My Abandonment By Peter Rock

My Abandonment By Peter Rock In Peter Rocks My Abandonment a thirteen year old girl named Caroline lives with her father in Forest Park. Carolines father is not mentally stable but helps Caroline live a life that she will remember. Caroline and her father live in the woods all alone aloof from society. To avoid capture they hide underground and also in trees. One day a jogger noticed Caroline changing in the trees. If she had not done that and stayed incognito she would not be in the mess she is in now. The police brought Caroline and her father back to a detention center where they were interrogated. They are soon put to live on a farm. The question is what will they do next? The first thing I would like to touch upon is the fact that our narrator, Caroline, is not very trustworthy. As Caroline writes her book on her and her fathers experiences she says, I remember the conversations as best as I can.   If I make up words he says at least theyre close or taken from his notebook.   I stitch it together and I only add what I have to.   If I dont remember something I skip over it and leave it out,(222). This affected me a lot even though I knew a potential theme of this book was secrecy, something her and her father had a lot. Caroline left her dead father in a cave during a storm and went on with her life. How would you feel if the father was someone you know and love? Caroline at the beginning of the book disobeyed her father and took off her camouflage. Then she lied to him and told him she saw nothing. That put them both in danger but I was thinking if getting caught was what she wanted. Maybe Caroline Harris 2 wanted to see how living a civilized life was like and only acted as if she missed home to mess with the readers mind. When this book was over those questions still linger in my head but another one keeps popping up every time I hear the title. I wonder how Caroline is going to end up living like her father, all alone and potentially confused. This book was an amazing experience for me. I love unloving things but this book hid a lot of things from the reader. Importantly, we dont know if Carolines story is actually true and there are no lies. Peter Rock does a great job addressing most of the literary elements. One thing that really stood out for me was his outstanding job of, show dont tell. He barely told us directly what was going on but his detailed descriptions helped us uncover what he really wanted us as readers to know. His imagery was great and he also included a little foreshadowing which really drove the story. Many parts were very disturbing to read but those parts just shows what the other side of life may look like. The story ended very quickly as if the narrator was rushing to the end because she forgot or she didnt want to talk about it. Caroline ends up going to college and so far she is a lone wolf. She works part time at as a librarian. The ending was ok but I wish I knew what happened to her in the future. Carolines father is dead but she is now living life the way people expect humans to live. Only she knows if shes satisfied. At first I did not get what Randy, Carolines toy horse, symbolized. Towards the end Caroline found out that Randy was a Chinese acupuncture model. In movies I watched Chinese knick knacks like Randy symbolized things like luck or something. I came to a conclusion that it symbolized hope and perseverance, two important themes that come up. Caroline carried Randy with her at all times and he was rarely out of her site. Randy Harris 3 pushed Caroline to do things she wouldnt do if she lived a normal life. She went back for him and always wanted him near her, as comfort. This book has an amazing plot, ok ending, and some great imagery. Ultimately this book taught me that if I dont take chances I will be stuck with any problems I have, which would end up harming me in the future. Caroline took chances and even though she was home schooled by her father that was in the war she still hanged tough and made it through. I recommend this book to anyone because there is so much excitement on every page. There isnt any other book like this and I had a great time reading about Caroline and her father. (Word Count: 809)

Fred and Rose West

