sample paper on a play

EXCELLENT ESSAY ON A PLAY

R S

Professor Fink

English 102.0867

April 11,2016

“A Number,” by Caryl Churchill

The play, “A Number,” by Caryl Churchill, proposes the question, what defines a person? Is an individual solely defined by their genetic makeup or is whom they are influenced by their environment? The playwright introduces this theme of nature versus nurture by depicting three individuals, one being the original child, B1, and two of his clones, B2 and Michael Black. These three characters, even though genetically identical, have extremely different personalities, due to the environment in which they are raised. Therefore, their reactions to cloning or being cloned are unique to whom they have become.

“The Body in Pieces: Contemporary Anatomy Theaters,” by Amy Strahler Holzapfel, analyses “A Number;” providing the reader with a brief understanding of Churchill’s literary techniques and use of structure as a trope, for cloning: “Churchill’s broken dialogue, with its cut-off endings and repetitive internal motifs, mimics the underlying themes of fragmentation and cloning within the drama” (Holzapfel 12).  Churchill has written the play in five parts; giving the idea that although similar each clone has its own part in the world, which is supported in Holzapfel’s critique: “Structured in five parts, the play dramaturgically reflects its own subject of cloning by presenting a series of eerily similar variations, or mutations, of the father/son relationship…” (Holzapfel 12). Holzapfel’s use of “mutations” explains the variances in the relationship each “son” has with the father; eluding to the need to use psychodynamic analysis when attempting to understand B1’s, B2’s and Michael Black’s relationship with Salter and their involvement with cloning.  

All three characters had varied upbringings and their relationships with Salter greatly differed from one another. B1 and B2 both considered Salter to be their father, as opposed to, Michael Black who was unaware of Salter’s existence. B1 had a very traumatic childhood, which resulted in the “birth” of B2. 

As it turns out, B1, was indeed the “original son,” who at age four and following the suicide of his mother, Salter had rejected and given away to the child welfare system. In hopes of starting over, he had another son cloned from the cells of B1, who had been, in Salter’s opinion, a perfect baby turned demonic child. (Holzapfel 12-13) 

B1 experienced the loss of a mother, father and his mind at a very young age. He developed a mental illness due to a traumatic incident, which may not have happened, had his mother not passed. 

Salter:…You’d nearly stopped speaking do you remember that? Not speaking not eating I tried to make you. I’d put you in the cupboard do you remember? Or I’d look for you everywhere and I’d think you’d got away and I’d find you under the bed. You liked it there I’d put your dinner under for you. But it got worse do you remember? There was nobody but us. One day I cleaned you up and said take him into care. (Churchill    )

He experienced abandonment and rejection, which may have further worsened his mental illness. Where as, B2 experienced the “good” side of Salter, who felt he was given the chance to “start over.”

            Salter: but then later I

            B2: later yes

            Salter: I did try that’s what I did I started again I

            B2: That’s what

            Salter: I was good I tried to be good I was good to you

B2 had a loving, caring, and supportive father, who raised him, and no signs of any mental illnesses. As a child, he had a sense of security knowing he was his father’s son. On the other hand, Michael Black, has had no physical, mental or emotional interaction with Salter. It can be presumed he was raised in an environment, which was completely isolated from B1, B2, and Salter. 

            B2’s initial reaction to the dialogue between him and Salter, about cloning, was of insecurity and uncertainty. 

B2: yes I know what you meant, I just, because of course I want them to be things, I do think they’re things, I don’t think they’re, of course I do think they’re them just as much as I’m me but I. I don’t know what I think, I feel terrible.

He becomes weary of what he thought to be true about his father. B2 becomes unable to define what the other clones are and who he is. As B2 learns about B1’s past, B2’s focus shifts from pondering about defining the clones to the actual acts of Salter committed towards B1. B2 develops a sense of resentment and anger towards Salter. “B2: but I can’t you can’t I can’t give you credit for that if I don’t give you blame for the other it’s what you did it’s what happened” (Churchill     ). B2 was raised with a moral standard, which had been crossed by his own father and believes that B1 may have been different, if Salter had not sent him away. “B2: …I’m saying would he have done the same things who can say he might have been a very loving father and in fact of course you have that in you to be that because you were to me…” (Churchill    ). B2 reacts to the situation true to the way he was raised and does not have any deep-rooted malice towards anyone.

