ANTHOLOGY - BRITISH 19th CENTURY

*All evaluation poems were chosen becuase they were good examples of that poets style and therefore easier for the class to figure out based on the information and the examples we gave of the other poets.

Lesson plan:

Lord Byron


Lord Byron is widely considered to be one of the most bad ass poets (aside from Mr. Murray) to ever walk the earth. He was known around Britain as that guy you didn’t want your wife (or in some cases, husband) around. That’s right, he was bisexual. Byron’s indiscriminate promiscuity as well as deep debt is what ultimately led to him fleeing from England in 1816, never to return. He lived in Venice and Genoa before joining Greece’s struggle for independence of the Ottoman Empire. Byron was however robbed of this final act of bad-assery, falling violently ill and dieing before he could fight. Some people believe that if Byron had survived, he would have been made the king of Greece.

"The Destruction Of Sennacherib"
I
The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.
Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.

II
For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he pass'd,
And the eyes of the sleepers wax'd deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!
And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,
But through it there roll'd not the breath of his pride;
And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,
And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

III
And there lay the rider distorted and pale,
With the dew on his brow, and the rust on his mail:
And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
The lances unlifted, the trumpets unblown.
And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord
This poem was chosen because of its catchy poetic meter as well as the intresting metaphores and similies.
Evaluation poem: "She walks in beauty"*

SHE walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that 's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.
One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impair'd the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress,
Or softly lightens o'er her face;
Where thoughts serenely sweet express
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek, and o'er that brow,
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent,
A mind at peace with all below,
A heart whose love is innocent!

Lord Byron makes great use of rhyme and meter in his poem “The Destruction of Sennacherib”. He uses an AABB (Couplets) rhyming scheme and an anapestic tetrameter format. This combination makes for a poem that sounds very powerful and epic when spoken out loud. Another strategy that Byron uses in this poem is dramatic contrast. In the first 7 lines of the poem he paints a picture of valiant, proud soldiers only to have them basically destroyed for the rest of the poem. Unlike most of the poems analyzed through out this unit, “The Destruction of Sennacherib”.does not seem to have a deeper meaning at its core. Instead, this work seems to simply tell the biblical story of the Assyrian’s (King Sennacherib) attempted invasion of Israelite’s territory, only to be “Destroyed”. Ashur was the first capital of ancient Assyria as well as the name of their “Top God”.


John Clare

-Lived July 1793 – May 1864

-Grew up poor and was very malnourished which is a big reason for him being only 5ft tall

-Went to school until he was twelve

-First poem was published in 1820

-He married Patty Turner in 1820

-As mentioned before he was very malnourished from being poor and because of this he had many cycles of constant depression and became dependant on alcohol

-As his alcohol depression became greater he started to become more and more disgusted with himself

-His behavior became more and more erratic, so his wife had him admitted to Dr Allen's High Beach Private Asylum (1837 – 1841)

-During his stay he would write poetry but not as John Clare.

- At times he thought he was Byron and Shakespeare and would even re-write there works as if it was his own

-He was released shortly for a period of five months, but was admitted back into another asylum by his wife Patty as his behavior did not change and would stay there for the rest of his life

Autumn

The thistledown's flying, though the winds are all still,
On the green grass now lying, now mounting the hill,
The spring from the fountain now boils like a pot;
Through stones past the counting it bubbles red-hot.

The ground parched and cracked is like overbaked bread,
The greensward all wracked is, bents dried up and dead.
The fallow fields glitter like water indeed,
And gossamers twitter, flung from weed unto weed.

Hill-tops like hot iron glitter bright in the sun,
And the rivers we're eying burn to gold as they run;
Burning hot is the ground, liquid gold is the air;
Whoever looks round sees Eternity there.

-He uses a ryming scheme aabb

-He describes nature in great detail

- Again, like Jon’s poem Autumn doesn’t appear to have any deep meaning waiting for the reader but instead is just describing an Autumn day.

This poem was chosen because it is a prime example of Clare's writting style.

Evaluation Poem: "I am"*

I am: yet what I am none cares or knows,
My friends forsake me like a memory lost;
I am the self-consumer of my woes,
They rise and vanish in oblivious host,
Like shades in love and death's oblivion lost;
And yet I am! and live with shadows tost
Into the nothingness of scorn and noise,
Into the living sea of waking dreams,
Where there is neither sense of life nor joys,
But the vast shipwreck of my life's esteems;
And e'en the dearest--that I loved the best--
Are strange--nay, rather stranger than the rest.
I long for scenes where man has never trod;
A place where woman never smil'd or wept;
There to abide with my creator, God,
And sleep as I in childhood sweetly slept:
Untroubling and untroubled where I lie;
The grass below--above the vaulted sky.

While John Clare was admitted to the Northampton General Lunatic Asylum he wrote a series of poems. "I Am" was one of the poems that was written by John Clare during his stay. This poem is written in iambic pentameter and its doesn't follow the same rhyme scheme through out the poem. The first stanza is in "ababbb", the second stanza has and "ababcc" and the third follows the same.The first thing that came to mind as I read it was the irony in the title "I Am" as many times during his stay at the asylum he didn't really know who he was as at times he thought he was Byron and even called himself Shakespeare. The first and second stanza's tell me that being locked up in the Asylum he feels alienated from his friends and family"And e'en the dearest that I loved the bestAre strange nay, rather stranger than the rest." by saying this he says that his family and friends might as well be strangers to him as he no longer feels connected to them. The third stanza you see something that you don't see a lot of in his poems and thats God. He mentions him in his poems as if he is accepting God or even accepting death/fate that is coming to him "There to abide with my creator, God," as he knows he will be stuck in the Asylum for a long time.

