How is Seamus Heaneys Irish Rural Heritage Reflected In his Poetry. Es

How is Seamus Heaney's Irish Rural Heritage Reflected In his Poetry. Seamus Heaney was born and grew up in the Irish countryside on his fathers' farm. His father was still using the traditional farming methods, which had been handed down for generations, even though technology had developed greatly in the early twentieth century. Heaney learns a lot from his father about farming and how generations of his family have done it. Heaney takes a great interest in it and he admires his father's skill in working the horses. These memories give Heaney a great deal to write about. The poems that I am going to study are 'Digging', 'Follower', 'At a Potato Digging' and 'Death of a Naturalist'. Heaney's memories and thoughts from childhood are conveyed in these poems. Heaney uses his childhood memories to form the basis of the poems that I am studying. He also refers to the men before him and how they have all dug. In 'Digging' we see how Heaney is using poetic digging to dig through the past, and his memories of seeing his father out of the window, digging. "My father, digging. I look down." Here we see how as Heaney is sitting down to write by his window he is reminded of how he would look out the window and see his father digging the potatoes which had to be collected by the children. He describes the children collecting the potatoes. "Loving their cool hardness in our hands." Heaney is remembering the feeling of the potatoes from when he picked them up for his father. By using the image of digging he can explain how, by looking through his past, he is able to unearth his roots and to discover who he really is. Heaney uses words which reproduce the sounds. This is because he is reliving memories. "... ...ng on his rural background and how he was brought up in the Irish countryside and on a farm. 'Digging' and 'Follower' do show how his background was rural but they are not using that as there main focus point. 'Death of a Naturalist' is about the end of his love for nature and the end of him being a naturalist. Heaney uses lots of nature-related words such as: "Flax-dam." "Sods." The use of these words show how he was brought up in a rural background. This poem is written in quiet a childish way. We can tell this from the language he uses, as the words are descriptive but childish. "Bubbles gargled delicately." The word gargled is a childish word but it is very effective in this poem and really makes the reader hear the sound and see the bubbles 'gargling'. The language in lines 16-19 represent the childish way the teacher spoke to the class.

Lord of the Flies †Darkness of a Man’s Heart Essay

Originally published in 1954, William Golding’s _Lord of the Flies_ has become one of the classics of contemporary literature. The novel is about a group of young boys stranded alone on an island and left to fend for themselves. In an attempt to model their previous world without the influence of adults, the order that had once existed soon decays and is replaced by the chaos that destroys their ordered and civilised cultures. Though fictional, _Lord of the Flies_ deals with deep moral questions of how humans are essentially barbaric in their most primitive state. Golding conveys his idea of the ‘darkness of a man’s heart’ successfully through effective use of allegory, symbolism, and his perception of a dystopian society. _Lord of the Flies_ can be viewed as a political allegory of the Cold War. Golding served in the Royal Navy and recalling later his war experiences, he remarked that â€Å"man produces evil, as a bee produces honey.† The Cold War was a struggle between two super power ideologies – Democracy and Communism, signified by Ralph and Jack respectively. Near the close of the novel, the boys are rescued by a naval commander who came ashore in his boat whilst the boys were playing savages. The irony is that after he brings the boys home, the naval commander will return to sea and engage in a far larger game of violence called war. Thus, Golding makes a point that the island is a microcosmic representation of the conflict between democracy and communism in the war. When the boys are first deserted on the island, they behave like children, alternating between enjoying their freedom and expressing profound homesickness and fear. By the end of the novel, however, they mirror the warlike behaviour of the Home Counties, attacking, torturing and murdering one another without hesitation or regret due to the lack of government and order. Ralph weeps â€Å"for the end of innocence† and the â€Å"darkness of a man’s heart† (p 248) upon reunification with the real world and realisation that evil lurks within all human beings. Symbolism plays a major role in _Lord of the Flies_. Through the rich use of symbolism, Golding reveals that humans detached from society’s rules allow themselves to be dominated by the evil within them. The Lord of the Flies and the Beast are two major symbols that enforce the Golding’s idea of ‘the darkness in a man’s heart’. They are not really physical characters, but rather the evil in every human being.Simon is the first one on the island to realise and thus makes a proposal. â€Å"†What I mean is†¦maybe it’s only us.†Ã¢â‚¬  (p 111)Simon speaks these words in Chapter 5, during the meeting in which the boys discuss the existence of the beast. Although the other boys laugh off Simon’s suggestion that the beast may be â€Å"only us†, Simon’s words are central to Golding’s point that innate human evil exists. Simon’s idea of the darkness of a man’s heart is reinforced in Chapter 8, when he confronts the Lord of the Flies. â€Å"†There isn’t anyone to help you. Only me. And I’m he Beast.†Ã¢â‚¬  (p 177) These words spoken by the Lord of the Flies confirm Simon’s speculation that perhaps the beast is only the boys themselves and acknowledges that it exists in all human beings. This is backed up further with The Lord of the Flies’ adoption of the boys’ rather colloquial language, â€Å"I’m the reason why it’s no go?† (p 177) As the story progresses, the boys begin to worship the beast and make offerings to it. The appreciation for the beast is paralleled by the amount of savagery in the group. Through the use of symbolism, Golding successfully illustrates his theme of natural savagery within humans. The concept of a dystopian society can be seen clearly through _Lord of the Flies._ Golding sees moral behaviour as something that civilisation forces upon the individual rather than being a natural element. The novel implies that the instinct of savagery is far more primal and fundamental to human beings than the instinct of civilisation.The impression of a dystopian society within _Lord of the Flies_ is enhanced by Golding’s rich and dark writing style. During the early chapters of the novel, the setting was depicted as almost a utopia, â€Å"Ralph stood, one hand against a grey trunk, and screwed up his eyes against the shimmering water† (p 14), yet however is juxtaposed with dystopian qualities, â€Å"Behind this was the darkness of the forest proper and the open space of the scar.† This creates a sense of  foreshadowing which eventually leads on to the corruption and deterioration of the boys’ civilisation. With the absence of civilisation, the boys are left to fend on their own with minimal resources andtherefore naturally reverting cruelty, savagery, and barbarism. _Lord of the Flies_ still holds relevance to readers in this day as it addresses issues regarding the human condition and society. These issues will be as relevant today as they were hundreds of years ago and will still be relevant in the future. As for allegory, the novel represents the differences in political systems, systems that are still part of our lives today. If we scrape off the cover of civilisation, we are all beasts within.Through use of allegory, symbolism and a concept of dystopia, Golding conveys that the absence of a civilisation is able to reduce humanity to a natural state of barbarism.In conclusion, _Lord of the Flies_ thoroughly explores ‘the darkness of a man’s heart’.

