Creative writing practice

On either side of the steadfast iron gate, the solemn chimneys rise into a dense cloud that blankets the hollow corpse of a once exuberant city. Beneath the factory lies a

The street was very quiet. The tall buildings that stood still, statues scraping the sky. Rubbish was strewn across the street. The sun shone through the clouds.

Relative clauses

The evening sun, a powerful force, who’s rays penetrated the wild clouds which swirled overhead shone upon the grim establishment. Spires, which reached towards the

Internal planning

Question: What is George Orwell trying to tell us in his book, Nineteen Eighty Four?

Idea: In his novel , Nineteen Eighty Four, George Orwell critiques communism throughout.

Point 1: The book is a dystopia because … this is important because it shows the fears of Orwell’s society at the time.

Orwell’s society was very religious- in 1984 there is no religion- this would seem terrifying to many of Orwell’s time

As communism is such a main theme in the book, (many parts of the book can be linked to communism in some form or another) it shows that a great fear of Orwell’s society and indeed Orwell himself was communism- a main thing that makes a dystopia is that the fears of the author’s society are shown in the text.

March 5, 1946: Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill makes his famous “Iron Curtain” speech in Missouri, alerting Americans to the division between the Soviet Union and the Western allies.

Point 2: The party, the governing body in the story is based off Soviet Russia.. (reason 1… )(reason 2… )(reason 3….)

Marx described three necessary phases toward achieving his idea of utopia.

  • Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the nee­d for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.
  • Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen’s personal choices — including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriageCollectivization of property and wealth must also take place.
  • Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top. (You can see the full text of the manifesto at this Web site.)
  • both russia and the party started communism with a revolution, both had labour camps and killed many people of thier own country russia having the great purge and 1984 just having the purge
  • mid 17th century: from Latin proletarius (from proles ‘offspring’), denoting a person having no wealth in property, who only served the state by producing offspring,
  • top level govt officials for commie russia got special treatment, just as they do in 1984-O’Brien
  • Secrecy and past destroying are both actions of russia communism and of Ocieania- no information about stalins work camps or killing of millions of russians was recorded in history books, just like they change literature in 1984 to make the party seem better

Point 3:Orwell is pointing out through his portrayal of the party in nineteen eighty four the irony of the fact that communism is based off Marxism, because Marxism believes that a main thing wrong with capitalism is that the rich exploit the poor working class to get richer, and is designed to keep the poor down, when in fact the party, which is communist, and clearly based off Russia, has a top tier of wealthy people who exploit the working class who live in very poor conditions for their own personal gain.

Marx believed that a truly Utopian society must be classless and stateless.

idea:The unnecessary complexity of the party in order to gain complete control

“What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail…” Winston Smith is an on the whole loyal devotee to the Party, (the totalitarian entity which has sole governance over the country in which he resides). Despite his seemingly unwavering loyalty to the Party, he still knows very little of its activities anywhere outside of his direct role inside the party, describing the place the pneumatic tubes led to as an “unseen labyrinth”. Orwell has clearly used labyrinth to describe the ministries’ inner workings to outline the lengths of which the party has gone to to keep it’s workers completely in the dark. This fact, illustrated constantly throughout the text, another example of which, clearly communicated to the reader by the fact that Winston doesn’t know what even the man whom he sits next to everyday, the readers being told, “Winston hardly knew Tillotson, and had no idea what work he was employed on.” From this, it seems, that the party has engineered itself so that secrecy is common practice. It has made it such that no one can understand how it operates, meaning that it is impossible to dissect and bring down. Orwell has illustrated in his writing a very prominent issue at his time, being that governing bodies kept the inner workings of their organisations behind closed doors in order to maintain control and to have as much power as they desired.

Satire piece

Topics:

New World-working there

School- the way it is run and various aspects that seemingly make little sense

Journalism- How mainstream journalism such as TV is changing, where the stories are becoming less important and relevant, in an attempt to appeal to the younger generation

This wednesday night, the humble nation of New Zealand was treated to yet another brilliant piece of television broadcasting directed by the brilliant director of content, Cate Slater. The stories were deeply rooted in the truth, entertaining, but clearly with only one intention: to inform their loyal viewers the whole truth, sparing no expense to present every fact and every angle to their audience. The stories were of importance to the wider viewing audience, they were interesting and important to everyone watching. In an age dominated by fake news and streaming platforms I find it perplexing how such quality producing is seeing a decline in audience size.