Fredrick Walter Stephen West and his wife, Rosemary (Rose) Letts, are well known throughout Europe and most parts of the world as two of the most gruesome and sadistic serial killers of the century. Though it is not clear how many people they had murdered, as well as their motive to do so, the evidence presented from the twelve discovered murders are sure to send a chill up your spine. Fred West was born September 29, 1941. He was the second of six children to be born into a family of poor farmers. West claimed that his father had incestuous relationships with his daughters, one of the many peculiar norms in this household along with bestiality. West’s mother, Daisy, also sexually abused him at the young age of twelve. Taking into consideration the start and upbringing of Fred West, you can take an understanding to why he met the fate that he did. At the age of fifteen, West left school; though he did not excel academically, he showed a great amount of interest for woodwork and artwork. In the year of 1956, West returned to what he knew and began to work on a farm. A few years after, he suffered from a fractured skull, along with other injuries, and was in a coma for eighty days; his family reported that after the accident he became prone to sudden fits of rage. At the age of 20, he was arrested for molesting a thirteen-year-old girl and although he evaded serving time for his crime, his family quickly disowned him after. In September 1962, twenty-one year old West rekindled his love with an old girlfriend named Catherine Costello, who at that time was better known as Rena from her time working as a prostitute. Even though Rena was already pregnant with another man’s baby, she and West married on November 17. During this time, West began working as an ice cream truck driver, and on November 4, 1965, he killed a four-year-old boy by hitting him with his van. Fearful of his safety, he and his wife Rena moved with their two kids and nanny, Isa McNeil. Eventually, Rena and Isa fled to Scotland to escape West and his sadistic sexual cravings. She left her children behind. During this period, West began to see another woman who soon after became pregnant. Around her eighth month of pregnancy, his second girlfriend disappeared and her remains were not found until June 1994; she disappeared in August of 1967. While still married to Rena, the then twenty seven year old West met his next wife Rosemary Letts on November 29, 1968, the day of her fifteenth birthday. Soon after she turned sixteen, she and west moved in together. On October 17, 1970, she gave birth to their first daughter Heather Anne. Soon after, Fred West was imprisoned for theft; it is believed that during this time Rosemary killed Charmaine, Fred’s stepdaughter from his first marriage. On January 29, 1972, Fred and Rose West married and on June 1 of that year, Rose gave birth to their second daughter Mae. During this time West encouraged his wife to work as a prostitute. Rose eventually had seven kids, three of which were of mixed race. For obvious reasons, the family moved into a more spacious house on 25 Cromwell Street. West turned the top floor into bedrooms and the first into â€Å"Rose’s room†, which was used for prostitution. This room had peepholes in it so West would be able to watch his wife performing with other men and on the outside of the door, there was a red light. This would let the children know that Rose was busy and that nobody should bother her. Like West, Rose came from a similar background where incest was allowed. In fact, Bill Letts, Rose’s father, would often visit their home to have sex with Rose, of course with the consent of her husband. In October 1972, they hired seventeen-year-old Caroline Roberts as the children’s nanny. On December 6, 1972, the West has invited her to their home, where they both raped her. Fred let her go only after she promised to be their nanny. In early 1973, the West’s took eight-year-old Anne Marie, Fred’s daughter from his first marriage, down to the cellar where they bound and gagged her before West raped her, and Rose watched. In 1979, Anne Marie became pregnant with her father’s baby, but the pregnancy was terminated. Unable to deal with her father’s abuse, she left home. Shortly after West, began abusing Heather who disappeared a few years later. West felt that his daughter needed to be â€Å"broken† into the life of prostitution and whom better he felt to do this job then himself. In May 1992, West filmed himself raping one of his daughter multiple times. From there the investigation escalated although the rape case fell because of the two core witnesses backing out. The remaining children were placed in foster care. During this time, various social workers interviewed the children. The disappearance of their daughter Heather became known during this process, but to her siblings her death was known merely as a joke her parents used to explain her disappearance. In reality, she suffered a brutal death by the hand of her own father, who not only strangled her, but also dismembered her body and buried her in the back yard. The following the arrest of Fredrick West police uncovered human bones in his backyard not only those of