Effects of Viagra on Women and Female Sexuality

When women go through menopause, the hormonal changes they experience often lead to a drop in libido and less interest in sex. Its nature taking its course - just another phase in the female life cycle. Its the way were built and programmed, biologically speaking. So what do we do about Viagra and the other ED (erectile dysfunction) drugs that are now commonplace and marketed directly to men in TV commercials and magazine ads? Its an important question to ponder because as every woman knows, it takes two to tango. Viagras impact on mens sex lives also impacts womens sex lives. Meika Loe has pondered this very question in her book, The Rise of Viagra: How the Little Blue Pill Changed Sex in America. And the answers shes uncovered are disturbing. Loe, who is Assistant Professor of Sociology Anthropology and Womens Studies at Colgate University, has also written extensively about sex and senior women. Viagra is marketed to aging men whose female counterparts are going through their own sexual crisis: menopause. These women want less sex but their partners now want more. Isnt this counter-intuitive? Doesnt this turn the bedroom into a battlefield at a time when women are already vulnerable (e.g., empty nest syndrome, feeling less attractive as we age, physical changes due to menopause including hair loss and weight gain, etc.) I recently visited my OB/GYN, and upon hearing about this research, she volunteered that many of her women patients have complained that Viagra has not helped their sex lives. The introduction of the pill has made sexuality, among other things, intercourse-focused and thus less satisfying. We hear this kind of thing over and over. My analysis of syndicated advice columns after Viagras debut in 1998 revealed many negative responses among women. Women writing to Dear Abby, for example, were either no longer interested in sex (and thus Viagra created new unwelcome pressure to be sexually active again), or fearing their husbands were having affairs in the context of their newfound sexual potency, and/or experiencing sometimes painful physiological effects of reigniting their sex lives later in life. It seems that Viagra raised quite a few questions for married women about marital obligation, for example. Then again, there were other letters that reflected excitement about husbands feeling healthy and confident after a period of impotence, so the response to Viagra in the population is quite complex. It would have been nice to see an explosion of people communicating about sexuality after Viagras release, but in our pill-for-everything culture, we tend to let the pill do the work and forget that it may not be an end-all be-all. Viagra tended to just exacerbate or throw light on already existing problems in relationships. It should be telling that at this point, almost 10 years after Viagras debut, only 50% of men who received prescriptions for Viagra end up refilling their prescriptions. Its not simply about a man being able to have pleasurable sex. Its also about power and dominance, virility despite aging. Its a way for men to deny that they are past their sexual peak. What are the long-term implications for a society that has Viagra in its drug arsenal? Viagra was the harbinger of things to come in the form of the pharmacology of aging and sexuality (sexual medicine is in expansion mode post-Viagra). All of this is due to a combination of, among other things, changing demographics (e.g. aging population), direct to consumer advertising/consumer-based medicine (Viagra being one of the first drugs to be advertised directly to the consumer) and pharmaceutical expansion. It is important to see that Viagras popularity fits in a particular cultural moment in our history, and there will be/have been plenty of other products to follow (including medications) that emphasize the holy triumvirate: youth, vitality, and performance. In short, as a sociologist, I see Viagra as a cultural product and thus a window onto our culture. It helps us see where we are when it comes to sexuality (and our ambivalence), gender (masculinity and sexual performance packaged together), medicine (quick-fix and lifestyle enhancement emphasis more than ever), and aging (we’re uncomfortable with it but do we all want to be 18 again?). Pfizer has helped to reinforce these traditional and not-so-traditional ideals with Viagra and it has been fascinating to see how successful they have been here and around the world with this youth, vitality, and performance-based message. Again, now that the initial curiosity factor has disappeared, it is unclear how successful sexual dysfunction medication really is. Viagra has spurred several like products – Cialis and Levitra. But the refill rate on all three is low. Viagra is certainly sociologically significant