Amongst the plethra of stories presented on the show, all skillfully aimed at the younger

speech

hook

One night, a 17-year-old boy named Daniel Adams was walking home and was mugged violently. He managed to defend himself from the violent muggers, but in doing so, killed one of them. Luckily, Daniel was let off, as it was ruled self-defense. Do you think what Daniel did was justified? Could he have acted differently? Or was he just doing what he needed to do?

The point of the anecdote I just shared with you was to show that although murder is a bad thing, there are times that it does happen, and it is committed by good people, with non-murderous intent, sometimes it happens, and sometimes it is one of the only options they have. Today I will be exploring the two sides of the story on whether or not killing is ever justifiable. I will cover the reasons for committing such an act, and discuss why murder is not ever justifiable because there should always be another way to avoid a dire situation. On the other hand, if someone is willing to put you in that position, why shouldn’t you do what it takes to protect yourself?

To many people, killing is unjust in any situation. There should always be a better way out than to take another person’s life- killing only creates more problems. The pacifist approach to life is one that throughout history has proved to be very powerful- from Gandhi to Martin Luther King, very famous and revolutionary people proved that non-violent approaches to major issues are possible and very effective approaches to a violent problem. While it is different from a mugging, for example, is different from these movements, they fall in a similar area- when met with a violent attack, the best thing to do is not retaliate with the same violence, but be creative and think about another way to resolve the issue.

Even though avoiding violence and death is the optimal outcome of a bad situation, sometimes being in that high-intensity situation prevents you from thinking properly. A mugging, for example, would be terrifying, would send a rush of adrenaline throughout your entire body- any decision you make in the split seconds around this time is not going to be perfect. Your body will run on a fight or flight response, and if you chose to defend yourself from a person willing to do something as terrible as that, then that’s what happens. There could be many reasons for taking someone’s life, whether it’s to protect yourself, or for retributive purposes. The reality is if someone is willing to put you in a position where you have to do something to protect your wellbeing, they are most likely not a good person and someone who is a danger to others for their own personal gain shouldn’t be treated the same as an innocent person. The justice system agrees- self-defense is a legitimate defense in court, and although harsh, a bad criminal being killed is better for society than them being in prison. It costs $94,000 a year to keep someone in prison in New Zealand, and for those people who have done terrible things, they will likely get out, and just continue with whatever they got put away for in the first place, with 60% of inmates in NZ being rearrested within 2 years of being released. I’m not saying that all the prisoners should be killed, but if some of them are killed by someone they were trying to hurt, how is that not a justifiable reason?

In my opinion, there are times that killing does happen. It’s part of being a human. It has happened since the start of time and it’s not about to stop now. I believe that if an innocent person is being attacked, then they have every right to do what it takes to make sure that they are as better off as they can be and if that means taking the attacker’s life, then so be it. I know that answering violence with violence is not the answer, but if a good person’s life is at risk, then there is no point risking it even more just to avoid ending the one who was willing put them at risk in the first place.

External essay practice

Diegetic sound-

Establishing shot-

Lighting-

Analyze how language features were used to create an interesting or unusual setting

Setting is a pivotal aspect of every film, consistently providing a thought-provoking area of any visual text, bringing the audience to think more deeply about a scene and its deeper meaning, helping them gain a more complete understanding of themes the film is trying to convey. In the film “Fargo”, directed by the Coen brothers, many film techniques are used to enhance the ideas behind settings, in turn

Who is your character and where is it happening?

What is your inciting inciting incident and how do you get there?

Where do you cross the threshold?

How does action rise?

When does your main character get knocked down?

Why does your character get back up?

