Two questions. -- Jessica

1. Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?

Hanna goes to jail toward the end of the novel, by doing so one would think that she would have achieved some sense of ‘atonement’, however I don’t believe that Hanna’s sentencing is when her ‘atonement’ was achieved. Throughout the whole trial it could be said that Hanna was unaware of what she was being accused for, that she was ignorant to the punishment in which she would be receiving, however Hanna mentions to Michael, toward the end of the novel that “Not even the court could call me to account. But the dead can” suggesting that the court could judge her, and punish her for the crimes she had committed but no living person is able to tell her what she should feel or how she guilty she should be. This extract gives the reader the impression that Hanna is taking no real responsibility for her actions and is uncompassionate, however she follows on to say that “They [the ghosts] came every night, whether I wanted them or not. Before the trial I could still chase them away when they wanted to come” which goes to show that the crimes that she had committed was something that had a grand effect on the way she felt about things, her crimes are haunting her. The idea that Hanna feels over whelming guilt is further explored when she decided to commit suicide by hanging herself just before she was being released from jail, which raises the questions “did Hanna find it too difficult to cope with the guilt of her crimes? Was she so alone in the world that nothing could stop her from using death as an escape from the crimes in which she had committed?”

Through Hanna’s punishment and opportunity for atonement was somewhat reduced by her death, I do however believe that Hanna did achieve a small sense of atonement by the end of the novel. The fact that she was able to save and donate money to the girl who survived the Auschwitz camp shows her reflection on how the events in her life lead up to her being in jail and therefore her need to atone. The fact that the girl would not accept the money has no real significance to Hanna’s atonement, as the money being donated to a charity is granting all the atonement Hanna had desired.

2. Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?
In a way Schlink is ‘guilty’ of making the unacceptable acceptable by encouraging the readers to feel sympathy for Hanna. By showing her through the eyes of someone who loved her, the reader feels that she’s more of a real character. We are able to relate to the love that Michael feels towards Hanna and so through that the reader becomes more understanding and therefore more sympathetic. The fact that the reader gets to know Hanna before finding out about the crime she had committed is a very important factor in the way the reader feels about her, had we been shown Hanna in the war times, perhaps our opinion of her would be different. Schlink is guilty of portraying an inhumane character as humane, for portraying someone who did not love through the eyes of someone who loved them and for making this character, who had killed hundreds of people, someone we as human beings feel that we could love. Schlink is portraying her through the eyes of a generation after the war, mirroring the hardship that many German people had to deal with, learning that someone they loved and trusted had done something so horrible. By making the unacceptable acceptable, Schlink is helping those who were being torn between loving someone for who they knew them to be and hating them for what they had done. He’s giving the readers in site into the difficult choices being made and allowing us to feel the same emotional difficulties (though to a lesser extent) as others have had to do.

The Reader Questions- Annika

1) Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?

I think that Hanna does receive some sort of atonement by the end of the novel however it is only to a certain extent. She mentions to Michael that “Not even the court can call me [Hanna] to account. But the dead can”, which suggests that nothing the court does can decide how she feels inside, they can only punish her and put her in jail but they cannot determine whether she should feel guilty or not. Although it appears that she does not feel much responsibility at this point, Hanna then goes on to say that the dead “came every night, whether I wanted them or not” which shows the nightmares and suffering that she had to endure continuously from her actions and crimes. She says that they dead understand her which suggests that she recognises her wrong doings and that the reason why they visit her every night is to constantly haunt her and remind her of her crimes. Nonetheless, Hanna ends up committing suicide by hanging herself just before she is due to be released from 18years of prison which suggests that she cannot face the outside world in fear of her crimes or being alone (she does not have family or friends and to some degree not even Michael) therefore she escapes by killing herself. This does not grant her absolution or make her crimes any less sinful but just shows her as a coward or that she doesn’t feel a great deal of guilt or remorse. At the very end of the novel the survivor of the Auschwitz camp does not even accept the money offered by Hanna and thus does not grant Hanna absolution. She even criticises Hanna and calls her brutal showing that she certainly has not forgiven Hanna for her crimes. IN addition, the woman takes the tea caddy; something that was stolen from her as if she is taking back what ‘Hanna’ or the people Hanna represents took away from her. Although this does not show Hanna’s atonement the fact that she accepts to donate the money to and organisation shows that she understand Hanna’s intentions but she cannot forgive her, therefore in a way she is granted a miniscule amount of atonement.

2) Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?

I do not think that Schlink is guilty of encouraging the reader to feel sympathy for Hanna because he was not involved in the actual war crimes that many Germans partook in therefore he cannot be blamed or accused for something that he did not do, even if he is German himself. Schlink says himself that justice is very difficult and that many of the courts did not possess the capacity needed at that time. Schlink was a man growing up as a second generation just after the war, because of this he had to experience school and life while discovering that people close to him weren’t really who he thought they were; teachers turned out to have committed war crimes. All of this, Schlink says was very tough to deal with in particular for the people who actually committed these crimes, some with the un-intention of brutality, such as Hanna. I think Schlink makes the unacceptable acceptable through Hanna by making it possible for us to feel sympathy towards her (particularly in part 3 with the letters, her appearance and the judgment of the survivor)in order to show us that justice is not as simple as it seems; we cannot simply say this is wrong and this is right. Schlink leaves it up to the reader to decide if Hanna should be punished or whether she should be atoned because of this I do not think it is unforgivable that Schlink wrote the novel in this way as he is only trying to raise questions of justice and to allow the reader to see that not all “monstrous people who committed terrible crimes were monsters” and we should attempt to see past their crimes and forgive them.

Answer to 2 Questions

1) Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?
Hanna Schmitz goes to court for her war crimes. The court judges her and decides to place her in jail with a 15 year life sentence. Hanna says that “the dead can understand” her and her crimes which suggests that the court cant punish her and condemn her for what she’s done because the court does not understand what she’s done but the dead, those whom she’s killed understand her crimes and thus can condemn and punish her. She says that the dead visit her at night which suggests that she suffers from nightmares that are linked to her crimes. This suggests that because she is suffering and that this is somewhat a punishment from the dead that she is achieving a small proportion of atonement. I think that it is only a small proportion because it is only a nightmare and it is only making Hanna understand what she’s done. These nightmares results to her committing suicide. Although this shows the gravity of the affects the nightmare had on her, I believe that this doesn’t allow her to achieve a sense of atonement because her suicide was a way to escape her small punishment, being the nightmare. Finally the survivor women can’t accept her atonement, she says that her “years in imprisonment were not merely the required atonement” this shows the anger in the women, for such light punishment given to Hanna which suggests that the dead would have given her a more harsher punishment.

2) Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?
Bernhard Schlink is a fourth-generation person, which means he is four generations away from the people directly involved in the war. He wrote “the reader” to express the lifestyle he had as a kid to find out that those he admired had been a war criminal or have done terrible things during war. Schlink made the unforgivable act of genocides, acceptable in the eyes of Michael. I believe that this isn’t guilty but rather sympathetic, because people like Schlink are not directly involved in the war and yet they have to suffer in a way that Michael got hurt from having a relationship with Hanna.
Schlink uses his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathetic for Hanna because he was a person who admired another person who was like Michael being in a relationship with Hanna and this was what Schlink wanted to express. The way Michael wanted Hanna to be forgiven, especially seen when Michael at an older age and after hearing that Hanna had committed suicide goes out to fulfill her will. Schlink wanted to show the readers how he wanted his admired people to be forgiven. I do not think that it is guilty because this is the intentions Schlink had as an author to express to the reader, and as a reader I could understand what Schlink has gone through if we relate him to Michael, and thus giving us sympathy for him just like we did for Michael. Schlink only used his writing skills to express how he wanted his admired people to be forgiven just like Hanna being forgiven.

Homework

Answer the following questions:

1) Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?

2) Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?

Good luck!

'A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased'

'A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased'

This quotation talks about how Germany is still associated with the horrors of the Holocaust that took part in the 1930s even though it has been around 80 years that has gone by. Germany still holds the guilt and shame of the Holocaust even though it was the Nazi Party who performed these actions and they are now far gone. In my opinion, I think this is unfair as the Nazi Party doesn't mean Germany as a whole but a group of people that were led by Adolf Hitler. And this genocide was due to the ideology of a perfect Aryan race. Although the Nazi Party doesn't mean Germany as a whole, the extent to how morbid the actions were provokes an immense revolted reaction. This amplified reaction makes the judgement blur to blaming it on the country as a whole. The people of the world then raise the blame onto Germany as a whole when they are outraged by the actions when they should still know that the blame is placed on the Nazi party not on Germany.

