. I will be traveling to a city, which does not even exist in this time, it is named San Francisco. I will be traveling forth into the year Two Thousand One. Is that not amazing? I believe I may never come back to this wretched world of problems.

Two Thousand One

My goodness I have just arrived in a strange, strange city. I believe that I want to go back to the Eighteen hundreds. This is not really my kind of living. The streets are much cleaner than the streets of London. San Francisco does not have a sewer that runs through it for one. The people are quite strange, to say the least. It is mighty cold and foggy, not much different than London at this time of the year.

I have met many men, as the part of the city that I am in is called the Castro. I do not know what that means specifically, but I believe it has to do with men who sleep with other men. I wonder why these men are constricted to their own part of the city, it is not accepted in these times for men to have men lovers? I do not know. I feel relatively comfortable with these men, as I knew as a child that I liked men. Back in London, I do believe that I will be married in the future for I need to produce some offspring.

I find that San Francisco is the kind of city that where I can fall into things, I can see where the wind will carry me. This is the place that influences writers. It can suck you in, as it has done to me, I am trapped in an inferno of craziness. I find that it is my time to go back to London, I must continue my life in my own time. I must publish more books and make a name for myself. I will be famous. There will be a few who come after me, but none who will compare.


3. "MIDSUMMER NIGHT's DREAM NEW SCENE" by Gavin K (HNU, 2009)


(After act 5, scene 1: Early the next morning)
(Enter Hyppolyta)

Hippolyta: I’m glad at the turn of events today.
No one should be forced to choose between life
With one they do not love, or loneliness.
And now all will be happy with their lots;
Lover with lover, none broken hearted.
As it is too early to wake my lord,
I shall wander the grounds until full day.


(Enter Cobweb)


No finer a morning have I yet seen.
I must enjoy it fully.


Cobweb: Mind thine step!
I desire not to be tread upon
By thee, nor by any other, today
Nor ever!


Hippolyta: Forgive me gentle creature!
I did not see thee in this morning light!


Cobweb: That is still no excuse for near murder!
O! That I were but thine size! Thou would see!

Hippolyta: I did say that I was sorry, but no!
Thou’dst spurn mine apology with due haste!
I am not sorry then thou irksome pest!
I wish not your forgiveness, loathsome gnat!
Go from this garden and do not return!

Cobweb: I shall go, and take thine blessing with me!
Ungrateful mortal! Oberon, curse thee!

Hippolyta: Then fly foul creature! Leave and come back not!
Cobweb: Fie! O fie upon it! What hast thou done!
I cannot fly! O woe!

Hippolyta: Oh calm thyself.
For if thou truly can such noise emit,
Surely then to the four winds you may take.

Cobweb: Thou speakst as though thou knowst what’s going on.
But, fool mortal, how can thou think to know?
Mortals always think they know the better,
When in truth they’re much less than clever.

Hippolyta: O!
My offer to help, then, I do rescind!
Though through my lips the words did never pass,
Thou horrid being of the eerie wood,
May our paths never cross again!

Cobweb: But wait!
Please, my lady, forgive me for mine cheek,
‘Tis past the hour I should be in bed.
Roaming castles at all hours of the night
Would for a mortal do no good either.

Hippolyta: Very well then, I shall stop to help thee
Though thy tongue is over sharp and chiding
Shall I carry thee to the doctor or,
Fetch thee the notions to heal thine self here?

Cobweb: Seek out the faeries if thou thinkst thou can,
And speak of me, and my predicament.
Mustardseed, or Moth would be an asset,
Both along with Peaseblossom would be best.

Hippolyta: Mustardseed, Moth, or Peaseblossom? What names!
And where would I seek out these companions?

Cobweb: By Oberon, our King, were ordered we,
To bride-beds three to linger and make bless’d.
There my companions should be found, and quick!
For Ob’ron said to meet by break of day!

Hippolyta: Well worry not, for swiftly I shall go
To find thine companions and request help

(Exit Hippolyta)
Cobweb: Oh, Titania, be not cross with me,
For circumstance is not mine to control.

(Enter Hippolyta with Peaseblossom)

Hippolyta: Only but one companion have I found
Dost thou think that his help will be enough?

Cobweb: Oh, if it were Moth, then yes, it would be,
But Peaseblossom alone will not suffice.
I had hoped they would be easy to find.