Dante Rosseti

1. Full name : Dante Gabriel Rossetti

2. Born : May 12th, 1828 in London, England

3. Died : April 9th, 1882 in Kent, England

4. Brother of famous poet Christina Rossetti (One of the most important female poets of 19th century British poetry)

5. Not only a poet, but a famous painter as well:

6. Attended Kings College School

7. One of the founding fathers of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (A group of English painters, poets and critics who’s intent was to reform art)

8. Enjoyed medieval things

9. Had an obsession with exotic animals, particularly wombats. He had a pet Wombat named “Top”

10. Wife Elizabeth Siddal died after giving birth to a stillborn child. Dante buried the majority of his unpublished poems in his wife’s grave, which he later removed and published

11. Was a big fan of a drug known as chloral

12. Famous quote: "The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.”

"Sudden Light"

I have been here before,
But when or how I cannot tell:
I know the grass beyond the door,
The sweet keen smell,
The sighing sound, the lights around the shore.

You have been mine before,--
How long ago I may not know:
But just when at that swallow's soar
Your neck turn'd so,
Some veil did fall,--I knew it all of yore.

Has this been thus before?
And shall not thus time's eddying flight
Still with our lives our love restore
In death's despite,
And day and night yield one delight once more?

This poem was chosen because Dante’s choice of words really paints a picture for the reader.

Evaluation Poem: "Nuptial sleep"*

At length their long kiss severed, with sweet smart:
And as the last slow sudden drops are shed
From sparkling eaves when all the storm has fled,
So singly flagged the pulses of each heart.
Their bosoms sundered, with the opening start
Of married flowers to either side outspread
From the knit stem; yet still their mouths, burnt red,
Fawned on each other where they lay apart.

Sleep sank them lower than the tide of dreams,
And their dreams watched them sink, and slid away.
Slowly their souls swam up again, through gleams
Of watered light and dull drowned waifs of day;
Till from some wonder of new woods and streams
He woke, and wondered more: for there she lay.

First notion

The poem Sudden Light by Dante Rossetti is one that tells quite an interesting story. The poem starts off by saying: “I have been here before, But when or how I cannot tell: I know the grass beyond the door”, but this cannot truly be interpreted until the whole poem is read. I believe that this poem is telling the story of a man who has been in a particular situation before, in this case; marriage. The notion of marriage is alluded to in lines 9 and 10 by saying that: “Your neck turn’d so, Some veil did fall, - I knew it all of yore”. A veil being a clothing article that is generally worn by women, in some instances during marriage. Referring back to the opening lines of the poem, this can now be interpreted to mean that the man has been in the wedding situation before. The man has perhaps ran away the first time around, this being identified in the poem as “I know the grass beyond the door, the sweet keen smell, The sighing sound, the lights around the shore” meaning that he knows what’s beyond the doors of the building they’re in (perhaps a church) as he has fled his first marriage. The rest of the poem in this case being the man’s second shot at marriage with the same women. He goes on to state: “You have been mine before,--How long ago I may not know” this meaning that the man has been with this women before in this particular situation but he cannot recall when their last (first) wedding actually occurred. Further notions of the man running away from his first marriage are seen in the last stanza, where he states that “Has this been thus before? And shall not thus time's eddying flight” meaning that he has given a shot at marriage before and it has not been successful but this time he will not run away. The poem concludes with “Still with our lives our love restore In death's despite, And day and night yield one delight once more?” this to me indicating that once again their love is restored, they will give marriage another shot and live day and night with each other until death do them part.


Second notion

The second interpretation I have conjured up is similar to the first. Similar in the sense that they both embody the overall theme of marriage. In this case, I believe that the poem is telling the story of a couple renewing their wedding vows, and the reader is seeing it through the perspective of the man. The man recalling that he has “been here before, but when or how he cannot tell” meaning that it’s been so long since he has truly been with his wife, the spark was gone but it is now re-lit. I believe the title of the poem “Sudden Light” is quite relevant to this certain interpretation. The “light” in this case being the spark that is being re-ignited in the relationship between the husband and wife and the man is seeing this as he is looking at his wife and he is ready to spend the rest of his life with her. The poem concludes with “Has this been thus before? And shall not thus time's eddying flight Still with our lives our love restoreIn death's despite, And day and night yield one delight once more?” Meaning that yes, they have been in this marriage situation before but now they’re there to restore the love they have for themselves and they are going to live the rest of their lives happily.

Jane Taylor

-Jane Taylor was born on September 23rd, 1783 and died of breast cancer on April 13th 1824 at the age of 40.

-Both her and her sister were poets which resulted in confusion in a lot of their authorship among people

-Jane’s most famous work was “Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star,” written when she was 23.

-She also wrote poems like “Come and play in the Garden” and “The Orphan”

-Not only was she a poet but she was also a hymn writer and a children’s author.

-Fun fact: It was rumoured that a character on start trek was supposed to represent Jane Taylor.

The Spider

Oh, look at that great ugly spider!" said Ann;
And screaming, she brush'd it away with her fan;
"'Tis a frightful black creature as ever can be,
I wish that it would not come crawling on me. "

"Indeed," said her mother, "I'll venture to say,
The poor thing will try to keep out of your way;
For after the fright, and the fall, and the pain,
It has much more occasion than you to complain.

"But why should you dread the poor insect, my dear?
If it hurt you, there'd be some excuse for your fear;
But its little black legs, as it hurried away,
Did but tickle your arm, as they went, I dare say.

-Has a specific rhyming scheme of aa, bb, cc, dd… etc.

- Jane may have written this about her and her sisters childhood possibly

- Memory of her mother and sister

- The main theme is a life lesson (possibly one she learned when she was young).

- She wrote the poem in a way that it seems like a story to the reader

- It becomes obvious that this is her writing it because it exaggerates her style of writing and it almost seems like a nursery story


Evaluation poem: "Come play in the Garden"*

LITTLE sister,
come away,
And let us in the garden play,
For it is a pleasant day.
On the grass-plat let us sit,
Or, if you please,
we'll play a bit,
And run about all over it.
But the fruit we will not pick,
For that would be a naughty trick,
And very likely make us sick.
Nor will we pluck the pretty flowers
That grow about the beds and bowers,
Because you know they are not ours.
We'll take the daisies, white and red,
Because mamma has often said
That we may gather then instead.
And much I hope we always may
Our very dear mamma obey,
And mind whatever she may say.