When hearing about the medical experiments, the cruel beatings, executions and the discrimination or just watching Holocaust films like Schindler's List or The Pianist, our hatred for this movement is amplified therefore (with fury) our outrage causes us to blame Germany as a whole. This is unfair as not only isn't it this generation of German peoples' fault but it's not even all of the generation before them.

When someone announces that they are German, it is very common that the Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust jokes come to mind. This is greatly unfair as it's not something that Germans are proud about and they may even be sensitive about it.

The Tram

The tram is significant to the relationship between Michael and Hanna as this is what sparks off one of their fights. It is significant in the sense that Michael goes and visits Hanna outside of her house for the first time. Before the tram visit they had only met up inside her house as Hanna's house is the usual place where both their worlds came together. When coming to the tram, Michael steps into Hanna's world outside of the bubble that they share. This results in a fight which represents that Michael is not welcome in other parts of Hanna's life and that she holds a barrier of how much he is let in. This then gives the reader an idea that Hanna shelters herself off in order to conceal something which shows a flaw in their relationship. Michael steps into the second compartment and Hanna stays in the first with the tram driver, she doesn't go into the second compartment to greet Michael even though she knows he's there as she might be ashamed of him. This shows that she only accepts Michael when he's in her house. Outside of her house, she feels embarrassed of him and doesn’t acknowledge him at all.

Parents' House

This is the part where Michael brings Hanna to his parents’ house, in this part the significance is that it shows the domestic space which reflected Hanna’s personalities. Before in Hanna’s house, we see that she is dominant and in control, but in this part we can see that she is ‘shy’ and let Michael in control of the situation. This is shown by her actions in Michael point of view.

The significance of this part on affecting Hanna is through her actions on in Michael’s parents’ house. The phrase “her eyes exploring everything” this suggest that she is somehow loss and unfamiliar to the environment around her. That she is in need to understand this place where she has no power like a different world from her own. This is emphasis by the phrase “She felt like an intruder in our house this explain that she is out of place when she is in Michael’s parents’ house which contrast with the Hanna we saw when she is at her flat. Therefore the reader can see another part of Hanna and raise the question on why that she is like this.

The reader can see that Hanna is not as dominant as she was when she is in her flat. This might be that she is in different class from Michael which makes her to be unable to fit in the upper class like Michael’s place. And perhaps that later because she is illiterate which makes her to be unable to read the books that on the shelf which make her to feel out of control.

The significance of the trip to Hanna and Michael’s relationship (p.49 to 54)

In chapter eleven, Michael and Hanna decide to take a four day bike trip during Easter. Bernhard Schlink uses this trip to show us a new side of both characters. During the trip, everything is reversed; Michael becomes the dominant one who makes all the decisions and Hanna is the weaker one. This is a big contrast with the beginning of the novel.

In this chapter, Michael makes all the decisions and planning. Michael worked out the whole route on the map and Hanna “didn’t want to look, or even hear about it”. “Hanna didn’t just let [him] be in charge of choosing our direction and the roads to take. [He] was the one who picked out the inns where [they] spent the nights, registered [them] as mother and son while she just signed her name, and selected [their] food from the menu for both of [them]. This quote clearly demonstrates that Hanna wants to be lead and Michael as complete control over every aspect of the trip. He is without a doubt the dominant one in this situation. This comes to quite a shock or surprise to the reader as she was presented by Schlink earlier in the novel as an independent and self-reliant women. She was the dominant one in the relationship and during the trip the roles are completely reversed.

The trip is also used by Schlink to represent one of the main flaw in their relationship; miscommunication. Michael leaves early in the morning to surprise Hanna with breakfast and flowers, he leaves a note on the table saying he’ll be right back. However, he doesn’t know that Hanna is illiterate and is unable to read his note; she thinks he has left her. She was “trembling with rage and white-faced”, these are powerful of descriptions of anger showing how miscommunication is causing them trouble – he was doing a nice gesture but due to miscommunication it puts Hanna in a “fury” and makes her “burst into tears”. He had “never seen her cry”, this is the first time in the novel where we see Hanna as weak and fragile. It suggests to the reader that we don’t know much about her true personality. It gives a sense of mystery to her character. In addition, the reader sympathises and creates a closer emotional attachment to her when we see that there is more to her character.

To conclude, the trip is used by Schlink to show a complete new face of Hanna. In contrast with earlier in the novel, she is presented as weak and she lets herself be controlled by Michael. He is now the dominant one. Furthermore, during the trip, miscommunication leads to her crying. Seeing her cry creates sympathy and it creates a sense of mystery to her character as we are seeing a completely different side of her.

The Trip Together (49-56)

During this chapter when Hanna and Michael both go on a 4 day trip together, Hanna is presented to us as the weaker and less dominant character in comparison with Michael. He is the one who" picked out the inns" and "chose the direction of roads to take " when bike riding.
In this chapter we even see Hanna over reacting when she thinks that Michael has abandoned her without saying goodbye. She "bursts into tears" and "clung" to Michael showing how feeble and helpless she is because she loses control of her emotions and starts to cry, something that even Michael says "he had never seen" before. This sudden change in personality is quite contrasting to the first impressions we were given about Hanna. She initially appears very strong, independent and unreliant on anyone as she is in control of the relationship; she chooses what times the couple should meet and where, she tells Michael what to do an he follows her orders. In this passage however, it is the opposite as we see Hanna losing this control she has over the relationship and breaking down in tears resulting in "swollen eyelids" and "red blotchy cheeks". This loss of control that Hanna undergoes suggests that she is not as strong as she seems and that perhaps she has a softer side. It also suggests that Hanna only feels truly comfortable in her own house or 'space' e.i the kitchen because this is where she can be in control and have the most power in the relationship which we have seen by the previous events that take place in this domestic space. Due to this, Hanna may have become weaker as she does not feel as secure outside her comfort zone.
The passage also hints to the reader that there are flaws in their relationship, the main one being that they are not honest with each other and share no emotional connection. Michael does not know that Hanna is illiterate yet this is something you would know about your loved one, and the reader can assume or at least guess that at this point there is something 'wrong' with Hanna purely from the flustered way in which she acts when the letter is mentioned (also that fact that she never reads herself).
I think Schlinks main purpose for including the trip scene was to show the change in control in the relationship between Michael and Hanna when they are young.

"A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased"

I cannot completely agree or disagree to this statement because I don’t believe that most people in today’s young generation of Germans, and people in generations to come, feel guilty about the Holocaust. And I don’t think that they should. However, Germans today are still faced with stereotypes of being Nazi’s which could make them to feel angry and guilty.

The Holocaust is a one of the most terrible and horrifying violation of human rights in history. An approximate six million Jews were murdered; Nazi’s also killed people with disabilities, Soviet prisoners and civilians, homosexuals, Romani’s and other groups, which would bring the total number of victims to an approximate 11 million people. All these deaths were instigated by the power of one man, Adolf Hitler. You could argue that Germans were forced to act under the fear of the SS but I believe that some of them acted for themselves; however, we can’t make a generalization for either side of the argument. Many Germans at that time shared Nazi ideals and participated willingly to the Holocaust; these are the people who should feel guilt.

To conclude, I think that the Holocaust will always be viewed as one of mankind’s most terrible display of brutality but I don’t think that future generations and even today’s young generation feels guilt; they view it just like us, a gruesome and inexcusable act. They are completely innocent and shouldn’t be made to feel guilty. Germany’s dark past will never be forgotten but the guilt will slowly fade away.

"A thousand year will pass and the guilt of Germany will not "

I don't really agree to this statement, Germany as the country and the people itself has nothing to feel guilty or ashamed about. The past has haunted the people because of the horrible event that such as the Holocaust which the cause of this is not from the people but from the government, the ruler Hitler which order the people to do such things, killing innocent people that has done nothing wrong.

Even though, it may say that they people whose under the range of Hitler would felt guilty because of what they actually did and how the horrible images still haunted them. The guilt of being there and witness the genocide of the innocent people and the generation after the war has to bear the idea of watching the people from the generation before their fathers, teachers and people they know and love doing such thing to people. This make people to judge on is it because that what they done intentionally or forcefully.

As well as on how the other country view on the Germany, mostly France and Belgium which affected mostly from the war. They can felt hatred to Germany from what Hitler did to their country.

Even so I think that the Germans people will not be "a thousand year" in guilt because as the years passed the people are less affected by the war as the people during that time therefore the guilt of Germany will not last that long as the statement said.