Peaseblossom: Seek out Moth or Mustardseed then, shall I?
Or to Ob’ron himself do I away?

Cobweb: Either Moth or Mustardseed first, I think.
But hurry! We’ve not long before daybreak!

(Exit Peaseblossom)

Hippolyta: I should away, for soon my Lord will wake.

Cobweb: And leave me all alone and helpless then?
If fate were to call upon a house cat,
Crossing before my flightless body, oh!

Hippolyta: Very well then, for your sake I shall stay.

Cobweb: Oh Mistress, thou art kinder than me thought.
I retract what language earlier displayed,

Hippolyta: Apology once is all I request,
So this new stream of words thou may now dam.

Cobweb: But truly, most sorry I am.

Hippolyta: Now, now!
I’ll no more of this language good sir,
Goodness for goodness’s sake is why I stay.
Now as we wait, let me know thee better.

Cobweb: I am called Cobweb, of Titania’s court,
The Faerie Queen I serve day in and out,
We revel in the forests, where we dwell,
We sing and dance through lush green hill and dell,
When night falls, in the trees we take our rest,
And when day comes, we start it all again.

Hippolyta: What a carefree existence thou maintains,
To play and sing and dance with sun and stars.

Cobweb: Not fun and games at all times I assure,
We’ve our hard times like any other race.

(Re-enter Peaseblossom with Mustardseed)

Cobweb: Oh joy! Companions, I had thought the worst,
That I were to be left behind this day.

Peaseblossom: I’d not desert thee.

Mustardseed: Now shall we away?

(Exit faeries)

Cobweb: (from offstage)
I thank thee for thine help mortal Mistress!
Blessings Upon thee, and thy new Master!

Hippolyta: Strange be these beings from the deepest woods.
Though pretty, no fonder of them am I.
That one I happened upon first, I think,
Is strangest of them all – that firefly.
Do I here dream? Even now as I walk?
And if I do, then for what reason? Why?


4. "RIME OF THE ANCIENT MARINER SEEN AS AN OPIUM TRIP" by Hugh W (USF, 2002)

The effects of opium are very devastating and potent. There are many alkaloids, including morphine and codeine (central nervous system depressants). It is known that S.T. Coleridge, the great writer, was also an opium user. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Coleridge can be easily seen as an adventure of a man (the mariner) and a friend (wedding guest) through some of the stages of an opium high, the story was just a distortion of reality written down.

The story begins with the mariner looking for a man to tell his "story" to. "Story" could be some kind of code for smoking opium. The mariner needed to tell his "story" or to smoke up in order to relieve his agony, which is merely an opium withdrawal symptom of sickness. Then the mariner begins his story, and the story within a story begins.

The mariner was on a trip on to the South Pole, which could just be any random place. In reality, the two men are just walking around some neighborhood. There is no point to the mariner's journey, so the two men really didn't have a purpose either. The first conflict arises when the mariner kills an albatross. The albatross, which was supposed to bring wind, ceases to bring wind since he was destroyed. So they all froze on the water. This is another physical effect of opium, which plays into the story. Opium contains an alkaloid named papaverine, which is a muscle relaxant. Therefore the stillness of the water, and the immobilization of the mariner and his crew was just, the papaverine kicking in and making the mariner so tired he couldn't move.

The mariner then feels guilt, which is symbolized through the killing of the albatross, which I see as a killing of faith. The mariner must have seen the local holy man, or pass by a place of worship and began feeling guilty about the drug use. The albatross was described as a "cross," which could have been a cross hung around his neck which are common. It began to become a burden in his mind and physically. Because of the papaverine, his muscles must have felt tired and a burden comes over him, and the mental burden of guilt after being reminded of his faith.

The justification of killing the albatross might be a conversation between the mariner and the wedding guest to justify the use of opium. Since the opium is somewhat of a relaxation, the mind begins to wonder, so a justification is that the mist, or confusion that reality brings to them is lifted from the eye-clearing opium.

Then the mariner sees a ship approaching and attempts to yell for it. The ship must be just a bunch of people walking down the opposite side of the pathway. Because opium is smoked it is much like a cigarette, where extreme thirst may occur. The mariners throat must have been so dry he couldn't yell for help. They must have been opium addicts on the other ships as well because they were described as skeleton people, and another effect of opium is extreme weight loss. This image of skinny people brings on notions of overdosing and begins to frighten the wedding guest. All the crew aboard the ship begin to die, and I see this as the mariner remember all his friends, or maybe just people who have overdosed on opium which seems to be very easily done.