I AM Analysis

I am: yet what I am none cares or knows,
My friends forsake me like a memory lost;
I am the self-consumer of my woes,
They rise and vanish in oblivious host,
Like shades in love and death's oblivion lost;
And yet I am! and live with shadows tost

Into the nothingness of scorn and noise,
Into the living sea of waking dreams,
Where there is neither sense of life nor joys,
But the vast shipwreck of my life's esteems;
And e'en the dearest--that I loved the best--
Are strange--nay, rather stranger than the rest.

I long for scenes where man has never trod;
A place where woman never smil'd or wept;
There to abide with my creator, God,
And sleep as I in childhood sweetly slept:
Untroubling and untroubled where I lie;
The grass below--above the vaulted sky.


While John Clare was admitted to the Northampton General Lunatic Asylum he wrote a series of poems. "I Am" was one of the poems that was written by John Clare during his stay.

This poem is written in iambic pentameter and its doesn't follow the same rhyme scheme through out the poem. The first stanza is in "ababbb", the second stanza has and "ababcc" and the third follows the same.

The first thing that came to mind as I read it was the irony in the title "I Am" as many times during his stay at the asylum he didn't really know who he was as at times he thought he was Byron and even called himself Shakespeare.

The first and second stanza's tell me that being locked up in the Asylum he feels alienated from his friends and family"And e'en the dearest that I loved the best
Are strange nay, rather stranger than the rest." by saying this he says that his family and friends might as well be strangers to him as he no longer feels connected to them. The third stanza you see something that you don't see a lot of in his poems and thats God. He mentions him in his poems as if he is accepting God or even accepting death/fate that is coming to him "There to abide with my creator, God," as he knows he will be stuck in the Asylum for a long time.

I chose this poem just because it goes against a lot of the poems he had written before and it really says a lot about the effect that the time in the Asylum has had on him when you compare his old poetry to "I Am".

My Argument

Unlike all of the other characters in Shakespears "hamlet" who develop and grow through the course of the play, Gertrude continues to act selfishly and puts her own needs before the needs of others, even if it meant that she betrays Hamlet in the process. Whether or not it be her questionable marriage to Claudius, forcing Hamlet to accept him as a father, and her betrayal of Hamlet to the king after Hamlet sees the ghost of his father are all acts of selfishness and betrayal.

After Hamlet sees the ghost when he visits with Gertrude and she cant see the ghost, she concludes that Hamlet has gone insane. Hamlet put his trust into his mother hoping thats she would understand his vision of his father but instead she was too scared for her own life because of what he did to Polonius, Gertrude asks hamlet what she should do and agrees with him :

"be thou assured, if words be made of breath,/ and breath of life, i have no life to breath/ what though hast said to me" (III,iv,198-201)

Shortly after she confesses what Hamlet does to the king everything she promised Hamlet she would not :

"Mad as the sea and wind when both contended/ which is the mightier. In lawless fit,/ Behind the arras hearing something stir,/ Whips out his rapier, cries, "a rat, a rat"/ And his brainish apprehension kills/ the unseen good old man," (IV,i,7-12)

She knows the feelings of hate Hamlet shares towards his uncle are strong and yet she doesn't seem to be moved by his actions. So as Adam had mentioned earlier about the types of betrayal in novels there are many cases of all 3 committed by Gertrude.

- She tricks Hamlet into thinking she was on his side
- As a literary device it changes the plot of the story a lot as the king now knows Hamlets onto him and Hamlet is able to kill to get what he wants
- She goes against the norm by betraying her own son by calling him crazy even though she knew that the consequences were not going to be good for Hamlet, by doing this she shows that she has almost no love for Hamlet. As professor Osho said "with out trust love is not possible" since she obviously does not love him she doesn't trust him and by doing so she betrays him.

DEBATE: MILLERS DEFFINITION

On Thursday December 11, 2008, in room 204 a debate was held as to determine whether Miller’s definition of a modern tragedy is or is not appropriate to the modern age. The affirmative team was Dawson, Justin and Ben. They were against a team made of Stephanie B, Stephanie M and Rebecca. The judges for this debate were Seth, Colton and Logan.

The affirmative side started their debate by stating what you must have for a novel to be a tragedy. The negative side started their debate with research based on Aristotle’s definition of a tragic character. Stephanie brought up how Millar’s definition of tragedy applied more to Shakespearean times than anything else.

Both rebuttals seemed very week as no real information was presented as both teams seemed only interested in attacking on another.

The second round of arguments seemed fairly week as well. There was a lack research done by both teams and it seemed to be that the work load was left up to Sweeny and Stephanie B. Stephanie B kept carrying her team and Justin seemed only interested in attacking the other team based on the fact that they are all blond women.

The free for all was one to remember. It was a non stop bashing of women’s rights by the negative side, and the repercussions of this can and will probably be seen some time in May at prom. Because of this, Boucher had enough and it seemed to be an all out war between her and Sweeny.

But luckily for Stephanie and her team they won in favor of their opponents. In a debate that had much promise to be as much intellectual as educational lead to be an all out battle of the sex’s.

DEBATE: WAS HAMLET CRAZZY

It was Friday December 12, 2008, in Room 204 where a debate was held to find out whether or not Hamlet was crazy. Judges Nick, Yan, and Jennifer Ross overlooked the debate to ensure total chaos would not ensue. Arguing that Hamlet was in fact mentally insane were Ilayda, Mary and Michaela. Those people that were responsible for arguing that Hamlet was not crazy were Kelsey, Melissa and Jess.

The affirmative side opened up with Mary rambling on about why Hamlet was insane and listed all the different circumstances that would cause his change in mental state. The Negative side opened up saying that all the circumstances that they are describing are taken out of context of the story, thus saying Mary has no idea what she’s talking about and miss-understood the books meaning.

The rebuttals from both teams were very well done and you can tell it would be a very close debate as both teams researched plenty of information. Both teams brought up very good counter arguments.

The free for all lived up to its reputation. As one member of the crowed got into one of the Affirmatives faces, she got a little angry and said some things that may or may not be appropriate, so she will go unnamed…Mary. It was obvious that the crowd was in favor of the Negative side.

This crowd advantage and what seemed to be a much more thorough research lead to the Affirmatives downfall as the judges scored the victory in favor of the Negative side.