The swimming pool as a significant place in "The Reader" -- Jessica

The swimming pool is mentioned quite a few times throughout the novel “The Reader” by Bernhard Schlink. The swimming pool is Michael’s personal space, away from Hanna and away from their relationship. Michael usually spends his time at the swimming pool with school friends “gossiping and flirting” and it is not really a place where Hanna is welcomed.

In the extract on page 79 however, Hanna chooses to cross the boundary into Michael’s personal space, this signifying her attempt at making a more personal connection in the relationship. The relationship between these two characters is purely lustful, and it lacks the emotional connection of a mature relationship. When Hanna chooses to enter the swimming pool area, she is not only over stepping the boundary in the sense of being in Michael’s space but in their relationship as well. The fact that Hanna is wearing an “open blouse knotted at the waist” shows how Michael’s thoughts on Hanna are based on the physical aspects, however when in his own space Michael questions these. The fact that he “didn’t jump to [his] feet and run to her” shows how when at the swimming pool he is able to take control of his feelings and distinguish between love and lust. The distance between Michael and Hanna at the pool also represents the distance and strain in their relationship at the time, as it later results in being the last time they see each other before the trial many years later. Michael hesitates when he first spots Hanna at the pool, he begins questioning both his own motives and those of Hanna as well, “did she want to be seen with me, did I want to be seen with her”, with questions such as these running through his mind, the reader is aware that Michael had never really thought about the type of relationship he had with Hanna, the fact that he questioned whether he wanted to be seen with her shows how he is doubting their relationship, perhaps caused by the large difference in age between the two characters. In my opinion Schlink uses the swimming pool to highlight the age difference between Michael and Hanna as one of the key difficulties in their relationship.

Significance of Swimming Pool on page 79

The swimming pool is a space that is significant to the relationship between Hanna and Michael. Bernhard Schlink shows this significance through the reaction of Michael when he sees Hanna by the pool and the thoughts he has.
Michael likes to see Hanna due to his lust for her, however when she appeared by the pool Michael didn't react as though he had this lust for her. Hanna was wearing an "open blouse knotted at the waist" this shows that she is wearing things that is very revealing and would often cause Michael to be lustful. Instead he "didn't jump to (his) feet to run to her" which contradicts to how he would normally act and therefore this shows how Michael is not lustful when he is in the pool or this space. Bernhard Schlink used this space to show that not only is Hanna uncomfortable with the age difference and finds it awkward but also that Michael finds it awkward as well.
Michael hesitates when he sees Hanna by the pool which shows that he is unsure or uncomfortable with Hanna being in his space. This is shown when he thinks of "did she want to be seen with me" and "did i want to be seen with her". This shows that Michael does not understand the reason for her being by the pool and the reason he was hesitating on whether he wanted to be seen with her. Furthermore he does not think whether he "wants to see her" but rather whether he "wants to be seen with her" which shows that there is an awkwardness between their relationship for them being seen together. Bernhard Schlink uses this to show how the age difference in their relationship causes the two of them to think of how other people will think of them and how their relationship is not strong enough for them to be seen together in other spaces.

"A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased"

This statement places judgment on Germany as a whole for being a nation that committed Genocides that devastated the world and history. The Holocaust murdered 6 million people from a purpose to eradicate a whole race, this is seen as an unforgettable crime and therefore Germany should condemn for their crime. However i believe that it is unfair to judge the whole German population and even the population of Germans to come within a thousand years in the future. The whole German population was under the control of Adolf Hitler and the fear of his elite S.S men and military and therefore the whole German population can't be judged for the aggression of one dictator. Some argue that the crime of the Holocaust is caused by the whole population of the German population for ignoring such gruesome horror, but on the other hand there were many people especially from other political parties from other nations of Europe that knew of these genocides occurring in Germany and they placed a blind eye on this situation. Furthermore to judge the next generations of German people for over a thousand years and make them carry the burden of this guilt is not fair because they don't have direct relation to the genocides at all. They are the ones who should be given a chance of freedom without an aggressive dictator controlling them with the use of fear. I do however agree to the fact that the crime Germany had caused in supporting the genocide and contributed to it to be a fact that should never be forgotten in a thousand years, especially by the Germans.

Response to "A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased" -- Jessica

This is a difficult statement to agree or disagree with. In part, I believe this statement to be true, the horror of the holocaust will never be forgotten and the people of Germany will never be allowed to forget the terrible thing that their country has done. However, I disagree that the people of Germany should feel the guilt of those of the generations before them. However horrific and no matter the impact the holocaust had on the rest of the world, the generations of German people today are no more responsible for the holocaust than anyone else in the world, they should not bear the burden of their ancestors.

Though most people have the ‘forgive and forget’ mentality and have followed it through to an extent, I believe that the German people perhaps take more blame onto themselves than anyone else does and this is because they personally are ashamed of what their ancestors had done. There need not be more ‘fuel’ placed on the ‘flame’ of guilt that this country already possesses. So in part this statement is true, the guilt of the German people will not be erased until they are ready to forgive themselves and their ancestors for the mistakes that were made.

In conclusion, I both agree and disagree with this statement that “a thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”, as it is true that the memory of the holocaust will be used for years to come as an example of what we as humanity should not do, however the German people should not individually be punished for what they did not personally do.

"A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased"

I agree and disagree with this statement as it is true that the younger German generation today are still faced with stereotypical judgements that they are 'Nazis'. Very many people today still relate Germans to the ruthless and strong Nazis simply because it is not forgotten what Hitler and the Nazis did to the thousands of Jews and other ethnic minorities therefore Germany as a country falls under this image. I think that some people are very narrow minded and can not distinguish between those who actively took part in Nazi activities and those who were Innocent and did not. These people are the reason for why many Germans feel guilty because it is not forgot what occurred during WW2 and few people are willing to forgive the Germans, therefore I think that the guilt the German people feel will not be erased, at least not completely or for a very long time as there will always be someone who denies forgiveness.
However I also disagree with the statement ad it has not even been 100years and the tensions between countries that partook in WW2 has ceased or lessened and to some extend, Germany has been 'forgiven'.

Year 12 IOP Homework:

You can find the lesson powerpoint (with slides about structure / thesis etc) in the following folder on the Z drive:

Z:\Public-Students\Secondary\A1_LEARNING_RESOURCES\A3_KEYSTAGE5_IB\G1_LANGUAGES_A1\ENGLISH\YEAR_12\Atonement

Happy IOPing!

Thesis: the ‘red crepe paper’ is a central image that is symbolic of the relationship between Robbie and Cecilia

Structure:

Introduction: The What:
your thesis (clearly defined with narrow focus)
Brief overview of key aspects / sections of text to be discussed
Middle: The How:
Selection of key examples from the text to support
Close analysis (literary features)
Explanation of interpretation
Conclusion: The Why:
Explain the reasons why the author has presented that particular image / theme / character / motif
What purpose does it serve?

Hello!

Hey guys..... Im in my common room now..... Ooooo Take Care everyone! see you!

Unseen Commentary

A graceful party is about to start. The party is about the celebration of a young woman, which just got except to a top university. Everyone is here, important people, from celebrity to royal. No one ever saw this young lady, they just heard from her parents that she is, a elegant well educated young girl just like her mother as she appear to be. Her mother is blonde and beautiful, the most good women. The part is going quite well, then suddenly disturbance noises. At the door appear a wild looking girl; she has spiky hair with red highlights and horrible clothes. She walks inward and began to talk.

“I’m deeply apologies for my lateness, I have some business to attend to” said the wild girl, with a fluency speaking voice. “Thank you, for coming to our humble part and again I’m apologies for my absence.”

Then suddenly in the kitchen,

“Kill it! Kill it!” and a series of swearing and disturbing screaming, it was the mother and a cockroach on the floor.

Unseen Commentary

Three black figures appear on the tinted grey door of the National Bank. The three figures belong to three men who dressed very well. They wore black tuxedos with fine delicate horizontal grey stripes. One of them was tall and his hair was so silky and naturally pulled back that by just looking at it, it made you want to run your fingers through it. The other man wore a bowler hat and his posture was very straight and elegant, you could sense a firm and rigid body under his tux and red tie. The last man who was in the centre made the other two men look like his entourage, his presence made you assume that he was successful in business and overruled a lot of people. He smelt of aftershave and tobacco with a hint of city latte. The three men all wore a black sunglass and carried a large silver metal suitcase.

Banker 1: (to banker 2); they’re here to make a large transfer.
Banker 2: (replies); you can easily tell from their suitcases.