            B1, who is not sound of mind, has a sense of resentment towards Salter, and the dialogue between the two was of superficial matters, ranging from money to dogs. However, when discussing the clones B1, held a deep resentment for them and their lives. 

            

B1: The other one. Your son. My brother is he? my little twin

            Salter: Yes.

            B1: Has he got a child?

            Salter: No.

            B1: Because if he had I’d kill it (Churchill    )

B1’s anger for Salter translated into hatred for the clones. B1 resented the clones and towards the end of the play, the audience learns B1 has murdered B2. The actual act of murder ban be due to B1’s illness, however, the anger may have come from a feeling of abandonment at a young age. 

            Michael Black has his own identity, which is completely different from B1 and B2. He seems to not be phased by the idea of cloning and finds a sense of joy in it. 

Salter:…what it does to me what am I and it’s not even me it happened to, so how can just, you must think something about it.

            Michael: I think it’s funny, I think it’s delightful

            Salter: delightful?

Michael: all these very similar people doing things like each other or a bit different or whatever we’re doing, what a thrill for the mad old professor if he’d lived to see it, I do see the joy of it. I know you’re not happy at all. (Churchill   )

Michael has a different perspective on cloning which can directly relate to his happiness and life style he is living. His life is full compared to the other two and he holds no resentments. However, he is unable to relate with Salter, as he is a complete stranger to him. 

B1 and B2 both hold a certain amount of anger towards Salter, which is directly related to their relationship with him.

            

Salter: You remind me of him

            B2: I remind myself of him. We both hate you.

            …

B2: I don’t blame you it’s not your fault but what you’ve been like what you’re like I can’t help it.

            …

B2: Except what he feels as hate and what I feel as hate are completely different because what you did to him and what you did to me are different things. 

The feeling is the same but the way it originated is different and how the two deal with the anger is different. Michael has an entirely different perspective towards cloning. 

He sees the glass have full, where as, B1 sees it as half empty and B2 is unsure of what to think.  

It can be concluded that each individual has a reaction, which is unique to his or her being. Using the idea of nature, an individual should react exact in the same manner as its clone; however, “A Number” disproves this theory. All three individuals have a different reaction to cloning. One can only conclude that there environment in which they were raised in and their personal experiences, allowed each individual to respond to cloning in a variety of different ways. Due to this outcome, nurture is the dominating factor in the development of a person. 

WORKS CITED 

Churchill, Caryl. A Number. Theater Communications, 2003.

Holzapfel, Amy Strahler. “The Body in Pieces: Contemporary Anatomy Theaters.” PAJ: A Journal of      Performance and Art, 30.2 (May 2008): 1-16. JSTOR.
Klein, Julia M. "Caryl Churchill's Identity Crises." Chronicle of Higher Education 52.38 (26 May
     2006). Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.

sample fiction paper

Ignore the underlinings; these denote changes in the revision of the paper.

KJ

October, 2019

English 102

For  centuries men were the only bread and butter winners, but today females are just as responsible for providing for their families. Nonetheless, men still hold incalculable power and say in our modern day society. This power manifests itself in “The Mark of Cain” by Roxane Gay and “The Fun House” by Sherman Alexie. These are two stories that explore the role and oppression of women by highlighting their experiences. In Gay’s “The Mark of Cain” the main character, a woman who remains unnamed, finds herself in a toxic relationship with her husband and begins to find refugee in his brother’s arms. While,“The Fun House” by Sherman Alexie explores the life of a woman who is left to assume all household responsibilities on her own, solely because she is a woman. Rather than being appreciated by her husband and her 30 year old unemployed  son , she is disrespected. Although the two stories unfoil distinct plots, both stories implement flashbacks, and mirroring conflicts and climactic scenes to develop a theme of male domination.