his daughter. He immediately confessed to what he had done though it took time for him to stick to his story he could no longer hide from the pain he had inflicted on others. During the tour West gave the cops of the cellar and all the other rooms where he committed these heinous crimes, he said that the spirits of the dead were calling to him and telling him they were better off not being found, he regretted his confession. Out of the twelve murdered souls only nine bodies were found in the house, including one in the bathroom, five in the cellar, and three in the garden; one of those was the body of their daughter Heather. West states that the murder of his daughter was simply â€Å"enjoyment turned to disaster†. He kept the secret of killing his daughter for eight years, not even Rose knew of this dark secret. Between 1967-1987 Fredrick West and his wife tortured, raped, and killed at least twelve young women and girls, mostly in their own home. Fred West was found guilty for 11 murders and Rose of 10, following the trial another body was found which increased Fred’s total count to 12. On January 1, 1995, Fred West was found dead in his cell; he committed suicide by hanging himself, he was cremated and only three people attended his funeral. Rosemary Letts, unlike her husband, never confessed. She was tried and found guilty of all 10 murders and was sentenced to life without parole. In October 1996, the West’s house which is now better known as the house of horrors, was demolished along with its adjoining properties and made into a pathway. Reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2460000/2460563.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West

Comparison of A Doll’s House and A Streetcar Named Desire Essay

Prompt #14: â€Å"Important characters in plays are multi-dimensional. Discuss to what extent this statement is true of important characters in plays you have studied and comment on the techniques of characterization employed by the playwright.† Multidimensional characters can also be defined as dynamic or constantly changing and developing characters. These dynamic characters are not simply important to a play, but are arguably the most important characters because what the playwright intends to communicate to his or her audience is communicated through the changing emotions and behaviors of these characters. Additionally, playwrights use a variety of techniques to highlight the changes an important character may go through. The dialogue, staging and stage directions, setting, music, lighting, and even costumes can all be used to highlight a multifaceted character’s emotional and physical changes. In A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, and A Streetcar Named Desire, by Tennessee Williams, the playwrights primarily use costumes, which parallel the emotional and behavioral changes of important dynamic characters, and contrast in dialogue to amplify developments and changes in the characters’ relationships and behavior. Ibsen’s choice of costume design portrays Nora as a dynamic character in A Doll’s House. Ibsen changes Nora’s costume to parallel her behavioral and emotional changes in the play. The â€Å"Neapolitan fisher-girl† costume, for example, represents Nora’s secrets and their restraint on her autonomy (Ibsen 29). Therefore, Nora’s want to â€Å"tear [the masquerade costume] into a hundred thousand pieces† represents her will to be rid of her lies and to take off of the mask she puts on for Helmer (Ibsen 28). The costume facilitates this need throughout the second act of play. When Nora practices the Tarantella dance, she dances wildly and â€Å"her hair comes down and falls over her shoulders† (Ibsen 47). Wild and free hair has connotations of independence and liberation. Therefore, the costume begins to show the audience her will to free herself from the mask she puts on for Helmer. However, she remains in the dress at this point in the play meaning that she is still restricted by the disguise she wears for Helmer’s satisfaction. Again, the dress highlights Nora’s development when it is removed in Act III before Nora gathers the courage to tell Helmer she must leave him to gain her independence. Nora’s masquerade ball costume conveys how Nora’s lies and mask of happiness restrain her freedom and helps to illustrate her eventual escape from them. Therefore, the costume design amplifies the characteristics that make Nora a dynamic character. Williams also uses his costume designs to characterize his dynamic characters in A Streetcar Named Desire. However, rather than connecting a specific costume with a feeling, he associates a general type of costume with specific emotions and actions. For example, the lavish costuming of