as it has highlighted many social problems in the way we do health and gender and sexuality in our society. Is Viagra Use Common Within the General Population? How does this affect behavior or alter men and womens sexual intimacy? It is difficult to find demographic information about who uses Viagra, but in internet chat rooms, doctors offices, pharmacies, etc. you find men of all ages interested in discussing the drug. We spoke with young men who had purchased Viagra out of insecurity—a just in case situation where they felt they had to live up to some social standard their first time and had purchased the pills (or borrowed them) to have some assurance of adequate performance. We also spoke with men in their 80s who felt like it gave them life again. Meika Loe, author of The Rise of Viagra: How the Little Blue Pill Changed Sex in America, acknowledges that Viagra and other ED (erectile dysfunction) drugs create additional pressure in the already complex sex lives of men and women. She also noted how it underscores the sexual ambivalence present in our society—our obsession and disgust with sex. Viagra use has a dark side. John Jamelske, the 67-year-old man who held a number of young women captive as sexual slaves in an underground bunker, took Viagra. Two toxicologists, Harold Milman and S.B. Arnold, have stated in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy that the drug has been suggested as a contributing factor in 22 cases involving aggression, 13 involving rape, and 6 involving murder. Clearly, Viagra is linked to violence against women. In the course of my research I found that Pfizer had consulted with quite a few experts about possible litigation down the line regarding Viagra. A pill for sexual potency can be a dangerous thing in a culture that is highly ambivalent about sexuality—both obsessed and disgusted with it at the same time. This sexual ambivalence is what we have inherited from the Puritans. It is one reason sexuality itself is so emotionally charged and controversial in this country (we see this in regards to sex education, advertising, reproductive politics, etc.). In the U.S. we seem to spend just as much time and effort on censoring sexuality as we do encouraging it, which makes for a very confused populace! We see this confusion in our bedrooms and in the society at large, and when Viagra is added to the mix it can highlight the issues we have with sexuality as a society. Speaking of sexual ambivalence... were a culture thats afraid to talk about sex with our children. So how is it that Viagra and ED drug commercials run during primetime and no one bats an eye? At least one Pfizer TV ad was pulled off the air (the one where the man gets devil horns after taking Viagra) but you’re right—it’s everywhere. Or it was for many years. Viagra racecars. Viagra ads during the Superbowl—and Janet Jackson got flack for showing a breast when during the commercial breaks, ads discussing penises and erections, and beer ads promoting sexuality like crazy were considered appropriate! Viagra was even posted over home base when Pfizer was the primary sponsor of pro baseball. Now we see Levitra and Cialis advertised just as often. It goes back to that Puritan ethic. We’re obsessed with sex and also offended by it—it’s a fine line. An African American woman’s breast crossed the line for some people. Sexuality in the context of medical dysfunction (complete with scientific imprimatuer and legitimacy) seems to pass. When we look at the way men and women use pharmaceutical interventions, men focus on performance (Viagra) and women focus on appearance (Botox). Or is this a gendered generalization? Sociologists would say that these are the values/characteristics we teach each sex to value most. Men are about what they DO, women are about how they LOOK. We reinforce this constantly in our society (just look at ads – men are generally depicted as active, women as body parts, or still lives, or close-ups). So it follows that our drug use maintains these gendered distinctions. What would you like to stress to women of every age about Viagra and womens sexuality? Living in the pharmaceutical era it sometimes seems easiest and most expedient to turn to medication to enhance our lives or fix our problems. However, we can’t forget to attend to ourselves, our relationships, and our lives. Many men found that while Viagra may have helped them physiologically (although for many it didn’t work or came with a host of scary side-effects), it was no solution to general sexual or life satisfaction. In some cases it actually exacerbated existing issues in peoples’ relationships or sense of self. Men and women are wonderfully complex and diverse creatures when it comes to sexuality AND in general. Simple solutions can end up oversimplifying—and doing us a disservice in the process.