He is then overcome with a feeling of loneliness even though the wedding guest is right beside him, but like marijuana, there maybe a paranoia effect with smoking opium. The need for redemption comes about, and it seems as though the mariner couldn't take being stoned anymore and wants out. At this point he must pass out and seeing the glowing water snakes, might be an effect of the sun on his half eyes, with tears coming out. He is so stoned that he blesses these non-existing creatures.

Just then, some friends probably found him and poured water on him to try and wake him up, because if he doesn't wake up he maybe in a coma which is a result of opium overdose. Then the people of the ship rise back to life, which are just his other friends helping him back up and moving him.

The mariner then goes to a hermit in nature to get help and relieve the albatross from him. This hermit must be a doctor, and maybe the mariner is given some kind of herb to sober up, but the burden is relieved and he is okay again, which is just like coming off of opium.

An addiction is very easily attained when using opium. So like stated before, the agony he gets from not telling his "story" is just sickness he gets from not smoking opium. The only way to relieve his agony is to smoke or tell his "story" again.

Though this is what I see in the story, it may have many other meanings for everyone else. It is somewhat creepy how everything fits into an opium trip. Many people need drugs in order to feel like they are creative; maybe S.T. Coleridge is one of them.


5. "LUGGAGE AND IDENTITY IN OKUBO" by Sarah W (Merritt, 2003)

In the modern world, material goods serve more than a functional purpose. For example, clothing is not something to simply put on ones body, instead, it is a medium for self-expression and reflective of personal tastes. The type of car one drives does not simply get the owner from point A to point B, but rather it is a symbol of status, class, and wealth. Belongings have become a part of who an individual is, as opposed to what an individual owns. In the memoir Citizen 13660, author Mine Okubo explores the connection between identity and personal belongings when describing her experiences in a Japanese Internment Camp during World War Two. Okubo includes her physical belongings in the story to illustrate her struggle for personal identity at a time when society was attempting to standardize members of her race.

At the beginning of the novel, Okubo is returning from her studies abroad. On page six, she carries pieces of luggage covered in stickers from her travels in different countries. Okubo returns to the United States as a well traveled person with unique perspectives formulated from her experiences in other countries. Shortly after her return to America, she is forced to pack her belongings again, this time to go to Japanese-American detainment camp. On page twenty-two of the book, Okubo presents a picture of herself and her brother with their bags clearly marked with their "reduced" family name: 13660. The largest bag in the collection of luggage has her formal last name, Okubo, clearly marked. This bag contains the largest volume and highest value of their belongings, possibly indicating their reasons for placing additional identification on the luggage.

Presumably, one of the suitcases in the picture is the same one pictured with Okubo while on her European travels. In this drawing, the country stickers previously on her suitcase are gone. Perhaps part of Okubo’s character, the intellectual student with a resume of scholastic endeavors, must be hidden from view in order to succumb to the relocation. Okubo has no choice but to put her life on hold and accommodate the wishes of her country.

Okubo’s altered sense of identity continues to evolve throughout the book. On page forty-three, Okubo is pictured searching for her bags. The bags on the luggage truck look the same on the outside, which parallels the logic behind establishing the camps in the first place. Japanese-Americans look alike, making it difficult to distinguish between a Japanese-American sympathizing with the enemy and a Japanese-American that is loyal to America. By detaining all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, it makes it easier for the government to subside fear of invasion after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The method of detainment employed by the government disregards the personal opinions of a Japanese-American individual and holds him or her accountable for public hysteria based solely on physical appearance. The government changes a family’s name to a number, gives them a place to live, allows them to retain their property and appears to contain a potentially volatile situation.

In later drawings depicting Okubo’s travels from Tanforan to Topaz, the reader is introduced to Okubo’s personal struggles. On page one hundred twenty, Okubo uses her luggage for comfort as a footrest on a painful bus ride. Okubo’s belongings offer similar psychological comfort, as they remind her that, although her most basic rights are compromised, she retains the right to own property.