Blanche represents the extent of her desire for, and delusion of, an extravagant life. As the play opens and Blanche enters, her appearance is described as â€Å"incongruous to [the] setting† (Williams 15). She is introduced being dressed as if she believes she should be somewhere and someone else. Furthermore, her beauty from the â€Å"white suit with a fluffy bodice, necklace and earrings of pearl† is described as delicate and sensitive to light (Williams 15). This description of Blanche suggests that her rich and royal appearance is purely superficial and does not represent the reality of her life. This connection between costume design and Blanche’s fabricated reality is continued throughout the play. Before beginning to flirt with the young paper boy in Scene Five, Blanche â€Å"takes a large, gossamer scarf from the trunk and drapes it about her shoulders†, and then begins to pretend he is a young Prince and later makes Mitch bow to her (Williams 84). The playwright, Tennessee Williams, connects Blanche’s affluent adornment with her delusions of wealth and importance that develop and grow stronger as the play progresses. In the final scene, Blanche’s illusions blend almost entirely with her reality as she asks Stella to gather a number of elaborate accessories, including a cool yellow silk boucle and â€Å"a silver and turquoise pin in the shape of a seahorse†, and dresses herself in a dress and jacket of a color that Madonna once wore (Williams 132/135). Williams uses this costume to amplify the absurdity of Blanche’s illusion of spending her life on the sea with a millionaire. Therefore, Blanche’s costume choices in A Streetcar Named Desire connect to her developing insanity, which makes her a complex and dynamic character. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen also utilizes tension in dialogue, specifically the tension between Nora’s inward and outward expression of feelings surrounding worth, to portray Nora as a dynamic character. The playwright first creates a contradiction between her internal and external feelings, only to eventually change her apparent expression to match her true feelings. In the first two acts of the play, Nora’s outward expression of a woman’s worth revolves around being a good wife and mother by aiming to please Helmer, her husband. However, her inward feelings portray the opposite. Nora inwardly believes that worth involves being true to herself. Nora is outwardly submissive to her husband by allowing herself to be called by possessive pet names, such as his â€Å"little spendthrift†, his â€Å"squirrel†, or his â€Å"extravagant little person† (Ibsen 2-3). Furthermore, even Nora uses these labels for herself during the first two acts. These names put Nora in a submissive position because they define Nora as a possession of Helmer’s. Therefore, when Nora labels herself a skylark or squirrel, she outwardly submits to the will of her husband, proving her external idea of worth revolves around his happiness. However, whenever Nora yields to Helmer, there are undertones of sarcasm within the dialogue portrayed both by the stage directions and the writing. When Nora first calls herself Helmer’s skylark and squirrel, she does so while â€Å"smiling quietly and happily†, as if she aims to manipulate him with her words (Ibsen 4). This example of irony mixed with manipulation illustrates the contradiction between what Nora outwardly expresses and what she internally believes. Nora’s sarcasm is also present directly in her dialogue with Helmer. In the conclusion of the first act, Nora asks Helmer to â€Å"take [her] in hand and decide† how she should attend the masquerade ball (Ibsen 25). The sarcasm she speaks these lines with is evident when she utilizes hyperboles to appeal to Helmer’s ego, such as telling him â€Å"no one has such good taste† and that she â€Å"can’t get along a bit without† his help (Ibsen 25). Therefore, Nora’s exaggerated submission to Helmer suggests a dichotomy between her internal ideas of worth and her actions. Yet, as the play develops, Nora’s actions begin to match her interpretation of value. She begins to overtly become a subject of her life, rather than the subject of her husband’s. In the final pages of Act III, Nora discards the view she externally portrayed in the first acts of A Doll’s House by explicitly rejecting Helmer’s assertion that â€Å"before all else, [she is] a wife and a mother† (Ibsen 66). She explains to Helmer that she believes that â€Å"before all else [she] is a reasonable human being†¦ [who] must think over things for [herself] and get to understand them† (Ibsen 66). This rejection of blind obedience and assertion of autonomy supports the claim that Nora’s outward expression developed over the course