The three men suddenly set their metal suitcases on the entrance floor and opened it. A large Thompson machine gun was pulled out. The tall man with pulled back hair shot the guard while the man with the bowler hat shot the ceiling. The man who looked like the boss shouted, “this is a bank robbery, put your hands in the air!”

Unseen commentary - Calvin's

It was one of those normal boring thursday in school and it was lunchtime where students were around and about the school doing their things while teachers were in the staffroom having their daily gossip. Coming to school was like a routine for Pho and today, he had his Music, French, Maths and after lunch, was English which would conclude his day.
That bell rang soon after, and the corridors started to quieten down and as the class entered English, everyone was looking tired and had a sulky face as they had to endure another hour and twenty minutes till freedom! Mr Valentiny, the English teacher of the best English class in the world seemed different today, he would usually give an enthusiastic welcome and ask everyone how their day was. However, today he glued himself onto the chair and was staring straight looking stunned into the plain air. Whist everyone took their seats, the whole classroom suddenly turned charcoal black, even the natural light did not enter, it was very weird and Pho could sense that something was wrong in this English class and he knew that this day would not be his usual routine. All of a sudden, Mr Valentiny brought out a remote which looked something like a detonator, and to the class surprise it actually was!
"I guess you guys thought I was that normal English teacher huh"
He mentioned that he was from a secret terrorist society and he was chosen for this mission to suicide bomb the best English class in Ho Chi Minh city. Just as he was about to press the trigger...........

Challenging stereotypes - post by Annika x x

There is a man in a shop at the till purchasing a necklace encrusted with a few jewels. He is dressed in a tight fitting pink v-necked t-shirt with white trousers. On his feet he wears newly polished black pointy shoes and his hair is carefully arranged with various hair products and gels so that each strand sticks up at perfect angles; even a small gust of wind would ruin his hairdo.. As he approaches the till to buy his jewellery, the woman at the counter immediately assumes that he is homosexual from one sweeping glance of his dress style. When he starts talking to her, his accent resembles that of a stereotypical homosexual, further certifying her initial speculation. She does not notice the golden ring on his left hand until he hands over a wad of £10 notes. She politely asks him if he is married and he replies yes, just recently. The cashier feels guilty about making assumptions but hands him back his change and wishes him a good day as he exits the store.

Unseen commentary extract

It was a cold and gloomy winter night in a ghetto neighbourhood of Paris; the canal was frozen and the streets were completely empty with the exception of the odd shadows walking past. Damian was sitting at a cafe terrace with his friend, Ballantine. They were chugging down mouthfuls of Kronenbourg’s and stayed at the cafe for several hours. At around one in the morning, they decided to go home. Damian got up left five euros on the table, said goodbye to Ballantine and started to make his way home with a determined but unbalanced march; he was meandering on the sidewalk.

Ballantine was too drunk to drive himself home but not drunk enough to decide to drive anyway. So he completed the bill and walked home; taking a stroll along the frozen canal. He perceived a group of people further away, standing on the bridge. They had a large stereo and were playing loud rap music. As he got closer he could distinguish five guys in their twenty’s, from Maghrebian origins. They were making a tag on the side of the bridge. As he walked past them, Ballantine threw a quick glance their way. When one of them shouted out to him he realized he shouldn’t have looked at them. Ballantine quickened his pace but the guy shouted louder, telling him to stop. The man started to run after him and he placed his hand on Ballantine’s shoulder to stop him. Ballantine was terrified and asked, in a stammering, frightened voice, “what do you want?” The man held his hand out with a fifty euro bill in it and said “you dropped your money sir.”

Unseen commentary extract

It was the beginning of the Worlds FEI Cup, an extremely important and significant event that requires months of training for both horse and rider. The three-day event involves dressage, eventing and jumping.
It was the morning of October 13th 1993, when Jane Grey approached her 17hand black eventer. It was a big morning, as both horse and rider was about to embark on one of their most momentous event of their careers. Naturally both athletes were extremely nervous, the butterflies weren’t helped when it was overheard earlier that morning that Jane was expected to have a nervous break-down and embarrass herself in front of everyone present in the stadium and national television. “Morning handsome” She whispered to Chestar, he answered with a lit whinny his eyes shinning at the sight of his beloved rider. “You ready for today?”
He blew a raspberry in response, Jane knew her partner well enough to know what he meant, it was very unlike Chestar to be blowing raspberries, and it usually meant he was unsure of something.
“Yea, me too” Jane answered simply.
It was left unspoken but both were nervous and uneasy. Jane’s hands trembled as she gently caressed Chestar’s head, he in turn was very unlike his playful self, his ears and eyes were circulating the room alertly.

It was an hour before they were making their first appearance; Jane was up in the lockers running last minute strategies through her head as she was pulling on her show jacket. The grooms were finishing with Chestar. The course was being checked by the commentators and the judges were refreshing their memories on rules and regulations. The stage was set.

10:00 am Jane Grey mounted her steed.
10:15 am, Chestar and Jane Grey left the warm up ring for the starting post.
Jane felt her heart beating in her mouth, Chestar was moving uneasily from side to side beneath her.
The starting bell sounded.

Chestar leapt with astounding power onto the course his muscles tensing and relaxing in unison and even intervals as he took on each jump with flying grace, ferocity and eagerness. Jane Grey was standing firmly on each impediment looking for the next hurdle that stood in their way, team work between the two was almost clockwork as horse and rider seem to be reading each other’s minds.
They were finally approaching the final obstacle: a six meter wide watering ditch with three ox-bow jumps towards the end. Water had always been Chestar’s best field, as his ears pricked forward and picked himself into a gallop, Jane eased her reigns to hand over control, she knew he wouldn’t let her down.

Chestar entered the water.
The cold, he flinched.
His haunches lifted.
He scooted from under Jane as he tried to dodge the sudden shock.
Jane Grey lost a stirrup she struggled to latch her foot back on as she also desperately tryied to steer Chestar into the right direction.
They made it.
First place.

Captain Corelli as a typical Italian

In the novel Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Louis De Bernieres uses stereotypes for some characters. Antonio Corelli fulfills the typical stereotype of an Italian. The stereotype of an Italian, in De Bernieres view, is being loud, musical, chivalrous, romantic, and charismatic.

Captain Corelli is described to the reader only in chapter twenty-four through the eyes of Carlo who has been the main character and is a likable character so what he says and how he describes Corelli seems to be truthful and sincere. He describes him as being dramatic and humorous as he “say things for the sake of their value as amusement, with an ironic disregard for the truth”, this shows that Corelli is easy-going and funny. Captain Corelli is described by De Bernieres as very humorous, this is shown when he orders his troops to stare at Pelagia, the “Bella bambina at nine o’clock”. She had to endure “a march-past of the most comical and grotesque antics and expressions devisable by man”; it was so funny that she had to go against her “duty to hate them” and “put her hand to her mouth” to hide that she is laughing. His humorous and entertaining character portrays an archetypal Italian.

He is also portrayed as a chivalrous man. He is very respectful and polite towards women. When he learns that he is taking Pelagia’s bed he says that it is “out of the question”. He wouldn’t have even thought of taking her bed and making her sleep somewhere else, showing that he is very gallant and well-mannered. Corelli feels guilt and “shame of having displaced a rightful owner from her own bed”. Being chivalrous and courteous is typically associated with Italians.

After Francesco’s death Carlo thought he could never love again, he was completely broken, until there he saw “a small miracle whose name was Captain Antonio Corelli”, he became Carlo’s “source of optimism”, this shows that Captain Corelli is extremely charismatic and captivating. It shows that Captain Corelli is so energetic and joyful that he manages to make Carlo come out of the breakdown that he fell into after Francesco’s death. He even “grew to love him as much as I had loved Francesco”. These qualities of being charismatic and charming are very much stereotypically attributed to Italians.

Captain Corelli is linked to music throughout the novel. Even the title ‘Captain Corelli’s Mandolin” shows that his mandolin is extremely important to him and he even names it Antonia because “it’s his other half”, suggesting that music is inside him it is half of him. The way Captain Corelli speaks about and protects his mandolin shows how much it means to him; he “clutched it tightly to his chest”. Without music he isn’t full, he isn’t his full self. He has also created “La Scala”, “a little opera club” showing that he is very musical and he pushes others to sing as well, for example, Carlo.

To conclude, Captain Antonio Corelli fills the stereotype of a typical Italian very closely. All these stereotypes that Captain Corelli fulfills aren’t bad stereotypes so I think that De Bernieres is trying to suggest that not all stereotypes of any country are bad ones. Corelli should be detested by the Greeks as it is their “duty to hate them” but he still manages to befriend them showing that even during the war, people from enemy countries could still be friends and live amongst each other. Louis De Bernieres is suggesting that people are individuals and that even someone so representative of a typical Italian can become friends with Greeks.