On page one hundred twenty three, Okubo carries her suitcase off the bus, en route to pick up her luggage. She retains control of her suitcase, but does not have any control over her life at this time, as she is forced to do as she is told or appear disloyal to the United States. Okubo keeps her small suitcase with her, but continues to have difficulty finding her larger luggage.

Okubo subtly infuses her emotional character into the story when she arrives at the Topaz camp. On page one hundred thirty three, the supplement text reads: "Our baggage was misplaced. We must have looked through a thousand pieces before we found it" (page 133). Similarly, Okubo and her brother are misplaced in a society that is scared of what their race represents.

Okubo shows perseverance by relentlessly searching for her belongings. She does not allow the government to take away the things that matter to her: what is left of her physical belongings and her character. She could easily allow the experience to change her, but she refuses to surrender herself to this attractive remedy to her suffering. Just as she retains possession and control of her belongs, she holds steadfast to her character.

When Okubo leaves the camp on page two hundred nine, she is depicted carrying a coat and nothing else. This seems odd in the context of the rest of the book, where her personal belongings have been included in the story. Now she is ready to face the world again as a person and not a five-digit number. It seems appropriate that she leave behind the things that remind her of the experience. Through the unemotional tone of the book, it is obvious that Okubo does not want to let the memories of the camp dissolve, but she emotionally disassociates with the experience.

Throughout the book she writes in the tone of an observer, carefully recording events and places, with most emotional sentiment expressed subtly in the drawings. Her personal belongings have assisted her in retaining her identity throughout the whole ordeal and, now that its over, Okubo may have come to the decision that she does not need reminders of who she is - she is Mine Okubo again.


6. "COMPARING RICHARD WRIGHT AND FREDERICK DOUGLASS" by Sheila Y (Laney, 2003)

Frederick Douglass was born a slave and Richard Wright was of the second generation of Black Americans born free (in the legal sense). Yet their struggles and the paths they took seem as twins. They hungered for intellectual and physical freedom and had a stubborn character that could not be broken. The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Black Boy published exactly one hundred years apart show how the challenges faced by American slaves persisted generations after slavery ended. It was the initial enlightenment of Wright and Douglass that set them on their paths toward freedom.

At a young age, both Wright and Douglass began to see that there was power behind words. When Wright was six, saloon patrons used him as their drunken toy to yell obscenities. He recalls, "my mysterious words enthralled me," [Wright, 1993; 21]. He sensed the power of words he did not understand when his neighbors and mother made a big deal out of the four-lettered words he wrote on his neighbors' windows. But, it was not until Ella told him the story of Bluebeard and His Seven Wives that words encroach on him [Wright, 1993; 39]. His "imagination burned" and his world "throbbed." It is as if before this experience, he did not live. His reality had been about facts, the fact that his father left, the fact that he was eternally hungry, the fact that his mother was always sick, the fact that he was constantly beaten. He had never been encouraged to imagine; to create things with his mind that were his own; to play make believe with other kids on the block. Wright's inability to fully comprehend "words" gnawed his soul. And the evasiveness or rebuke of adults, his main barrier to knowledge, increased his appetite for knowing the literal, emotional and social meaning of words.

Likewise, Douglass was enthralled with the thought of learning to read and write. His disposition to make it happen ignited when Mr. Auld, his master, forbade Mrs. Auld from teaching him to read telling her,

'"Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world - now - if you teach that nigger how to read, he would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it would make him discontented and unhappy."' After hearing this Douglass to himself says, "These words sank deep into my heart, and called into existence an entirely new train of thought. I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty-to wit, the white man's power to enslave the black man - the argument which he [Mr. Auld] so warmly urged, against my learning to read, only to served inspire me with a desire and determination to learn," [Douglas, 1845; 20].

Douglass was attracted to the forbiddance of knowing how to read like Wright was attracted to understanding the significance of the words he read. Each of them stole away, secretly reading newspapers or novels temporarily quenching their thirst for knowledge. It is interesting to compare Douglass's and Wright's enslavers. Douglass was a slave and his slave master withheld knowledge from him. However, Wright was "free" yet his mind was imprisoned by his family. Did his family really feel that he should not know things because he was a child or were they imitating the authority of their former slave masters? Did they also fear that knowledge would make him "unmanageable"?

Douglass and Wright delved deeper into their passion for knowledge and their interaction with the world around them changed. Douglass became consumed with his condition.

He confesses, "the more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers, I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out," [Douglass, 1845; 24].