 In “The Mark of Cain” the main character tells us  “I worry about the day when he leaves me, torn apart on our bed, waiting for him to put me back”(Gay). Here, It is obvious that she does not feel whole nor strong without her husband Caleb. In fact,  when she says she would have to wait for him to be fixed she reveals just how dependent on him she is. Caleb seems to be completely in control of her emotions. She even makes the choice to only wear eyeliner and dark lipstick simply because he wants her to look how she did when they first met, despite knowing it to be a memory of her dark past. Caleb has such a strong hold on her that he is easily able to manipulate her to do anything he pleases, including things she might not like or be against.  He hurts her, yet still she is on a never ending journey to satisfy him and feel loved by him. When she comes to the realization that it is unrealistic to feel truly loved by her husband, she finds the elements of love that she could never find in her own relationship in one with Jacob, her husband’s twin. By Jacob’s side she feels the closest to loved. In the same way, the aunt from Sherman Alexie’s story also struggles with the same internal conflict: the lack of love and respect from her significant others. She reminisces about a better time in her relationship with her husband; however, during that earlier period, She asks him“Do you love me?” (Alexie)  She still finds herself feeling uncertain whether she is loved or not and seeks affirmation from his part. The writers showed us that two women with completely different backgrounds and personalities can battle the same fight in their subconscious. 

Gay and Alexie not only showed us both characters share the same internal conflict, but they also dismantle complex characters for the reader’s unserstanding through flashbacks. Specifically, Roxane Gay’s  first-person narrarator says “ He starts telling me a story about himself and his brother sitting in the backseat of their father’s Cadillac while the old man got a blowjob from a woman that was not their mother, and how their father had her give his sons blowjobs as well.” This flashback helps readers understand Caleb’s toxic behavior. With this, Gay unfoils a multi-faceted character who was once a victim and has now become an oppressor of his own wife. The chronological timeline of Alexie’s story is also interrupted for the same purpose. We begin to understand the aunts frustrated attitude towards her husband when she dates back 30 years to when she and her husband got into a car accident because he was drunk, despite all her warnings about him not being in the  condition to drive. Still, she was supportive of him even as this was not the first time he found himself in this predicament. But he could never do the same for her.  Actually, when a mouse runs up her leg and she asks why didn't he help, he says: “I bet when that mouse ran up your pant leg, he was thinking what in the hell kind of mouse traps do they got now”  Through the flashback we are able to further understand both the aunt and Caleb’s behavior.

The two stories demonstrate elements of patriarchy and show us how the female role is exploited. Within Caleb and his wife’s relationship, it is clear that there is both verbal and physical abuse: “Caleb grabs me by my waist , straddles me, and slaps my face.” He then continues to be verbally abusive and tells her  “Don’t be a fucking whore.” He exerts control over her in every way he possibly can in order to regain the control and supremacy he felt he was stripped from by his father as a child. Although, there isn't any domestic violence in the aunt’s relationship in “The Fun House” the aunt struggles with with not conforming to the quintessential and traditional  role of being a woman,but unlike Caleb’s wife, she approaches the situation differently.  Instead she stands he ground and is reluctant to be treated like the only caretaker in the house. When her husband urges her to come out of the water she chooses to not abide by what he says. Instead, she shows independence and courage when she tells him she will be coming out when she wants to do so. She then proceeds to tell her husband and son “ and cook your own god damn dinner.” Unlike the aunt, Caleb’s wife has a more submissive attitude towards her husband’s actions. The aunt in Alexie’s story makes it known that she is not okay with the way she is being treated. While one woman is empowered to speak up for herself, the other woman is left voiceless and discouraged, yet both women are being suppressed by male dominance and need help.

Throughout the stories a feminist appeal is consistant. In fact, the climax in both stories make a strong appeal to the to  male supremacy and feminism In the beginning of Alexie’s story the aunt works on a fully beaded dress that only a strong woman could wear, that woman would be their savior. Sherman Alexie then ends the story by reintroducing the dress of freedom and strength: “She pulled that heaviest of beaded dresses over her head. Her knees buckled and she almost fell from the weight; then she did not fall. ‘No,’ she said to her husband when her husband and son tried to help her.” Within this climactic scene, she defeats the concept male supremacy as she refuses the help of the men in her life that she once desperately wanted, and become her own hero as she danced in the heavy dress that almost dragged her to the ground. In contrast, the first-person narrator in Gay’s stroy does not face that same type of victory. In the climax, she faces the irony of being pregnant with two male twins. Instead of overcoming the beliefs of male chauvinists, it seems that she became deeply immersed in them.