of the final act to match her opinion of worthiness. Because Nora’s expression of merit changed over the course of the play, she is considered a dynamic, or multifaceted character. Therefore, Ibsen’s use of dialogue in A Doll’s House is instrumental in portraying Nora as an important and multidimensional character. Tennessee Williams also uses tension in dialogue within his play, A Streetcar Named Desire, to portray his significant characters as multidimensional. However, rather than creating tension by using contradiction to develop a single character’s dialogue, Williams creates tension by contrasting the dialogue of Stanley and Blanche. This distinction between the two characters, and the way they communicate in the play, causes behavioral changes suggesting that dialogue is responsible for dynamic transformations in the characters’ actions. Blanche’s speech is educated and full of literary illusions. She uses a reference to the gothic poet Edgar Allen Poe to describe her sister’s life and situation by calling her neighborhood â€Å"the ghoul-haunted woodland of Weir† (Williams 20). This complexity present in Blanche’s dialogue portrays her as a representation of the old, aristocratic South. In contrast with Blanche’s more sophisticated way of speaking, Stanley uses simple societal based metaphors and commonplace clichà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s in his dialogue. Rather than using a literary based metaphor for Blanche, Stanley uses one based on politics. Stanley describes her fame in Laurel â€Å"as if she [were] the President of the United States, only she is not respected by any party† (Williams 99). Additionally, the clichà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s Stanley uses in his speech, such as â€Å"no, siree, bob†, â€Å"boy, oh, boy†, or â€Å"the jig was all up† portrays Stanley as the down-to-earth representation of the New South (Williams 100-101). The contrast between the dialogue of the two characters and the connection it has with the social group they identify with highlights their dynamic characteristics by emphasizing Blanche’s attempt and ultimate failure to integrate herself into the less aristocratic and educated New Orleans. Therefore, the playwright’s effort to contrast the dialogues of Blanche and Stanley facilitates Blanche’s representation as a multifaceted and changing character in A Streetcar Named Desire. Analyzing how a playwright portrays his or her dynamic characters gives insight into what the playwright intends to say through their development. For example, Henrik Ibsen uses a single costume to connect the audience with Nora’s progression into an autonomous woman in order to focus the audience’s attention on a single facet of Nora’s life and desires, while Williams uses many costumes with varying degrees of lavishness, to highlight the degree to which Blanche blends reality with fantasy. Furthermore, Ibsen uses tension in dialogue of a single character to keep the audience’s focus on Nora, while Williams contrasts the speech of two characters to highlight the contrast between two different social worlds, the new and old South. Therefore, the most important characters in a play are always multidimensional characters because most of a playwright’s commentary is included in the development of these characters and analyzing the techniques a playwright employs to distinguish a dynamic character helps to convey meaning. Bibliography Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Print. Williams, Tennessee. A Streetcar Named Desire. New York: Signet, 1975. Print.

Lee-Enfield Rifle in World War I and II

The Lee-Enfield was the primary infantry rifle used by British and Commonwealth forces during the first half of the 20th century. Introduced in 1895, it was a magazine-fed, bolt-action rifle that replaced the earlier Lee-Metford. Constantly improved and enhanced, the Lee-Enfield moved through a multitude of variants during its service life. The Short Lee-Enfield (SMLE) Mk. III was the principal rifle used during World War I, while the Rifle No. 4 version saw extensive service in World War II. Variants of the Lee-Enfield remained the British Armys standard rifle until 1957. The weapon and its derivatives continued to be used around the world. Development The Lee-Enfield traces it roots back to 1888, when the British Army adopted the Magazine Rifle Mk. I, also known as the Lee-Metford. Created by James P. Lee, the rifle utilized a cock-on-closing bolt with rear locking lugs, and was designed to fire the British .303 black powder cartridge. The design of the action permitted easier and faster operation than similar German Mauser designs of the day. With the shift to smokeless powder (cordite), problems began