Through reading, Douglass became aware of his humanity and found confirmations that slavery was inhumane. This knowledge made him restless. He questioned how long he could continue to live as a slave. He was desperate. He could no longer accept his condition as his fellow slaves did. He was now different from the rest of the slaves who could not read or did not read the essays that moved him. In fact, he tells of how slaves came to believe that slavery was no worse than freedom. He explains that the six days between Christmas and New Year are allowed as holidays for slaves. No work is done but making sure the animals are fed. A few slaves employed their time to make brooms, mats or baskets, but the majority of slaves engage in sports, dancing, fiddling, and drinking contests. This is how slave owners wanted slaves to use their time. This was their liberty. Douglass argues that slave masters used ploys "to disgust the slave with freedom, by allowing him to see only the abuse of it…" [Douglass, 1845;44-45]. Thus, slaves accepted their position. They had been conditioned to think, they were worse off being free. His insights set him apart from his fellow slaves and ultimately spur him to escape.

Similarly, when Wright takes to writing his classmates do not understand why he submitted a story for publication. It was foreign for them to even consider such a thing. He was as he says, "pushing against the current" of his environment. [Wright, 1945; 166-168]. At his first publication, Wright's literal alienation from "black" society begins. In "black" American culture there is a strong misconception that being smart or doing scholarly work when it is not required by a teacher is being "white." Some black people also feel that "educated" blacks think they are better than the rest. Unfortunately, the southern black society Wright lived in preferred this status quo. I love Wright's observation of his high school principal saying, "this was the technique that snared black young minds into supporting the southern way of life," [Wright, 1945; 175]. Wright had principles and he knew his humanity. He could not break himself into the pawn his society wanted him to be.

In the parenthetical remarks at the beginning of chapter two he illustrates his indifference to American blacks saying black life and culture is "bleak," "barren," and "bare" of tradition. He attributes these qualities to the alienation of blacks from Western civilization; from living human lives [Wright, 1945; 37]. Rather than rebuking black Americans, he succeeds in making the reader feel sympathy for them. It as a call to awaken; to forge new traditions; to reclaim the ability to love and hope without the fear of it being stolen.

At fifteen years of age Wright perceived that no matter how brilliant he was in school, he would never enjoy the rewards of further education that were options for whites or better off blacks. He would always be a poor second-class citizen in the south and he resented it. His defiance of social convention made it natural that he would not succumb to the pressures to accept his lot from his classmates, principal or family. Like Douglass's abhorrence for slavery, Wright's apprehension with the dejected position of blacks in the South is what finally makes him flee it.

For Wright and Douglass, learning to read and write opened the gateway to a world beyond that which their eyes saw and ears heard. It gave them hope of liberty from both chains and social games. It was their skill with words and uncompromising character that allowed them to taste freedom and at last live human lives.


7. "POEM ANALYSIS - RIME OF THE ANCIENT MARINER" by Roccio (Holy Names, 2006)

'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,' written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, is one of the great works that came out of the romantic period. This extensive seven part poem reeks of poeticism. Coleridge has found a way to tell a simple tale at sea that is easy to read, but is also filled with heavy religious undertones and hints at an autobiographical account of Coleridge’s life. The words flow right out of your mouth, and although he uses a series of simple rhyme schemes throughout his poem, it does not lessen this masterpiece but instead enhances it. Coleridge uses various complex symbols, and well thought-out word choices that take the reader on an adventure of a lifetime. It is easy to read and when you’re done you will have the memory of an exciting tale at sea and a lesson in how your actions can define you.

This poem is about the Mariner’s first-person account of his incredible trip at sea. It is told in the third person, when he narrates the tale to the wedding guest. The poem is indeed a story as well, which can be very difficult to create. There are two basic characters in this story. We have the Mariner who is in a sense the protagonist of this mini epic, and then we have the Wedding-Guest, which is presumably supposed to be the audience. This tale begins with the “Ancient Mariner” with a “long beard and glittering eye” stopping one of three men on their way to a wedding, he stops him so that he may hear his story. The one he stops happens to be the bridegroom’s next of kin. The Wedding-Guest at first was very annoyed by this intrusion, but as the story unfolds, he can’t help but listen. Some say it was the glittering eye that compelled him to stay, that it somehow mesmerized him, but only Coleridge knows for sure.