1.2

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet there are two main families in which the play Revolves around. These are the families of Polonius and Hamlet. Now these are not your stereotypical families, which you can expect giving that this is a play written by Shakespeare. Your regular, normal everyday family is what would be called a Nuclear family.

What would seem to be your average family of royalty, the house of Hamlet was far from it. After Hamlets father passed away to what seemed to be an “unfortunate death” turned out to be a murder by Hamlets own uncle. After the death Hamlets uncle married Hamlets mother making Claudius the new King of Demark. This angers Hamlet because now he loses his place on the thrown. Not only does he show hate towards his “new father” but he does the same to his mother. So in order to fix things Hamlet comes up with a plan to kill Claudius.

The next major family is the family of Polonius, although it does not say much about his parents or his wife, his two children play huge roles in the play. This family is what you would expect to find in your Nuclear Family as the father is the person in charge and the children respect him enough to obey his wishes. They obey him so much Ophelia even started to ignore the person she loved because her father told her to do so. But when hamlet murders Polonius this Nuclear family gets destroyed and Laertes plots to kill Hamlet and Ophelia kills herself.

1.4

Thesis – Was the love shared between Ophelia and hamlet real? ( Yes it is )


Reason – They both make claims that they love each other several times in the play.

Example – In Act III, Scene I, Hamlet says, 'I did love you once.'

Example – He sent her many letters before he went “crazy” telling her he loved her.

Example - "He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders of his affection to me."



Reason – The reason why the two were not both falling head over heels for each other was due to the fact that there parents messed things up.

Example – The only reason why she was forced to betray him was because it was due to the wishes of her father not because that’s what she felt was right.

Example – He was just betrayed by his mother, a person whom he thought would of loved him the most so for him to put all his love into one girl again would crush him
should she betray him, making him skeptical about the relationship.



Reason – The only reason why it is not 100% obvious is because of the hardships he is facing with everything going on around him.

Example – You only see Hamlet say he is not in love with her when he is angry with his uncle or when he’s going “crazy”.

Example – Because of what Ophelia’s father told her to do, she was forced to reject Hamlet and because of this and previous built up emotions Hamlet used her as a target for his fustrations.



Conclusion – The times where Hamlet shows his love for Ophelia cast a shadow over the times where he criticized her, and the same goes for Ophelia.

1.3

What Hamlet does in his own reality during the play is that he forgets all the things around him and essentially puts blinders on as the only thing he worries about is trying to kill Claudius. He loses touch with the people around him as they all begin to think he is crazy and in the end seals his fate as his own selfishness gave him the role of the “tragic hero” which in turn lead to his death.

Gertrude is another character with blinders on. She has herself living in this reality where everything seems to be going great. When in fact, shit has hit the fan. She doesn’t seem to mourn for the loss of her husband and doesn’t seem to be too worried about her son’s emotional state until she feels that her life is on the line.

Claudius spends his time in a reality where he can trust no one. This is very apparent through out the course of the play. He spends his time constantly looking over his shoulder. Especially when he learns of Hamlets plan to kill him, because this forces him to come up with a plan of his own, which later back fires as he ends up killing his wife in the process.

The family unit as shown in this play, plays a huge role in society. In the beginning things were going well for Hamlet and his family. But with the death of his father and his mother’s hasty marriage, this caused a huge divide in the family and things started to get a little messed up. As the family began to fall apart everyone started to rely on himself or herself as they had no one to go to, so they all became selfish in there own ways. So without a strong support from a family society falls apart.

1.5

Maslows Hierarchy is a theory in psychology that basically breaks up any given persons needs on five basic levels. These levels become less of a primary need and more of a psychological need the higher you go on the pyramid. The five levels are physiological needs, Security needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs and finally the need for self-actualization. In this activity I will describe Hamlets reality based on Maslows Hierarchy and show how his murder of Claudius satisfied the needs of this hierarchy.

The Murder Of Claudius

In the play, Claudius kills King Hamlet and by doing so wrecks the balance in young Hamlets life. This affects Hamlet on three levels on the Hierarchy; Security needs, Love and Belonging and Self Actualization. His security needs are endangered because a family member was just murdered so in order to fulfill his security needs he feels like the death of his uncle is the only way to go. The needs for his Love and Belonging were endangered because Hamlet felt that the relationship he had with his mother was threatened because of the marriage that just occurred. For Self Actualization he felt that there was a problem with the marriage of his uncle and mother because if they were to marry and have kids there was no need for him anymore because he would no longer be inline for the thrown. So in order to solve this problem he killed Claudius.

1.6

1.6/7 ???

Hamlets actions during the course of the play can best be described as a person who has just lost their father and doesn’t exactly know how to cope with his loss. Which explains a lot of Hamlets mood swings and erratic behavior. All he seems to be able to focus on is how to get his revenge for the death of his father and a lot of his comments are directed towards his mother and Claudius. He is constantly going off on long speeches about his task at hand and so to those people around him he seems to be a little bit off his rocker.

To the people around him his actions are not taken to well. As most of the people in his immediate family are scared of him: ie. His mother after he kills Polonius, Claudius once he learns of Hamlets plan to kill him and even the woman he loved is so put off by his most recent actions she has to go and off herself. His constant rants and erratic behavior leads most people to believe he has gone mad. So mad in fact that his own mother is worried and tells the King of what has happened.

Rhetorical Device – Rhetorical Question

Definition

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked with no intention of receiving a proper answer in return.


Why is it useful?

As a rhetorical device, this can be used in a number of circumstances and is normally used to provide an effect. It’s not used to get an answer from the listener but is more for the listener to think about what the question is implying more than anything.

My Examples

Example 1

Mom to her son – “How many times must I tell you to clean your room”

The mother doesn’t actually want her son to tell her how many times she must ask him but she wants him to think about what she is implying about the son having to clean his room.

Example 2

Person B to Person A – “I don’t understand what you mean”

Person A to Person B – “Are you stupid?”

Person A really doesn’t want an answer from person B but they are implying that what they were saying wasn’t really a hard concept to grasp so person B should have no problems understanding.

Public Example

Mark Antony - "Here was a Caesar! When comes such another?"