to arise with the Lee-Metford as the new propellant caused greater heat and pressure which wore away the barrels rifling. To address this issue, the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield designed a new square-shaped rifling system which proved resistant to wear. Combining Lees bolt-action with the Enfield barrel led to the production of the first Lee-Enfields in 1895. Designated .303 caliber, Rifle, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, the weapon was frequently referred to as the MLE (Magazine Lee-Enfield) or the Long Lee in reference to its barrel length. Among the upgrades incorporated into the MLE, was a 10-round detachable magazine. This was initially debated as some critics feared that soldiers would lose it in the field. In 1899, both the MLE and the cavalry carbine version saw service during the Boer War in South Africa. During the conflict, problems arose regarding the weapons accuracy and a lack of charger loading. Officials at Enfield began working to address these issues, as well as to create a single weapon for both infantry and cavalry use. The result was the Short Lee-Enfield (SMLE) Mk. I, which possessed charger loading (2 five-round chargers) and vastly improved sights. Entering service in 1904, the design was further refined over the next three years to produce the iconic SMLE Mk. III. Lee Enfield Mk. III Cartridge: .303 BritishCapacity: 10 roundsMuzzle Velocity: 2,441 ft./sec.Effective Range: 550 yds.Weight: approx. 8.8 lbs.Length: 44.5 in.Barrel Length: 25 in.Sights: Sliding ramp rear sights, fixed-post front sights, dial long-range volley sightsAction: Bolt-actionNumber Built: approx. 17 million Short Lee-Enfield Mk. III Introduced on January 26, 1907, the SMLE Mk. III possessed a modified chamber capable of firing the new Mk. VII High Velocity spitzer .303 ammunition, a fixed charger guide, and simplified rear sights. The standard British infantry weapon of World War I, the SMLE Mk. III soon proved too complicated for industry to produce in sufficient numbers to meet wartime needs. To deal with this problem, a stripped down version was designed in 1915. Dubbed the SMLE Mk. III*, it did away with the Mk. IIIs magazine cut-off, volley sights, and rear-sight windage adjustment. British forces with their SMLE Mk. IIIs in the trenches during World War I. Public Domain During the conflict, the SMLE proved a superior rifle on the battlefield and one capable of keeping up high rates of accurate fire. Many stories recount German troops reporting encountering machine gun fire, when in fact they had met trained British troops equipped with SMLEs. In the years after the war, Enfield attempted to permanently address the Mk. IIIs production issues. This experiment resulted in the SMLE Mk. V which possessed a new receiver-mounted aperture sighting system and a magazine cut-off. Despite their efforts, the Mk. V proved to be more difficult and costly to build than the Mk. III. World War II In 1926, the British Army changed its nomenclature and the Mk. III became known as Rifle No. 1 Mk. III. Over the next few years, Enfield continued to improve the weapon, ultimately producing the Rifle No. 1, Mk. VI in 1930. Retaining the Mk. Vs rear aperture sights and magazine cut-off, it introduced a new floating barrel. With tensions in Europe rising, the British began searching for a new rifle in the late 1930s. This resulted in the design of the Rifle No. 4 Mk. I. Though approved in 1939, large-scale production did not begin until 1941, forcing British troops to begin World War II with the No. 1 Mk. III. While British forces in Europe deployed with the No. 1 Mk. III, ANZAC and other Commonwealth troops retained their No. 1 Mk. III*s which remained popular due to their simple, easy to produce design. With the arrival of the No. 4 Mk. I, British forces obtained a version of the Lee-Enfield that possessed the updates of the No. 1 Mk. VIs, but was heavier than their old No. Mk. IIIs due to a longer barrel. During the war, the Lee-Enfields action was utilized in a variety of weapons such as jungle carbines (Rifle No. 5 Mk. I), commando carbines (De Lisle Commando), and an experimental automatic rifle (Charlton AR). Post-World War II: With end of hostilities, the British produced a final update of the venerable Lee-Enfield, the Rifle No. 4, Mk. 2. All existing stocks of No. Mk. Is were updated to the Mk. 2 standard. The weapon remained the primary rifle in the British inventory until the adoption of the L1A1 SLR in 1957. It is still used by some Commonwealth militaries today, though it is more commonly found in ceremonial, reserve force, and police roles. The Ishapore Rifle Factory in India began producing a derivative of the No. 1 Mk. III in 1962.