The tale at sea begins with a storm that blows his ship off course toward the South Pole. The sailors were, however, accompanied by an albatross, which at the time was believed to be a good omen, and it would guide the ship back on course. The Mariner, growing tired of the albatross, decided to take his crossbow and shoot it down. Once the albatross was dead bad luck befell the ship and all its crew. There is a battle over who will control the ship, Death, or his mate Life-in-Death. Life-in-Death wins over the Mariner, while Death takes the ship. Life-in-Death spares the Mariner’s life, but was not so merciful to the rest of the ships crew.

The Mariner was forced to live with his dead crewmates for seven days and seven nights with their eyes open and always watching him. He begins to curse all the sea creatures around him proving he has not yet learned his lesson. Only when he can praise the living things will he truly understand, and the curse will be broken. When he blesses those same creatures he once cursed then spirits fill the bodies on the ship and they sail toward home. The spirits are soon replaced by “A man all light, a seraph man” line 80, Part VI. As the Mainer’s ship begins to sink, a small rescue boat comes along side and takes the Mariner in. When they reach the shore the Mainer quickly runs to the Hermit of the Wood to beg forgiveness for his sin. He told the Hermit his story. From then on he must travel from land to land, and when he feels he pain he must at once find someone to tell his tale to.

This poem can almost be classified as a miniature epic; however, the stanza form and meter follow more closely with that of a lyrical ballad. Coleridge uses a simple rhyme scheme of abcb with a few off rhymes here and there; for example, "hear" and "Mariner" in lines 18 and 20 of Part I, then again with, "thus" and "Albatross" in lines 80 and 82. Coleridge writes in four line stanzas without a standard number of syllables, instead it’s almost as if he rotates the number of syllables in each line which makes the poem flow easily. There are however, a few irregular meters such as the twelfth stanza in the first part and the third stanza in the second part to name a few, each of those having six lines. These irregular stanzas hold his use of simple rhymes schemes throughout the poem. He uses a lot of internal rhymes as well. Rhymes like “And through the drifts the snowy clifts” in line 55 of Part I, and then again in line 61 on Part I with “It cracked and growled, and roared and howled.”

Along with the simple rhyme scheme and easy flowing meter, Coleridge also uses repetition quite often. It is very prominent in the first couple stanzas of Part III. He repeats the word "weary" four times in the first stanza. This repetition of a word like weary adds to the feeling of weariness that the Mariner has. The word is repeated to enhance its meaning. He uses this type of repetition again in the beginning of the fourth part with the repetition of the word alone to emphasize the fact that the Mariner is indeed alone. “Alone, alone, all alone” and “Alone on a wide wide sea” this is lines 9 and 10 in Part IV. Notice also the repetition of the word "wide" which helps emphasize the feeling of loneliness.

Other words or phrases that are repeated usually complete the syllables in a given line, such as “And cried. A sail! A sail!” in line 19 of Part II. The repetition of the phrase “A sail” is not used to enhance the meaning of the word sail, but rather to fill out the syllables in the line.

Alliteration can also be found throughout the poem. It is seen usually coupled with an internal rhyme. One of the most alliterated lines is line 63 in Part V “Sweet sounds rose slowly through their mouths.” Others come close as in lines 51 through 53 “Swiftly, swiftly flew the ship/Yet she sailed softy too:/Sweetly, sweetly blew the breeze—". If you read closely you will see that Coleridge’s use of rhyme, repetition, and alliteration are actually techniques that he uses to set the pace of the poem and also to illustrate the passing of time. Lines 9 and 10 of Part IV “Alone, alone, all, all alone,/Alone on a wide wide sea!” This use of alliteration and repetition gives us a sense of time passing slowly. Time passed slowly for the Mariner during this part because he was indeed all alone, in the vast sea.

This poem is ripe with religious Christian connotations. Everything from specific numbers used, symbols and representations, and many biblical references. My interpretation was that the ship symbolizes a man’s body. The ship must endure countless trials and tribulations of the sea, much like a man is affected by trials during daily life. The Mariner I saw as the soul of a man, being able to steer the ship, or the body, in the right direction. Although the Mariner can do his best to steer the ship, the ships fate is ultimately decided by the sea's currents and the merciless winds, which are representative of the Holy Spirit, always guiding us. The emptiness that overcomes the ship after the Mariner shoots down the albatross is symbolic of the emptiness one feels without Christ. A simple comparison can be between the Mariner and Cain in the book of Genesis. Cain killed his brother, and had to deal with the consequences of his actions, much like the Mariner did after killing the albatross.