This is a quote from Shakespears "Julius Ceasar" where Mark Antony doesnt want to know when another great ceaser will rule he is simply implying how great the current ceaser is.

Gamblers Fallacy

Name: Gamblers Fallacy or Monte Carlo Fallacy

Latin Name: Alearto Cado

Description:

This is basically the belief that when things start to go differently than what is expected then this will be eventually evened out by opposite events occurring later. It can also be said that such an event is “due” to happen.

Why Is It Fallacious:

This is fallacious because you are trying to justify a prediction on a random event based on the fact that your predicted outcome is “due”. Since this is just a belief, a person may want to use this as a way to justify thier actions.

Syllogism:

X occurs repeatedly.
Therefore the chances of Y occurring are even greater.

Examples Of My Own

Example 1: A person flips a coin and it lands on heads 10 times in a row. Since this is very unlikely the person will then think that the coin is more likely to land on tails later on.

Example 2: A person is at a casino. They notice that the last 15 times the roulette wheel was spun it landed on red. So he quickly puts his bet on black because it was due.

Media Example:

In the movie “Unbreakable” the protagonist attempts to search for a hero by creating multiple disasters until he finds a sole survivor. So he thinks by continuously doing this, his chances of him finding a hero will be greater.

Wizard of Oz

Mythopoeia is a narrative genre that is used by screenwriters as a way to incorporate mythological themes and archetypes into a fictional story. It was first defined in the 1930’s by J.R.R. Tolkien. It’s basically a way of inventing a new form of mythology, one that isn’t based on ancient stories or traditions and that hasn’t been passed on through generations. But instead, these stories can be written over a short period of time, by a single author and can bring today’s readers even closer to mythology. Similar to many fantasy stories and tales, The Wizard of Oz has many characters that can be categorized as mythopoeia archetypes as it’s a fictional story that follows a hero through her journey to find her way back home.

A story that has a protagonist and no journey is like watching a really bad NHL player, sure it’s nice that he has accomplished his goal but how did he get there? In the case of Dorothy, her journey turned her from an average small town girl from Kansas into a hero. In the beginning of her journey she met three companions that would follow her to the end. They were the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Lion. They all wanted to find the wizard, not only to help Dorothy go back home but they thought they needed a brain, a heart and some courage. But as they learned in the end, they had it within themselves the whole time, as said in a speech from the wizard.

Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the
earth -- or slinks through slimy seas has a brain! (Baum, 119)

Back where I come from there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds. They are called phil...er -- er -- phil -- er, yes...good-deed-doers. And their hearts are no bigger than yours. (Baum, 121)

Back where I come from, we have men who are called heroes. Once a year, they take their fortitude out of mothballs and
parade it down the main street of the city. And they have no more courage than you have. But! They have one thing that
you haven't got! A medal! Therefore[…] I award you the Triple Cross. (Baum, 120, ellipses mine)

At the end of our hero’s journey, each character learned that the things they really wanted, they already had. Or in Dorothy’s case, she had the power to achieve it herself.

A hero is defined as a character who in the face of danger, adversity or is in some form of a position of weakness, will display courage and the will for self-sacrifice for the greater good of others. In this fantasy tale the character that best shows these characteristics of a mythopoeia archetype hero would be Dorothy. Not only does she save the Land of Oz from the wicked witch but she does this in a place that she has never been and does not understand at all, which would be a great point of weakness being in her shoes. After making her way to see the wizard and being sent on a side mission to steal the wicked witch’s broom stick, she does so not only with the purpose of going home but also to help The Tin Man, Scarecrow and the Lion with their quests for a heart, a brain and some courage. She even shows her willingness for self-sacrifice when she stands up to the wizzard in defence of the three others.

DOROTHY

Yes, sir. So we'd like you to keep your promise to us, if you please, sir.

OZ'S VOICE

Not so fast! Not...so fast! I'll have to give the matter a little thought. Go
away and come back tomorrow!

DOROTHY

Tomorrow? Oh, but I want to go home now.

[..]

OZ’S VOICE

Do not arouse the wrath of the Great and Powerful Oz! I said - come
back tomorrow!
DOROTHY

If you were really great and powerful, you'd keep your promises!
(Baum, 114, ellipses mine)

The devil figure is a pretty self-explanatory archetype. It is essentially the story or fable’s antagonist, and in the world of Oz, the Wicked Witch is a perfect representation of the devil figure. Not only does she appear to be everything Dorothy isn’t, but she goes out of her way to prove it; by capturing Dorothy in her attempt to steal her slippers. Also, not only does she have the evil vibe by looking at her, but you get the same vibe when you notice her surroundings and where she lives, the almost clichéd dark creepy castle in the middle of nowhere. The one that you see in most fables is very similar to the Land of Oz, which was filled with vibrant colors and really seemed to be the sort of perfect haven for people to live in peace. But once you stepped over the border and found yourself in the territory of the Wicked Witch, everything that you first thought of the Land of Oz changed. It no longer had the same feel; trees were dead and everything looked as though it could come out at you at anytime. It was obvious that the Baum really wanted her to stand out as the antagonist. Even the witch’s own minions could not stand the way she was, even praising Dorothy by song when she was defeated at last.

WINKIES

Hail! Hail to Dorothy -- The Wicked Witch is dead!

DOROTHY

You mean, you're...you're all happy about it?

LEADER

Very happy - now she won't be able to hit us with a broom.... (Baum,111)

In Mythopoeic archetypes the platonic idea is the inspiration for the protagonist. So for Dorothy her platonic idea would be her family or more specifically her desire to return home to her family. She does not realize it at first because she doesn’t know fully how much she misses her family, until the end of the story. For the Tin Man, Scarecrow and the Lion, they all individually had their own plutonic Idea for going on this quest. The Tin Man wanted to have a heart, the Scarecrow wanted a brain and the Lion wanted courage. But if you were to look at the three of them as a whole, then the plutonic Idea changes because their inspiration is now Dorothy. You have to look at it as, what would happen had they not met Dorothy. No matter what, Dorothy wanted to go home, she may have needed their help but that’s what she wanted, that was her inspiration. So would the three of them have been able to accomplish their goals without Dorothy? No. They needed her to be their inspiration.