It was another bleak, white morning in Fargo, North Dakota when he was getting ready to

ANALYSE HOW CHARACTERS WERE USED TO EXPLORE THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

In the text, “And Then There Were None” by Agatha Christie, the author uses justice as a main theme in the plot. In the text, an unknown person invites ten people who have committed unpunishable but still terrible crimes. One by one, each of the ten people are picked off in parallel with a poem that is hung on each of the guest’s rooms. It is revealed at the closing of the story that the guests were killed in order of guilt they felt for the committing of their crimes. Christie uses characters to present and explore the idea that people’s perception of reasonable justice are very subject to bias which can come from religious bias, like Emily Brent, who through her religious beliefs believed it was reasonable to throw a young, pregnant lady out just because of the fact she was pregnant before marriage, leading to the woman’s suicide, or Mr. Justice Wargrave, who believes all eventualities of a loss of life should be punished in the same way. He disregards any other factors of the killing, such as intent, or actual coldbloodedness of the killing, such as Vera Claythorne and Dr. Armstrong. Their crimes were very different, one being an accident, and the other was a cold-blooded killing of a young boy, and yet, they receive the same punishment. Another character Christie uses to present this idea is General MacArthur. General Mac Arthur is used to present the idea that as well as religious or workplace beliefs, emotion can also impair one’s view of justice- when he discovers his friend is having an affair with his wife, he sends his friend to die on the battlefield during the war.

The first character Christie explores the idea of the changeable perception of justice using the character Miss Emily Brent. Brent is an older lady who is very religious and set in her ways. She is proper and condescending towards those who don’t act in a similar manner such as Beatrice Taylor, a young woman who lived with and worked for her. When Beatrice, got pregnant, Brent fired her and kicked her out of her house. In despair, Beatrice committed suicide, killing herself and the unborn baby. Emily Brent is used to show how drastically religion can affect someone’s perception of what is right and just. When Mrs Claythorne asks Brent if she blamed herself for the young woman’s suicide, Brent “Drew herself up”, saying she believed she had nothing to do with it. This shows how much Brent’s religious beliefs had blinded her from any sight of what she had caused, her righteous, religious sense of justice essentially stopped her from having any conscience following the suicide. Christie, through the use of Brent, showed how much religion can have a part in someone’s sense of justice.

The following character in Agatha Christie’s murder mystery, “And Then There Were None” that she used to present the idea that one’s sense of justice can be significantly manipulated by their beliefs or background is Mr. Justice Wargrave. Justice Wargrave is revealed at the final stages of the text to be the murderer, the person who lured the people onto the island to be killed. Wargrave says in his confession letter that he chose each and everyone on the island because of a crime they had each committed but was untouchable by the law. Wargrave was a judge for most of his life, from which he had gained a reputation as a “hanging judge” he, through his career, had gained a perspective on justice that essentially revolves around the idea of retributive justice, or “an eye for an eye” each of the people he chose had done something that had ended in another person’s unjust death, and the way Wargrave saw it, they all deserved to pay with their lives for what they had done, regardless of intent, or how many people they had actually killed. Christie uses Wargrave in the story to show that even someone’s career can greatly affect their perception of justice.

Another character in “And then there were none” that the author uses to explore the idea of the changeable nature of someone’s perception of justice can be largely impacted by their surroundings is Vera Claythorne. Vera is used to show that although justice should be looked at impartially, emotions can often cloud a person’s vision of what is right. Vera was a nanny for a family, who had a young child. Whilst caring for the child, Vera met and fell in love with the boy’s uncle, and they wanted to be married, and even though her lover was from a wealthy family, all the money was to go to the young boy, however, Claythorne killed the young boy by essentially drowning him, meaning her lover would become the heir to the fortune, but, she was suspected by the man, and so they were never married. Using Claythorne, Christie shows how twisted and distorted someone’s idea of justice can become when they allow their perception of what is just to be controlled by emotions. In Vera’s case, she believed, out of essentially love, that the young boy should be killed because he was going to receive the money. Although he did nothing wrong, he was punished greatly for no good reason other than hate and a hysterical view of justice. Claythorne is also a great example of how, too often, money can also become an all too powerful factor in one’s judicial instincts.

In the written text, “And Then There Were None’, written by Agatha Christie, characters are used to present the idea that people’s views and perceptions of justice can be largely affected by many external factors, such as in the case of the character Emily Brent, religion, in the case of Vera Claythorne, emotion and money, and for Mr. Justice Wargrave, his workplace. The text shows its’ readers that people’s ideas of what is just and right can be affected greatly by a great many different factors and that remaining impartial to someone who has committed a crime can be incredibly challenging and often doesn’t happen, and the people on the wrong end of the poor judgment can pay dearly for something that sometimes isn’t actually that bad.