IOP Examples

If you want to see Mr Minford embarrassing himself on You Tube, then follow the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RztOPyosr-c

There are also 'examiner's' comments on the relative qualities of the IOP, along with a word document outline of the presentation itself. I've put these onto the student Z drive under:

Z:\Public-Students\Secondary\A1_LEARNING_RESOURCES\A3_KEYSTAGE5_IB\G1_LANGUAGES_A1\ENGLISH\YEAR_12\IOPs

Oh, and there's some stuff from Mr Pollicutt in there too.

Happy Viewing!

"O CAPTAIN! MY CAPTAIN .. CORELLI!"

Explore the ways in which the character Corelli fulfils the role of a stereotypical Italian.
Italians are usually stereotyped in a way that they have specific characteristics such as musical, charismatic, chivalrous, and romantic. However at this time, the Italian army had gained control of the Greek island Cephallonia therefore there was inevitable hatred to the Italians from the Greeks. The Italians were despised in Cephallonia as they were seen as low lives - 'who hiss when I [Pelagia] walk by, or try to pinch my backside' - however ever though Captain Corelli indeed fulfils the role of a stereotypical Italian, he is not represented as a low life under any circumstance.

Even before Corelli made consecutive appearances in the book he is described by others to be 'charming' as one of his most essential traits is his charismatic flair. Pelagia who is still in the ruins of her "love" for Mandras and the daughter of a doctor who initially dislikes Italians continuously tries to convince herself to dislike Corelli. She mentions that she can poison this Italian any time she wants or shoot her easily as he is living in her house however we then learn that she falls madly in love with Corelli. This is all due to the fact that Corelli wins her over with his stereotypical trait of being charismatic. Corelli learns how to say "good morning" to Pelagia which makes her smile as he leaves the room and he has conversations with her about what she wants to be or music and in his humourous and chivalrous manner, she then falls madly in love with him. Corelli often makes her laugh or teases her such as saying he wanted to kill his mother because she dropped his mandolin or that she has greasy fingers. In chapter 16, Corelli examines the vest that Pelagia made, and then beings to talk about symmetry and the beauty of something not being symmetrical. He then talks about "it is these things [imperfections, unsymmetrical features] that make you [Pelagia] attractive and beautiful". I found that this was a romantic moment in which Corelli uses his charisma. The times where Corelli and Pelagia talk causes Pelagia's feelings for him to grow deeper which are due to his charisma which is a very Italian trait.

Corelli is also portrayed in the book as a very musical character and his choice of instrument is a mandolin. A mandolin goes back very far in time where the Italians developed it making it an Italian choice of instrument. Corelli plays his mandolin which almost serenades Pelagia as she gets lost in the beauty of it. Corelli also uses music in the army section of his life, when meeting Weber on the beach he labels his men with ranks of semi quavers and breves etc. This shows that music branches out throughout his life, Corelli also tells Pelagia that he wants to be a musician later on in life even though he's inevitably be poor, he would still be happy.
Some of De Bernieres' most beautiful descriptions in the book is of Pelagia listening and admiring Corelli's playing of the mandolin which forces the reader to fall in love with Corelli as well! This strong musical trait is also fit into the Italian stereotype and instead of being this violent murdering Italian in the war he is said to have "won battles with nothing but a mandolin"

A stereotypical Italian is thought to be loud however Corelli fulfils this stereotype however not in the negative connotation of being loud. Corelli is loud in the sense that he is confident and talks often, in the sense that his mandolin wakes Pelagia up, in the sense that Carlo talks of him telling stories to lots of people however he is not loud in the sense that it could be negatively put as obnoxiously loud or other negative perspectives. So this is Corelli furthering his fulfilment to the Italian stereotype in a somewhat positive manner.

One of things most known to others is Italy's family values due their religion, and Corelli shows these values through his respect to the doctor for appropriate space from his daughter at times, respecting his concerns. Carlo also when describing Corelli said that "he [Corelli] adored children, and I saw him kiss a little girl on the head and whirl her in his arms". Captain Corell, in chapter 31, sits at a table trying to sort out family problems of his soldiers which show that he has important values and morals. When offered Pelagia's bed, Corelli refuses as he does not want to put her out even when he is suffering from a sickness, this shows his morals where he is shown to be an upright upstanding man. This enforces the idea that he is a "Good Italian" to the Greeks as Weber is a "Good Nazi"

De Bernieres bought Corelli so late in the book but the effect of Corelli's presence in the book signifies alot. Pelagia's father says that it is the Greeks' "duty to hate them" however De Bernieres including him as a character in the book creates a rift for Pelagia. Stereotypes are commonly mentioned in the bad way where "the English are arrogant", "the French are frogs" and many others however Corelli enforces the Italian stereotype by being such a musical, charismatic, chivalrous and romantic character, all of which is not negative. The reader would think that if a character were to possess the characteristics of a stereotypical Italian then the Greeks would unwaveringly detest him. However De Bernieres uses Corelli to show that not all the stereotypes have to insinuate flaws in a person (and people from their country) but it can create a man so charming and impossible to detest in the book. It is the Greeks' "duty to hate them" as they had occupied the Greek island of Cellaphonia yet Corelli wins them over with his mandolin playing, his values and his charisma. De Bernieres includes him in the book to show that even in the time of war, where stereotypes are enforced more to insult one another, someone comes along fitting exactly to the stereotype and is still loved by many. Therefore De Bernieres could be giving the message that stereotypes don't always have to connote a bad thing.

Corelli, stereotypical Italian.

In the novel, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, de Bernieres creates the character Corelli as a stereotypical Italian. It is shown through the way de Berneires describes Corelli’s characteristic through the eyes of the other people around him, as well as through Corelli own feeling and thoughts. De Bernieres uses the symbol of music, such as the mandolin, in Corelli’s life to emphasise the charismatic of an Italian in him. De Berneires creates such a character to questioning the stereotypical of nationalities that the society views on people during the time of war.

De Bernieres describes Corelli through the uses of vivid imagery from the point of view of people around him, such as Carlo to show that he is quite dramatic. In the chapter, A most ungracious surrender, through Carlo point of view “he was prone to dramatic in the telling of the story because everything about him was original, he was always larger than his circumstance, and he would say things for the sake of their value as amusement, with an ironic disregard for the truth.” this long and detailed sentence is clearly shown the characteristic, de Bernieres suggests to the reader that the image of Corelli is someone more carefree and quite charming in a way. De Bernieres seems to be attached to Corelli’s speaking and action the words “dramatic”, such as “the captain fell to his knee before her and exclaimed dramatically, ‘Please don’t kill me, I am innocent’” as though he wants to exaggerate the movement Corelli makes. This shows that the way he acts and speak is very exaggerate and bizarre which makes him quite charismatic.

De Bernieres shows that he is chivalrous, through the way he acts toward a situation. In the chapter, The Great Big Spiky Rustball, “‘It’s too close’ persisted the engineer, ‘the shock wave will pass straight through this hole and suck your eyes and brains out,… ‘it was a real sporcaccione of an explosion,’ said Carlo ‘absolutely better than anything I’ve ever seen.’” in this passage Corelli bravely discharge a mines by blowing it up, the danger of the situation can make the reader to see that Corelli is quite mad to do such a thing. However, this shows that he has bravery to spare. That he is not afraid to dead. Another example of chivalry is in the chapter, A Good Nazis (2), “‘Let’s sing boys,’ said Antonio Corelli as the truck they were in lurched from one rut to another… ‘Let’s sing, boys,’ he repeated, ‘Carlo, sing’” at this point every soldier are in sorrow as they where about to be sentence to dead, however Corelli in this sorrow he comforted the soldiers this can show that he is chivalrous in this kind of situation. In different kind of situation, Corelli shows the chivalrous face of an Italian.

De Bernieres uses the mandolin and music in general, as the symbol to show the charismatic in Corelli. In the chapter, La scala, “The man’s mad, and he’s a wop. But he’s got nightingales in his fingers.” this is the remarks from Kokolios as he heard Corelli’s mandolin, this shows that Corelli is quite a good musician and people admired him for that even though his action is strange to some people. The image of “nightingales” gives a smooth and relaxing picture of how Corelli’s fingers moved. furthermore, music can also shows his charismatic as music as what attract attention, Pelegia notice him for the first time was through his music. As well as, “My first experience of La Scala was hearing the Anvil Chorus…conducting the concert with the aid of a feather in his right hand” Carlo first meeting with Corelli was through the song he heard from the La Scala, which emphasise that music bring people together as it brought Carlo to Corelli.