The Wizard of Oz is a timeless classic; it’s a story that will go down in history as being a perfect example of mythopoeia criticism and like many fantasy stories and tales, The Wizard of Oz has many characters that can be categorized under a mythopoeia archetype. It’s the archetypical hero who puts other people’s interests before her own, and it shows her journey to defeat. She defeated the story’s antagonist/devil figure also known as the Wicked Witch, no matter what way you look at this story it is a perfect example of mythopoeia criticism.

TEST ESSAY...due to format errors i shall hand in a hard copy

Mythopoeia is a term that was first used and defined by J.R.R. Tolkien in the 1930s. It’s a type of narrative genre that is used by screenwriters as a way to incorporate mythological themes and archetypes into a fictional story. Its basically a way of inventing a new form of mythology that inst based on ancient story or tradition that’s been passed on through the generations, but instead these story’s can be written over a short period of time by a single author and can bring today’s readers closer to mythology. Like many fantasy stories and tales the wizard of oz has many characters that can be matched up with a mythopoeia archetype.

A story that has a protagonist and no journey is like watching a really bad NHL player, sure its nice that he accomplished his goal but how the did he get there. For Dorothy her journey was one that took a young girl from a small town in Kansas and turned her into a hero. In the beginning of her journey she met three companions that would fallow her to the end, they were the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Lion. They all wanted to find the wizard as well not only to help Dorothy go back home but as they thought they needed a brain, a heart and courage but as they learn in the end they had it within themselves the whole time, as said in a speech from the wizard.

Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a
very mediocre commodity. Every
pusillanimous creature that crawls on the
earth -- or slinks through slimy seas has
a brain! (Baum,119)

back where I come from there are men
who do nothing all day but good deeds.
They are called phil...er -- er -- phil --
er, yes...good-deed-doers. And their
hearts are no bigger than yours.(Baum, 121)

Back where I come from, we have men who are
called heroes. Once a year, they take
their fortitude out of mothballs and
parade it down the main street of the
city. And they have no more courage than
you have. But! They have one thing that
you haven't got! A medal! Therefore[…]
I award you the Triple Cross.[ellipses mine] (Baum,120)

So at the end of our hero’s journey each character learned was that the things they really wanted they already had or in Dorothy’s case they had the power to achieve themselves.

A hero is defined as a character who in the face of danger and adversity or when is in some from of a position of weakness, displays courage and the will for self-sacrifice for the greater good of others. In this fantasy tale the character who best shows these charectoristics of a mythopoea archetype hero would be Dorothy. Not only does she save the land of Oz from the wicked witch but she does this in a place she has never been and does not understand at all, wich would be a great point of weakness being in her shoes. After making her way to see the wizard and being sent on an other side mission to steal the wicked witchs broom stick she does so not only with the purpose of going home but also to help the Tin Man, Scarecrow and the Lion with there quests for a heart, a brain and courage. She even shows her willingness for self-sacrifice when she stands up to the wizzard in defence of the three others.

DOROTHY
Yes, sir. So we'd like you to keep your
promise to us, if you please, sir.
OZ'S VOICE
Not so fast! Not....
...so fast! I'll have to give the matter
a little thought. Go away and come back
tomorrow!
DOROTHY
Tomorrow? Oh, but I want to go home now.
[…]
OZ'S VOICE
Do not arouse the wrath
of the Great and Powerful Oz! I said -
come back tomorrow!
DOROTHY
If you were really great and powerful,
you'd keep your promises! [ellipses mine] (Baum, 114)

The devil figure is a pretty self-explanatory archetype. It is essentially the story or fables antagonist, and in the world of oz the Wicked Witch is a perfect representation of the devil figure. Not only does she appear to be everything Dorothy isn’t she goes out of her way to prove it, by capturing Dorothy in her attempt to steal her slippers. Also not only does she have the evil vibe by looking at her you get the same vibe when you notice her surroundings and where she lives, the almost cliché dark creepy castle in the middle of nowhere that you see in most fables but also when you see how Most of the Land of Oz was filled with vibrant colors and really seemed to be the sort of perfect haven for people to live in peace. But once you stepped over the border and found yourself in the territory of the Wicked Witch everything that you first thought of the Land of Oz changed. It no longer had the same feel. Trees were dead and everything looked like it could come out at you at anytime. It was obvious that the writer really wanted her to stand out as the antagonist. Even the witch’s own minions could not stand the way she was, even praising Dorothy by song when she was defeated at last.

WINKIES
Hail! Hail to Dorothy -- The Wicked
Witch is dead!

DOROTHY
You mean, you're...you're all happy about
it?

LEADER
Very happy - now she won't be able to hit
us with a broom.... (Baum,111)

In Mythopoeic archetypes the platonic idea is the inspiration for the protagonist. So for Dorothy her Platonic idea would be her family or more specifically her desire to return home to her family. She does not realize it at first because she doesn’t know fully how much she misses her family until the end of the story. For the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Lion they all individually had there own Plutonic Idea for going on this quest. The Tin Man wanted to have a heart, the Scarecrow wanted a brain and the Lion wanted courage. But if you were to look at the three of them as a whole then there plutonic Idea changes because their inspiration is now Dorothy. Because you have to look at it as what would happen had they of not met Dorothy. No matter what Dorothy wanted to go home, she may of needed help but that’s what she wanted, that was her inspiration. So would the three of them have been able to accomplish their goals with out Dorothy? No. They needed her to be their inspiration.

The Wizard of Oz is a timeless classic, it’s a story that will go down in history as being a perfect example of a mythopoeia and like many fantasy stories and tales the Wizard Of Oz has many characters that can be matched up with a mythopoeia archetype. Whether or not it is how it follows its archetypical hero who puts other peoples interest before hers or how it shows her journey to defeat its antagonist/devil figure also known as the Wicked Witch, no matter what way you look at this story it is a perfect example of mythopoeia.

