"To Be Or Not To Be....." compare and contrast.

Hamlet- Mel Gibson version.
In my opinion, I found this version to be the best. This version provided a dark setting, with tombs Though everyone has their opinion's about Mel Gibson, he is a wonderful actor. When he started reciting the speech, he captivated me from the beginning. He makes it easy to understand if you have never heard it before. You can tell that he is talking to himself, and that many thoughts are running through his mind...but he doesnt come off as creepy or crazy. He is just truly depressed. Whereas, in Lawrence Olivier's version, he comes off very creepy and crazy.

Hamlet- Lawrence Olivier version
This version of the "To Be Or Not To Be" speech was my least favorite. Not only was the speech delivered in an extremely odd way, it seemed as if was actually going to commit suicide right there. In the speech, Hamlet just contemplates suicide seriously. Even when I read it in the text, I pictured him just talking about it, not actually having the "bodkin" in hand and ready to do it. Also, he doesnt speak in some of the clip. This was one thing I actually liked, that it was a voiceover, it was like you were hearing his thoughts whereas the other two, you just hear them speaking.

Hamlet- Kenneth Branaugh version
This speech was very dramatic and seriously delivered, but the setting was off. It looked like it was in a palace, and then you saw the people in the very beginning. I just didnt really get what the setting was trying to portray. But, I did like the directors decision to use the mirror. It was a very literal "battle" between the character and his inner self. It worked very well. Compared to the other two this one was just okay. It wasn't as bad as te Lawrence Olivier version, however, the Mel Gibson version is still the best in my opinion.

Literature and Language Assignment: I WAS going to write about my favorite book....

As explained in the title, I was going to write about "The Perks of Being A Wallflower" but then I ran into a situation yesterday. Currently, I am in Venice, Florida which is about 20 minutes south of Sarasota. Venice is full of old tan people, dressed in printed shirts, khakis and horribly ugly sandals. It is not the place for me. I feel completely out of place anywhere I go, even if it's just the grocery store.

In fact, thats where my situation begins. Yesterday, I decided to go to the local Publix with my grandmom. We just needed to get a few things at the grocery store. I thought I was dressed fine, I was just wearing jean shorts, a nicer shirt, and oversized sunglasses. Then my sister Taylor said "Kate, why is everyone looking at us weird" and I just replied "I have no idea..."

My sister, my grandmom and I go to check out, and we are just having a conversation, and right away the lady at the register asks if we are from New Jersey. We told her we were, and she laughed and then said "Yeah if your accent didn't give it away, the way you girls are dressed sure did. The locals don't dress like that." Me and my sister were shocked.

But then I realized, people from New Jersey are completely different from the people in Florida. One huge difference, being our accent and the way we speak. Our language is the same, but the dialects are different. We say things like "wooder" instead of water, Monday becomes "Mondee", and instead of saying whole phrases, we tend to run our phrases together. For example instead of saying "did you eat" we say "didja-eat?" Also, we have our own little phrases. An example of this would be phrases like "bro", "guido/guidette", GTL, and "legit".

Bottom line is, your surroundings do affect you. Homer shows us this in The Odyssey too! Circe is very lusty, dark and mysterious...just like her island. So what does the make people from New Jersey? Are we as obnoxious, loud, and crazy as television shows like "Jersey Shore", "Jerseylicious" and "Housewives of New Jersey" have portrayed us to be? Do we really dress, act, and most importantly speak differently? Comment, and let me know what you think.

Explication #2- seven minute interview with Nick Mamatas.

Recently, I have listened to "The Paper Market"interview with Nick Mamatas. His interview basically summed up his ideas that were previously read in his article, "The Term Paper Artist". He repeated what types of clients he had, what exactly he did, how he got into the business, etc.

As far as listening to Mamatas' tone of voice, and diction, one could come to the conclusion that Mamatas comes off as very arrogant. Even when he spoke to the person giving the interview, he spoke as if he was 'above' them. He knows that he is intelligent, and he doesn't mind showing it off.

I believe in this case, the medium used (audio rather than print) was not useful. It was difficult to understand at times, and it was harder to concentrate on what Mamatas had to say. He was so arrogant that I got bored...stopped listening, and had to restart the interview completely.

Explication Assignment

Katie Sorino
2/17/11
Mr. Carty
English IV Honors
Explication


Considering “The Term Paper Artist an article written by Nick Mamatas


In Nick Mamatas’ article, "The Term Paper Artist," Nick Mamatas discusses the highly successful, underground business of writing term papers for college students. Mamatas talks about how he first got into the business by stating,

"I always wanted to be a writer, but was told from an early age that such a dream was futile. After all, nobody ever puts a classified ad in the paper that reads "Writers Wanted". Then, in the Village Voice, I saw just such an ad. Writers wanted, to write short pieces on business, economics, and literature."

Mamatas also talks about other things such as what types of clients he received, how much money he would get per paper, and what types of papers he wrote.

Mamatas had a wide variety of clients, however he classifies them in three specific categories. The first being "The Dumb Client", these people according to Mamatas,

"They should not be in college. They must buy model papers simply because they do not understand what a term paper is, much less anything going on in their assignments."

The second type are the "One Timers" and in the words of Mamatas they are

"A chemistry major trapped in a poetry class thanks to the vagaries of schedule and distribution requirements, or worse, the poet trapped in a chemistry class."

and just need one paper to be written for them. The final type of client would be kids that are headed off to college and need help on their personal statements.

In the article, Mamatas states

" Writing model term papers is above-board and perfectly legal"

, and not only is it legal, it is a fast way to make some money. In one example, Mamatas mentions

" I once boiled the 1000-page New Testament Theology by Donald Guthrie into a 30-page précis over the course of a weekend for a quick $600."

In my opinion, Mamatas is a very smart man. He knows that he is talented in his craft, and takes full advantage of that. It is a win-win situation. He gets cash for something that is easy for him, and the student receives a paper that is gauranteed a decent mark, and possibly save them from failing a course.

Although Mamatas is making money, and the student is receiving a great paper, there is one huge negative to this whole business. The student is getting cheated. On average, college tuition in around $40,000. Students are not only paying to learn, but they are also paying up to $600 on term papers.In the end they cheat themselves. Unfortunately, this business is a game, and money plays a huge factor. Truth is, money does make the world go 'round, even when something as important as education is involved.