De Bernieres create Corelli in such a way to question the people stereotypical view during the time of war. Corelli, an Italian captain, in the view of people in Cephallonia is a person they need to be detested and hated. However, through the way de Bernieres put the Italian in Corelli act toward the people in Cephallonia they begin to like him. Pelegia, who suppose to treat him like enemy had fall in love with him. Dr. Iannis detest every part of Corelli agreed for him and Pelegia to get married. Even Kokolios like the music Corelli makes.

Explore the ways in which the character Corelli fulfils the role of a stereotypical Italian.

In the novel of Captain Corelli’s mandolin, the character of Corelli is portrayed as a person who possesses stereotypical characteristics of an Italian, whom is very musical and chivalrous.

Though the title of the novel is Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, the character of Corelli is not introduced officially till a third of the book in chapter 24 ‘A Most Ungracious Surrender’. He is introduced by Carlo, who has been the main character throughout the earlier chapters, where the story chapters will alternate and always link back to Carlo. Now he is introducing the captain, and from his view the reader is told that Corelli is a very humorous person, being the captain of a battery who makes a “mockery of everything soldierly.” Having formed the “La Scala” which is an opera club that “shat together there at the same time every morning” shows that Corelli is a keen musician as well who enjoys music and is very passionate about it, which is another stereotypical characteristic of an Italian being musical, where famous composers like Antonio Vivaldi, composer of the Four Seasons is from. Carlo’s loss of Francesco left a huge impact on him, but after encountering Corelli, he has “grew to love him as much as I had loved Francesco”, also shows another stereotypical characteristic of an Italian that Corelli possesses, being very charismatic.

The way De Bernieres has structured his chapters can be seen as being very symbolic as well. Before ‘A Most Ungracious Surrender’, was the chapter ‘April 30^th 1941’, the highlight of the latter chapter was the mood, where Mandras was now “demanding” Pelagia to read the letters she wrote which was making her change her feelings for him which “grown first to pity and then to hate” . This makes the mood very dull and sad. However in the next chapter where Corelli is introduced, the mood of the novel suddenly changes and it feels bright, happy and free, as the reader is told of the humorous actions that Corelli does. So the structure is symbolic as it seems to represent that Corelli has been introduced now after the many disasters that has happened like the death of Francesco whom is Carlo’s love and also the tension between Mandras and Pelagia, making him as though a hero coming out all of a sudden in the novel, where he is the main character that every reader has been awaiting for. So through the chapters being symbolic, De Bernieres has shown the stereotypical characteristic of being a brave Italian in that Corelli is emerging as a hero. A key stereotypical characteristic of an Italian is being very musical, and Corelli and his mandolin represents the heart of Italy very clearly, the way Corelli talks about his mandolin and the way he looks after it seems as though that it is his life. He is bold when he talks about his mandolin. The way he is so protective of his mandolin, not allowing anyone including Pelagia to touch as he “clutched it tightly to his chest” supports this. Hence, the reader can see more stereotypical characteristics of an Italian through Corelli being very musical and bold.

In my opinion, I think that De Bernieres has included the stereotypical character of an Italian who is Corelli in this case as this allows a reader to maybe relate more to a fictional character. De Bernieres is not biased on his view of an Italian, and so he shows the good and bad stereotypes of an Italian through the character of Corelli. With these characteristics, a reader can agree more with their actions which makes the novel more interesting for the reader.

Explore the ways in which the character Corelli fulfils the role of a stereotypical Italian

Louis de Bernières uses stereotypic characters throughout the novel for many different reasons. Captain Corelli is arguably a stereotypical Italian character. Louis de Bernières uses Captain Corelli to show how war makes us judge people stereotypically and that this prejudice creates misunderstandings that can be consequential.
In Louis de Bernières’ perspective the Italians are hated by the Greeks, musical, chivalrous, charismatic, humorous, charming, and loud and likes to party. This is a universally accepted stereotypical characteristic of an Italian. When Captain Corelli is first introduced in the novel it is almost half way through the story. He instructs his whole battery to salute towards Palegia and makes it humorous like a stereotypical Italian would. This moment was described to be so hilarious that Palegia had to “endure a march-past of the most comical and grotesque antics and expressions devisable by man”. From this we can see that Corelli is flirting with Palegia and in a humorous manner. However, in the viewpoint of the Greeks, a stereotypical Italian was a threat to them and an enemy therefore Palegia “endures” the humor so that she doesn’t laugh or smile in the crowd. When she accidentally smiles she “puts her hand to her mouth” and the doctor tells her that “it is (the Greeks) duty to hate them”. Corelli is obviously a funny man who likes to flirt with girls but the stereotypical judgment from the Greeks make him the opposite, who is a man who makes Palegia guilty for smiling.
Carlo describes him to be charismatic, humorous and that he enjoys singings, which are all aspects of a stereotypical Italian. He is described in this manner because Carlo shows feelings towards him and thus giving an optimistic view of him. He would “make pretty women giggle by snapping his heels together and saluting them” this is charismatic because he does this to Palegia who laughs without her will. His humor isn’t “prevented (from) fragile self-pride” and he would “say things for the sake of their value of amusement”. On top of that he fulfills the role of a stereotypical Italian by singing, his battery called the “La Scala” gave the first experience to Carlo of them singing the “Anvil Chorus at 7.30am”. The way it is at a precise time suggests that it is almost their duty to sing at this time and thus showing the importance of music for this battery.
Corelli also fulfills the chivalrous aspect of being a stereotypical Italian by trying to give Palegia her own bed and suggesting that he sleeps somewhere else. He says “its out of the question” after he finds out that he is taking her bed. He is appalled by the idea. But the Doctors stereotypical view of Corelli suggests to him that he is trying to interrupt his trade of medical supplies with the quartermaster, furthermore that he is insulting the Greek manner of hospitality. Corelli wakes up every morning feeling “guilt” for sleeping in Palegia’s bed. At one point when he woke up and saw Palegia still asleep in the kitchen he didn’t want to “embarrass” her by seeing her in her night clothes, nor wake her up from her sleep and he didn’t want to be reminded of the “shame of having displaced a rightful owner from her own bed”. This shows how much he cares for her in a chivalrous manner from just seeing her in bed.
Corelli also likes to play with children and so he was playing with Lemoni by throwing her up and down in the air by the armpits. “The child was whooping and laughing”. Even Palegia “smiled as she watched”. But she sent Lemoni away because of “fraternization”. She believes that getting friendly with an enemy is “indecent” even for a child like Lemoni. This shows how the stereotypical judgment of Corelli is changing his loveable and caring way of him playing with children into a “fraternization” with little children.
Corelli wants to learn how to greet people in Greek and so he asks the doctor how to say it. The doctor tells him that he has to say “Kalimera” and “Ai gamisou”. So he goes to Palegia and says it but doesn’t get any response while he says it to others they “spit into the dust” or “scowled darkly”. This is because he was actually swearing at them and saying “Go fuck yourself” and “Son of a whore” and he was making a fool of himself. This shows how Corelli is actually trying to be nice but is misunderstood because he is given the wrong translation and thus thought to be a rude and vulgar mannered stereotypical Italian to those he said that to.
Louis de Bernières makes Corelli a character that plays the optimistic roles of a stereotypical Italian so that she can show how the war consequentially makes Corelli stereotypically misjudged in a prejudice manner by the Greeks and is thought to be rather a rude, vulgar, and insulting. Louis de Bernières tries to show how the war makes people stereotypically misjudge others just because they are the enemy.

Corelli fulfuling his role as a stereotypical Italian

Antonio Corelli is an Italian captain that is chivalrous, musical and bold. Always looking on the bright side of life and is an inspiration to his men in the army. De Bernieres had chosen to stereotype Antonio Corelli in this manner to convey a series of different connotations and messages to us, the reader.

Although de Bernieres’s novel was named ‘Captain Corelli’s Mandolin’, it wasn’t until chapter 24 was the captain introduced to the reader. To achieve this, de Bernieres had chosen to present Corelli through the eyes of Carlo, as the reader knows Carlo has been the only character to express any intimate emotion or explain and so explicitly describe his feelings, and up to this point Carlo had been a tragic figure, who gains the sympathy and liking of the reader. To use Carlo to introduce Captain Corelli, de Bernieres had been able to achieve a “handing-over-of-the-spotlight” effect; where one significant character is stepping out of the reader’s attention for another. Corelli was first introduced as “a small miracle” and “my source of optimism, a clear fountain, a kind of saint who had no repellent taste of piety…” all illustrating to the reader an uplifting and chivalrous character, who looks on the bright side of life and always making those around him comfortable and happy. This very much is a stereotype of Italians, for they have been said to be gallant, dynamic and, at the same time, respectful.