Mats Essay

In the novel Maltese Falcon, the author Dashiel Hammet uses the characters greed and self-mindedness as a means to further progress the story. Unlike most stories involving the sort of good vs. evil type plot where it can be expected to find greed in the antagonist characters, this story finds the protagonist Sam Spade dealing with his own problems as well as many other sub characters to. As greed eventually takes over the main characters in the novel, it triggers events that progress the story differently based on the characters new intentions or ambitions (the Maltese Falcon).


As a private eye in the 1940’s you would think that Sam Spade would follow the rules and be a role model as at the time it was seen as one of those glory jobs that are always depicted in filmsand such. But he is far from that from the time readers get through the first few pages. Think about a 1940s representation of Dr. House. As he knows the cops thinks that he killed hispartner but wont go out of his way to prove his innocence as he knows they have nothing, sort ofa “I know I’m smarter then you attitude”. As the story progresses he readers see his actions slowly change the way he goes about his business.


The first couple pages of the novel kicks off the story with Sam Spade accepting an offer totake on a case by a women who readers later find out is named Brigid O’Shaughnessy. Before Spade and his partner Archer even heard the rest of her story he accepted the case based on the fact that she was good looking as described in the first few pages.

Sam winked at his partner.
Archer came forward to stand at a corner of the
desk. While the girl looked at her bag he looked at her bag he looked at her.
His little brown eyes ran their bold appraising gaze from her lowered face down
to her feet and up to her face again. Then Spade looked at his partner and made
a silent whistling mouth of appreciation.
Spade lifted from his chair and
said “We shouldn’t have any trouble with it.” (Hammet, 7)

Because of his hastiness to accept the case it leads to the death of his partner and the possiblecharge of homicide for his partners death. Later Spade meets a man named Joe Cairo, who also seeks the assistance of a private eye to find the where abouts of the Maltese Falcon. When he finds out that both Brigids and Joes case conflict with each others but he takes it on anyways as he sees the opportunity to take the falcon himself.


After confronted by Joe Cairo Spade later finds himself with Brigid to confront her about his new case and it doesn’t sit so well with her as she was supposed to be his focus at the time and did not expect Sam Spade to pick up another case.

“Surely your not considering it,” she said.
“Why not? Five thousand dollars
is a lot of money”
“But mister spade you promised to help me.” Her hands were
on his arm. “I trusted you. You cant –“ She broke off, took her hands from his
sleeve and worked them together.
Spade smiled gently into her troubled eyes.
“Don’t lets try to figure out how much you’ve trusted me,” he said. “I promised
to help you-sure- but you didn’t say anything about any black birds”
“You
wont – you cant- treat me like that.” Her eyes were cobalt
blue prayers. “Five thousand dollars is,” he said for the third time, “a lot of
money” (Hammet, 57)

One of the sub characters in this novel is Casper Gutman. Although Dashiel Hammet doesn’treveal to much about him, what the readers do get is enough to tell readers that he’s all about looking out for number one. Numerous times in the book he puts the people around him in danger only to get his hands on the falcon, something that he is so obsessed with that he spent the last seventeen years of his life circling the glob in search of the Maltese Falcon.


The first thing that readers end up noticing about the man is that his daughter means nothing to him compared to the wealth that is to be gained with the apprehension of the falcon. And only seems to be aware of her presence when he can use her to distract Spade long enough to get the falcon. He even put her in physical danger and in trouble with the law as she pretended to be drugged and kidnapped in the Hotel. Later Spade finds out that she wasn’t drugged at all as shortly after he arrived Rhea escaped from the hotel. Its also not a coincidence that Rhea is seventeen years old as well as it was a point made by Hammet to show how Gutman essentially missed out entirely on raising his daughter.


Another small character in this novel is Wilmer Cook, also known as Gutmans “secretary” Wilmer sees Gutman as a father figure, or a role model but as the readers find out Gutman doesn’t exactly see Wilmer as a son. This is said later on in the novel as Gutman was telling Wilmer that he was to be a fallback guy and take on the charges that were laid on Gutman for his actions involving several murders that were done to acquire the falcon.

"I couldn't be any fonder of you if you were my own son; but — well, by Gad! —
if you lose a son it's possible to get another — and there's only one
Maltese
falcon."(Hammet, 194)

Two more characters that play hug roles in this novel are Joel Cairo and Brigid O'Shaughnessys, both of them are caught up in capturing the falcon. First of all Brigid made up a story about her sister going missing because she wanted her accomplice in stealing the falcon(Mr.Thursby) followed around because she didn’t trust him. She tells Spade how much she needs him for protection knowing how much he is in love with her. But every time she sees the chance to steal the falcon with out anyone knowing she disappears from Spades side. In the end the reader finds out that she had actually killed Archer to take the spotlight off of her.


Joe Cairo becomes obsessed with the falcon as well as the novel progresses he was even said to be “deadly” by his employer Mr. Gutman. He proved this bypointing Sam Spade at gunpoint in the beginning of the novel until Spade agreed to take his case. At the end of the novel he even agrees to travel with Mr.Gutman to search for the falcon as he still had the dreams of the untold wealth that followed the falcon.


In this novel, Hammet uses greed as a fuel for most of the main characters ambition as all of them became obsessed with the wealth that was promised to them with the capture of the Maltese Falcon. Weather or not it was the story’s antagonist Mr.Gutman or the protagonist Sam Spade each character at somepoint put aside there morals and thought for the people around them for personal gain.


Refrences - Hammett, Dashiell. Maltese Falcon. First Vintage Crime/Black Lizard Edition. New York: Vintage Books, 1930.

Maltese Falcon Essay Outline

T – In the novel Maltese Falcon, the author Dashiel Hammet uses the charecters greed and self-mindedness as a means to further progress the story.


R – Sam spades greed

E - Financially hes willing to sell his services to the person who offers him the most money even taking on both Joel Cairo and Brigid O'Shaughnessy as clients, even though their interests conflict with eachother

E - (insert quote, “five thousand dollars…”) explain how greed is taking over spade


R – Gutmans greed

E - He only seems aware of the existence of his daughter when hes able to use her to distract Spade from getting the falcon before and he is even willing to put Rhea in legal and even physical danger without thinking about it

E - As Gutman explains to Wilmer, after offering to make him the "fall-guy" for the police: "I couldn't be any fonder of you if you were my own son; but — well, by Gad! — if you lose a son it's possible to get another — and there's only one Maltese falcon."