It is almost too obvious to see the symbolic value of the albatross as a representation of Christ. Along with the albatross being a good omen there are several other similarities between the albatross and Christ. The Mariner killed the albatross with a cross-bow, which is symbolic of the cross that Christ died on. At the end of the second part the Mainer wears the albatross around his neck, much like we may now wear crucifixes to remind us that Christ died for us. “Instead of the cross, the Albatross/About my neck was hung” lines 59 and 60 in Part II. In the Christian belief the acceptance of Christ is your key to getting into heaven, and the albatross, leading the men homeward, was their chance of getting home.

In this tale the South Pole represents hell. The albatross was leading them away from the South Pole much like Christ leads his followers away from hell. Home in the story would represent heaven, so when the Mariner reaches home, he no longer need the ship, so it sinks. This is symbolic of one’s journey to heaven, once we reach heaven our bodies are no longer needed, and the ship is symbolic of a body. Once get close to heaven angels are said to take you to the gates, and in this story the pilot and his boy are the angels that rescue the Mariner from the sinking ship. If the Albatross is Christ, then I would believe that the Hermit was the resurrected Christ. After Christ dies on the cross he is resurrected, and his death and resurrection were to take away the sins of the world, just as the albatross and the Hermit come to take away the sins of the Mariner.

The use of the number seven and three are also significant symbols of Christianity. The Poem itself is seven parts, the Mariner is afloat for seven days, and he was cursed by the watchful eyes of his dead shipmates for seven days. In the book of Genesis it took God seven days to create the earth. Three in Christian traditions is representative of the Holy Trinity, and also the number of days before Christ was resurrected. There are three people in the tale that rescue the Mariner physically and spiritually, and that is the Pilot, his boy, and the Hermit. These three saviors represent the saviors in the Blessed Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Guilt is definitely the predominant theme in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. The whole story is symbolic one one’s struggles with guilt after committing a crime. Many people find that when they have done something wrong it helps to tell someone about it. It feels almost as if the burden is lifted. In Catholicism there is a sacrament performed called the Act of Reconciliation, where you tell the priest your sins and he grants you absolution, and gives you penance. This is similar to what the Mariner does when he recounts his tale to the Hermit. Recounting the story to other people then becomes his penance.

Another theme found in the poem is that of the realization of independent actions and their repercussions. The Mariner was careless, and did not think about what would happen if he killed the albatross. He comes to realize how costly this action was. “Ah! well a-day! what evil looks/Had I from old and young!” lines 57 and 59 in Part II. He is getting all these looks of death, so to speak, and he knows what he has done is wrong. He realizes that independence can be good, as long as you do not completely ignore your dependence to God, and to your faith, because in the end that is all that will save you.

Coleridge was known to have an opium addiction. It started when it was administered to him as a pain medication while in the care of doctors at Christ’s Hospital. He was haunted by this addiction. Many people believe that the Rime of the Ancient Mariner was written in response to the guilt he felt while dealing with this addiction. So the help given to the Mariner by way of the albatross may have been representative of early rehabilitation efforts. When the albatross is shot down, that could be Coleridge’s unwillingness to be rehabilitated. Then the whole journey on the ship, the agony that the Mariner went through, and the curse that befell him, was probably much like the pain and agony that Coleridge felt while going through withdrawals from his addiction. Maybe Coleridge needs to express what it was like dealing with his addiction so that not only will he remember, but he can teach someone else how bad it was, so that maybe they might get help with their addictions.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge is truly an amazing poet who uses an adventure story, intricate themes, lessons taught, use of easy flowing speech, and simple rhyme schemes, to tell a tale of epic proportions that everyone can relate to. It is truly a moralistic poem that tries to teach lessons about responsibility and repentance. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in it of itself is a truly remarkable piece of literature. It is an easy tale to read, and easy to understand all the religious connotations, even when the reader is not devoutly religious. This is one of the most captivating lyrical ballads that I have ever read. And now that I have read this poem I can walk away “A sadder and a wiser man.”



...Click here for Home.
...Click here for Email.

Thanks for stopping at my site.