Another interesting point made by de Bernieres is when he had written Corelli to be a musician. Italians are notorious for being musical and romantic. Antonio Corelli had been used to depict this stereotype as a mandolin player; he had used his music to charm and woe Pelagia “…followed the rhetorical question with the same two notes, ritardando, played four quaver chords, then a bar which disrupted one’s expectations by the introduction of a rest and a pair of semi-quavers, and very shortly broke into cascades of chorded and unchorded semiquavers that left Pelagia open-mouthed.” And with this quotation, displayed his charisma and flamboyant attitude. Corelli’s music had also been the source of unification, either it be the boys in ‘La Scala’; bringing people together in times of harsh realities as well as helping them look on the bright side of life; that war shouldn’t bring a person’s spirits down “singing their hearts out, hammering at their steel helmets with spoons.” Or entertaining those around him “That evening the doctor himself demanded a concert, and he and Pelagia found themselves outdoors whilst the captain spread a sheet of music upon the table…” showing that Corelli has managed to fulfil his role as a typical Italian as being loud, bold and, to an extent, heroic.

Corelli had also depicted a dedicated, charming and brave soldier; de Bernieres had allowed Antonio Corelli to carry out this role fulfilment when, being a courageous character that he is, had risked his own life in the place of his division to blow up the mine himself while everyone was ordered to safety “‘…so when the time comes I want you all to go back to the top of the cliff and watch from there, because otherwise there would be a serious accidental massacre.’”. This again shows charisma and optimism; that in times of danger Corelli had not backed down nor appear cynical. This further emphasises the role fulfilment of an Italian. A person usually said to be strong-willed and valiant.

Of all of the above, when it comes to role fulfilment, Corelli best of all, fulfils a caring and insightful person; “‘Tell Lemoni that if she ever finds anything, anywhere, that is made of metal and she doesn’t know what it is, then she mustn’t ever, ever, touch it, and she’s got to run and [tell me] it straight away...” Here, Corelli is concerned for the well-being of those in Cephallonia, a trait not usually associated with when someone had been named an ‘invader’. The contradiction here would have only been made possible through the use of stereotype; this is a clear example to one of the reasons why de Bernieres had chosen to use stereotype quite frequently throughout the novel; to allow the reader to make their own assumptions and realise the irony in his work.

An additional point made by de Bernieres to illustrate a more vivid portrait of a “typical Italian” was the use of Antonio’s dialogue. The manner in which Corelli speaks and presents himself is very bold, confident and out right, “The captain sprang to his feet. ‘I am Captain Antonio Corelli, but you may call me maestro if you wish, and this…’ he took Carlo by the arm ‘…is one of our heroes. He has a hundred medals for saving life, and non for taking it.’” This quotation signifies poise a very strong association with Italians. Corelli is also polite and endearing, “In addition he did not want to cause her any [embarrassment] that might arise from being in his presence in her night clothes…” showing that Corelli is distinguished and respectful, that he knows etiquette which thence relates to a gentlemen.

To conclude, de Bernieres had chosen to present Captain Antonio Corelli in this approach because it allows the reader to have a closer and more personal relationship with the character. Throughout his novel, de Bernieres had used stereotype frequently, and all achieving different effects. The chivalrous and boisterous stance of Corelli allows a more vivid image of the character, bringing him more to life. As well as allowing de Bernieres the leverage for irony and humour, making the novel more engaging.

THE COMPARISON OF CARLO + MANDRAS

In Captain Corelli's Mandolin, De Bernieres creates two characters who both suffer the disaster of war and the consequences it has on love and other aspects of their life. However both characters contrast through their different opinions and attitudes to war and they both react differently to how war affects them.
On first look, both characters join war for different reasons. Carlo joins war to find love, this looks into the theme of "Love Between Men". This theme was introduced to war as a platonic love between men, that the love between men should strictly be due to the union of cooperating and working hard together in war. Carlo joining the war creates a tear in this statement. Carlo wants to be accepted into society therefore joins the war in the hope that he won't feel as isolated as he states in his L'Omosessuales. This creates irony in the fact that he tries to fit in with an army that is supposed to be enforcing this strict platonic love between men.
As for Mandras, he joins the war in thinking of Pelagia, his love. He doesn't want Pelagia to see him as nothing but a fisherman so he joins to prove to her that he is more than that. He wants to prove his courage and bravery for his country in order to show Pelagia the man that she is in love with is not just a fisherman. The motives for joining war between these two characters are different as for Carlo it is in search for love and for Mandras it is for love that he already has. However the similarity is that their motives are both to do with love.
The manner in which the two different characters express their love is also very different as Carlo's expressing of his love to Francesco is through these beautifully poetic letters however Mandras is not as emotional and sensitive as Carlo in expressing his "love" for Pelagia. The similarity between both character's loves is that both their loves seem more like lust than the true and meaningful amplitude of love itself. It is more obvious in Mandras' case as him and Pelagia's love deteriorates easily and there is alot of watching from a distance when Mandras appears. In Carlo's love for Francesco, I take from his admirations that it is lust over love. Carlo's admiration of Francesco consists of alot of descriptions about his appearance rather than something true and real.
The impact on the characters after war are also very different. For Carlo it appears to have benefited him since he joined war trying to find a place and leaves war being more strong and confident and comfortable with himself. In war, Carlo had lost his loved one and suffers tramatically from it however his manner in dealing with it is very different from Mandras' manner when he returns from war. Both characters were left feeling tortured due to war however Mandras deals with this by acting pathetic and cruel at some points. Carlo is presented through his letters which inevitably allows the reader to feel deep sympathy for him as we see him as an emotional tortured yet inspiring character. However with Mandras' attitude towards Pelagia, we form a more disgusted view of Mandras' suffering. Both characters and similar in the sense that they both lost love in some sense in front of their eyes. In Carlo's case, he lost his love obviously in front of his eyes as Francesco dies right in front of him. And in Mandras' case, his love deteriorates right in front of him with the barriers of communication with Pelagia.
Although they suffer different experiences, they both have their own similarities but there is a great contrast between both characters which evokes different reactions from the readers to the different characters.

Comparison of Carlo and Mandras

Louis de Bernières presents the two characters Carlo and Mandras to be similar with their ways of affection, reason for war, affects of war and motivation for war; however both characters also show some differences. Louis de Bernières presents this carefully throughout the novel of CCM.
Mandras’ way of visualizing the purpose of war for his personal benefit is very different to Carlos. Mandras views war as a way to act honorably with dignity and those men who follows that path is given the righteous respect from its people. He says that he will “walk with (his) head held high” and that everyone will say “that’s Mandras who fought for his country” this shows how he wants to get acknowledged and gain respect from his people. On the other hand Carlo view’s the war as a place where homosexuality proves to be an advantage. He believes in “Phaedras” which was a state of the soldiers in the army being in love with one another and thus being a strong army that would die for one another.
These views of the war affect their reason to join the army in the first place. Carlo joined the army to see all the “young and beautiful” men and for “love”. His view of “phaedras” made him join the army. Mandras joined the army to gain respect and honor.
The thing that motivates the both of them throughout the war is their affection for the people they love. Mandras is motivated by Palegia and Carlo is motivated by Francesco. Mandras describes how he fights for his home and that “Palegia is (his) home” which makes Palegia sound extremely significant and as though she is Greece itself. Carlo gives the reader a sense that he would die for the person he loves in war as he explain the theory behind “phaedras”. Although he didn’t save Francesco he did save Captain Corelli later on in the novel which shows the same striving motivation between the two characters.
Louis de Bernières presents the idea that war makes us lose things that are important to us. To the two characters, Carlo and Mandras, they both had very important people to them. For Carlo it was Francesco who literally died and could not be saved. He died in the war which shows how Carlo lost somebody important to him. We saw how tragic this is with the chapter that used a lot of juxtaposition to emphasise the tragedy, in chapter 19 “L’Omosessuale (6)”. For Mandras he lost Palegia who stopped loving him when he didn’t write back to her letters. In one of the letters she writes “all I feel now is emptiness” this is emphasized when she uses the word “overflowing” to describe her feelings that she used to have. The two words are a complete opposite.
The fact that they both lost the people they love is suggested through the description of their affection because it suggests that it is more lustful rather than a deeply meaningful love. Louis de Bernières uses language in describing the affection between Mandras and Palegia to be similar to the affection between Carlo and Francesco. Both are compared to being an animal. Francesco as a cat and Mandras as a dolphin. Both animals represent a harmless and friendly creature but we can also view this to describe the distant between the human Carlo and the cat-like Francesco or the human Palegia and the dolphin-like Mandras. The description for both of the characters seems lustful. Carlo talks of the muscle line and “parallel” muscle structures, parallel suggesting perfection without and fault. Palegia sees the “one with the sea” like body structure and describes it to be “sleek”.
Later on in the novel the description of Francesco and Mandras still shows form of similarity but they both changed description from the first lustful appearance. Francesco is said to have “deliberately shat himself” the word “deliberately” is a way that a savage thinks especially when it’s about excreting. Mandras is also described to have “shat himself” when a bomb exploded near him. This gives us an uncourageous image of Mandras. They are also described with very similar appearances such as the overgrown facial hair, lice in the hair and smelling really horrible.
The level of sympathy that the two characters get is also different to an extent. Carlo is given deep sympathy through his letters that are followed through by the chapters of “L’Omosessuale” The letters describes his childhood to be as if “concealing leprosy” which gives us a gruesome imagery of a skin disease to replace homosexuality. The letters describe a lot about Carlo which makes us feel sympathetic towards him. For Mandras we don’t feel as sympathetic. Father Arsenios defines him as having a mental illness and says that he should be “sent to a madhouse”. Mandras also humiliates Palegia by making her read the letters. However there are chapters that describes Mandras’ viewpoint of things. He explains how he can’t read.
There are similarities and differences when comparing the two characters. Both characters are affected deeply by their affection and war. These affects make the two characters at some point similar but at others completely different. But Louis de Bernières presents both of the characters tragic characters.