R - Joel Cairo, Brigid O'Shaughnessys greed

E they all seem to be focused on the wealth that is to come with the retrieval of the Maltese falcon but only if it doesn’t cause punishment or harm to themselves (explain then insert quote from text support)

E – (insert quote from convo between cairo, brigid and spade) chapter 7

C - restate thesis, sum up key points with the main charecters

New Thesis....

Thesis



In the novel Maltese Falcon, the author Dashiel Hammet uses the villains greed and self-mindedness as a means to further progress the story.

Even More Research...

The affective fallacy "is a confusion between the poem and its results (what it is and what it does). It begins by trying to derive the standard of criticism from the psychological effects of the poem and ends in impressionism and relativism.""The outcome of either fallacy . . . is that the poem itself, as an object of specifically critical judgement, tends to disappear."
*
Wimsatt and Beardsley charge criticism which takes account of authorial intention in a work with commiting a fallacy--the intentional fallacy. The intentional fallacy "is a confusion between the poem and its origins . . . it begins by trying to derive the standard of criticism from the psychological causes of the poem and ends in biography and relativism." While they do not deny the presence of an authorial intention, they deny the importance or usefulness of looking for such an intention as part of analyzing a work. "To insist on the designing intellect as a cause of a poem is not to grant the design or intention as a standard by which the critic is to judge the worth of the poet's performance." Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that the poem must work on its own, independent of any meeting or not meeting of an authorial intention which a reader would have no immediate way of knowing about in the first place. "Judging a poem is like judging a pudding or a machine. One demands that it work." The thoughts and feelings expressed in a poem should be imputed to "the dramatic speaker," and not to the author. Poems belong neither to the author nor the critic. In the final analysis "the poem belongs to the public. It is embodied in language, the peculiar possession of the public, and it is about the human being, an object of public knowledge." Criticism must shed its concern with the genetic cause of the poem and focus on the poem itself. "The text itself [is what] remains to be dealt with, the analyzable vehicle of a complicated metaphor." Wimsatt and Beardsley differentiate between the internal and external evidences for the meaning of a poem. The internal is what is public: "it is discovered through the semantics and syntax of a poem, through our habitual knowledge of the language, through grammars, dictionaries, and all the literature which is the source of dictionaries, in general through all that makes a language and culture." The external is "private or idiosyncratic; not part of the work as a linguistic fact: it consists of revelations . . . about how or why the poet wrote the poem." They also speak of an "intermediate kind of evidence" which focuses on "private or semiprivate meanings attached to words or topics by an author." This use of biographical evidence, according to W&B, "need not involve intentionalism, because while it may be evidence of what the author intended, it may also be evidence of the meaning of his words and the dramatic character of his utterance." Critical questions cannot be answered effectively by consulting the intentions even of still-living authors: "Critical inquiries are not settled by consulting the oracle." The affective fallacy "is a confusion between the poem and its results (what it is and what it does) [W&B would probably accuse Burke's "sociological criticism' of being an example of the affective fallacy.] . . . . It begins by trying to derive the standard of criticism from the psychological effects of the poem and ends in impressionism and relativism." "The outcome of either fallacy . . . is that the poem itself, as an object of specifically critical judgement, tends to disappear." W&B claim that such criticism often produces unhelpful oversimplifications of the poem itself, and depends too heavily on the varied and subjective reactions of various readers to be valuable as criticism.

http://www.michaelbryson.net/academic/wimsattbeardsley.html

More Research...

The intentional fallacy, in literary criticism, is the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance. By characterizing this assumption as a "fallacy," a critic suggests that the author's intention is not particularly important. The term is an important principle of New Criticism and was first used by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" (1946 rev. 1954): "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." The phrase "intentional fallacy" is somewhat ambiguous, but it means "a fallacy about intent" and not "a fallacy committed on purpose." Literary criticism is the study, discussion, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. ... The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. ... An author is the person who creates a written work, such as a book, story, article or the like. ... It has been suggested that Logical fallacy be merged into this article or section. ... New Criticism was the dominant trend in English and American literary criticism of the early twentieth century, from the 1920s to the early 1960s. ... William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr. ... Monroe Curtis Beardsley (1915-1985) was an American philosopher of aesthetics. ... In literary theory and aesthetics, authorial intentionality is a concept referring to an utterances authors intent as it is encoded in the medium of communication (speech, writing, performance). ...


Wimsatt and Beardsley divide the evidence used in making interpretations of literary texts (although their analysis can be applied equally well to any type of art) into three categories:

(1) Internal evidence. This evidence is present as the facts of a given work. The apparent content of a work is the internal evidence, including any historical knowledge and past expertise or experience with the kind of art being interpreted: its forms and traditions. The form of epic poetry, the meter, quotations etc. are internal to the work. This information is internal to the type (or genre) of art that is being examined. Obviously, this also includes those things physically present to the work itself.

(2) External evidence. What is not actually contained in the work itself is external. Statements made privately or published in journals about the work, or in conversations, e-mail, etc. External evidence is concerned with claims about why the artist made the work: reasons external to the fact of the work in itself. Evidence of this type is directly concerned with what the artist may have intended to do even or especially when it is not apparent from the work itself.

(3) Contextual evidence. The third kind of evidence concerns any meanings derived from the specific works relationship to other art made by this particular artist—as is the way it is exhibited, where, when and by whom. It can be biographical, but does not necessarily mean it is a matter of intentional fallacy. The character of a work may be inflected based upon the particulars of who does the work without necessarily characterizing it as an intentional fallacy.

Thus, a text's internal evidence — the words themselves, and their meanings — is fair game for literary analysis. External evidence — anything not contained within the text itself, such as information about the poet's life — belongs to literary biography, not literary criticism. Preoccupation with the author "leads away from the poem." According to New Criticism, a poem does not belong to its author, but rather "it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The poem belongs to the public." It is the Contextual evidence that presents the greatest potential for intentional fallacies of interpretation. Analysis using this type of evidence can easily become more concerned with external evidence than the internal content of the work.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Intentional-fallacy