Carlo and Mandras, similarities and differences

In the novel, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, the characters Carlo and Mandras have some similarities and differences. It is shown in the way de Bernieres shows the reason they join the war, Carlo is to find love within the Army and he found Francesco and Mandras is to love Pelagia. De Bernieres shows how they are changed in the course of war, Carlo through the lost of Francesco and Mandras is losing himself from the horrible experiences of war. As well as how de Bernieres portrays Carlo and Mandras through his writing, which this emphasises the stated points.

Their reason of joining the war is not for a greater good for their country. It is connected to the theme of love. Carlo reasons to joins the war is to find love in the Army in which he hopes he obtained a pure way of loving someone, and he found Francesco. De Bernieres Carlo loves toward Francesco through Carlo poetical description of the beauty of Francesco, “he was like one of those elegant, lanky cat” these flowing words create a simile to show how slender and healthy Francesco is. Different to Mandras, he joins the war to show to the people that he can be important and he wants the acceptation from Pelagia and the doctor, so that Mandras is worthy to love Pelagia. Their reason to join the war is different, but it is similar in the way that both of them are seeking and wanting to gain something in the war that can satisfy their love to someone.

The war brings both of them sorrow. Carlo loses Francesco, this show Carlo’s love to Francesco as well as emphasise the tragedies of war toward Carlo. Carlo is heart broking and grieved as the consequence of war. However, he is still sane and powerful. Contrast to Carlo, Mandras becomes unbearably mad in a sort of way; he is the ‘shadow’ of his former self. This clearly shows through the different images that de Bernieres delivered before and after the battle at Arsernos. Before the war, Mandras is shown as “a man like Adam” a simile de Bernieres creates to show that Mandras has the pure beautiful handsomeness like Adam, which is god perfect view of man. After the battle, he is described as “a most horrible and wild” which is an image of complete savagery that possibly shone in a man. These contrast images shows the downfall of Mandras through the course of war, which is damaging him far physically than Carlo.

It is different how their love is answered. Carlo confessed to Francesco at the last moment of Francesco’s life. In someway Francesco accepted Carlo loves but he is unable to gives it back as obviously he is dying. However, Carlo is content that the man he loves knows that he love him even though Francesco is unable to give it back. Compare to Carlo, the love between Mandras and Pelagia is clearly shows that it is fading. Pelagia’s love to Mandras is different which clearly shows through the length of the letters that she wrote to him without reply. As well as with the new personality, Mandras is quite disturbing and somehow mad that turned Pelagia’s love into pity. In the end both of their love is lost but in different form. Carlo’s love is lost because Francesco is dead but it still life on in his mind. Mandras’s love to Pelagia turned to be demanding toward Pelagia which he lost the love he once had from Pelagia.

De Bernieres ways of writing changes for different character and different situations. To shows the sorrow and the tragedies of war on to Carlo which create sympathies toward Carlo from the reader, de Bernieres conveys Carlo thoughts and feeling in form of a diary like letters. To emphasise the madness of war on Mandras and creates disgusted feeling as well as pitied from the reader onto this character, de Bernieres viewed the reader as a third person perspective that as well as through the thought and feeling of Pelagia toward Mandras. De Bernieres creates different way of viewing the characters to set a different mood as well as emotion toward that particular character. Carlo is mostly sympathy and sadness and Mandras is pitied and angered at the end.

The characters Carlo and Mandras are both different and similar. They are both victim of war and the war creates sorrowful impacts onto them. However the ways they accepted and received from these experiences are different. Carlo continues to fight so that he can die an honourable death. Mandras changes entirely different both inside and outside which later on the novel he lost his life from the dismissal of Pelagia and his own mother.

Comparing Carlo and Mandras

In the novel Captain Corelli’s Mandolin by Louis De Bernieres, Carlo and Mandras are contrasting characters. They are differentiated through their attitudes towards the war and their loved ones, through how war has affected them and through how De Bernieres presents them.

Firstly, both characters have different outlooks towards war. Carlo joined the military to find someone to love and he thinks that in the army ‘love between men’ would seem like platonic love and not homosexuality. In a way, he joins seeking acceptance by society. Mandras joined to prove to Pellagia and her father that he is worthy and brave. He wants to gain honour and respect from them and wants to show that he is more than just a fisherman so that he can marry Pellagia. They have both joined for different reasons however, a similarity between them is that they don’t join to help their country, but they join to try to be accepted.

Their attitudes towards their loved ones are very different. Carlo’s love is shown in the l’Omossesuale letters, his letters show he is a reflective and emotional character. Carlo has complete unconditional love for Francesco, even when Francesco “shits himself deliberately” and starts to lose his mind, even when Francesco’s “head had been blown away”, Carlo still loves him and “gather(s) him into (his) arms”. It shows that Carlo truly cares for Francesco whether alive or dead. In contrast to Carlo, Mandras isn’t a very emotive and caring character. Mandras and Pellagia’s love is described as lust more than love. When Pellagia first sees Mandras, she describes him as a “human dolphin” and “a man like Adam” suggesting physical perfection. She looks at him “with pleasure that was entirely aesthetic”, this clearly shows that there is no true love for Mandras, she is simply “transfixed by his beauty”. The word transfixed suggests that she is under a spell and cannot look away however her love for him is merely physical attraction. Furthermore, Mandras doesn’t care for Pellagia as much as Carlo does for Francesco. When he comes back from the war, he forces Pellagia to read the letters with an aggressive and violent attitude. He voluntarily hurts the person he says he loves.

Both men had different experiences during the war, however they were both changed by all the traumatic experiences that war throws at you. When Mandras comes back from war he is a “horrible and wild stranger” to Pellagia, showing the extent to which war can change you; he is unrecognizable. He is described by Pellagia as “quite motionless” and “fluttering and trembling” which contrasts with how she described him before the war as “one with sea, so much like fish”. It clearly shows the consequences of war on a man, it also suggests he might be shell-shocked. De Bernieres has used negative verbs to describe Mandras after the war to portray a man who is broken both physically and mentally. However, Carlo has positively been affected by war. He leaves the battlefields a stronger and more determined men. War has caused them both to lose a loved one but the reader sympathises much more for Carlo’s loss of Francesco because it was in no way his fault and he couldn’t do anything about it whereas Mandras is the one who drove Pellagia away. He was violent towards her which creates resentment towards this character, to contrast with the sympathy we have for Carlo.

De Bernieres has presented Mandras and Carlo very differently. Carlo is presented through letters in the l’Omossesuale chapters. We feel strong sympathy for Carlo as the letters talk about how he has been alienated by a narrow-minded society. De Bernieres presents Mandras as a physically beautiful character but doesn’t allow the reader to have any true emotional connection with him. The reader even feels resentment for this character as he is aggressive towards Pellagia, the women he supposedly loves. This shows how different Carlo and Mandras are.