    The authors convey a feminist critique through the use of  literary devices like conflict, flashbacks, and climax. Through this style, “The Mark of Cain” and “The Fun House” tell the stories of two women that are nothing alike, yet share similar experiences. Consequently, raising  awareness to the issues that women face on a day to day basis. Today, women have equal rights as men, but still there is a gap between the law and the actual sexist ideals that are inculcated in some men, but these stories give women a positive and hopeful outlook regarding patriarchy, showing that the power is within women to stand up for themselves like the aunt did to be your own liberator.

Works Cited

Alexie,Sherman. “The Fun House.” The Lone Rangerand Tonto Fistfight inHeaven. Atlantic Monthly P, 1993

Gay, Roxane. “The Mark of Cain.” Difficult Women. Grove P, 2017

sample poetry paper

B M 

English 102

Prof. Fink

19 March 2016

            “Math Class is Tough” by Denise Duhamel is the epitome of how an expression of feminism is treated under the traditional values of the patriarchy. Her use of free verse in the poem instead of the traditional format displays how much she is willing to disobey the status quo to prove her points. Barbie, for a long time, since 1959 to be exact, has been the ideal figure to be for little girls, and mature women. She symbolizes beauty and high stature, but unfortunately, not intelligence.

Denise Duhamel’s opinions on the simple minded “Teen Talk Barbie” definitely can not be considered appreciative, but frustrated: 
Barbie hasn’t spoken in twenty years 
and when she finally does, little girls 
and those who remember being little girls with her 
cock their ears, smile, and listen. 
Math class is tough, says Teen Talk Barbie, 
Math class is tough? (Duhamel 60)

After a long hiatus from speaking, Barbie finally returns with her influential tongue only to utter the words “math class is tough.” All of her fans, varying in ages, were excitedly waiting to hear what she had to say and were disappointed by the simplicity of her statement. The last line, Barbie’s repeated phrase is formed as a question and this  was not done accidently; this was Duhamel’s bold move to express that she cannot fully fathom the idea that after all of these years, the only thing to be said was “math class is tough.” The structure, syntax, and grammar of the phrase is perfectly comprehensible, but the meaning is left in that gray area; the same gray area women and their intellectual capabilities have tried to crawl out of, as Duhamel will express. 

The exasperation with Barbie’s unintelligence is continuous throughout the poem especially when Duhamel says:

Is that is?, we all wonder, pulling her string again

to see if she’ll say anything more enlightening

The American Association of University Women

wants Teen Talk Barbie pulled from the shelf

until Mattel agrees to let their favorite doll say something else.  

There’s enough anxiety around algebra, geometry,

calculus and trig. That’s just what little girls don’t need--

someone else telling them they’ll never balance

a successful checkbook. (Duhamel 60)

Duhamel explains how dumbfounded Barbie’s fans were by the simpleness yet strange ambiguity of Barbie’s statement. They hoped she would say something that would justify their excitement for her return, but to their dismay, all she continued to repeat was “math class is tough.” Some people may be confused as to why feminist took to the offense by a doll’s phrase, but with close examination, it is not hard to understand why. It is widely believed that women as a gender are less capable than men of performing math such as the ones listed in the poem. It is no secret that math can be difficult, so when it’s supposedly proven that men are better at it, that causes apprehension about the subject. Barbie has essentially been a role model, despite the anorexia, for females, but the blatant self deprecation forms tension between those who wish to overcome this hurdle and the doll. Feminists argument is not to cause trouble, but rather to suggest that women are perfectly capable of doing math, whether it be in the classroom or handling their finances.

            The feminist argument only gets stronger. Denise Duhamel begins pointing out even more degrading features of patriarchy hold in regards to women:

                                    Barbie herself tried to run for president

                                    against the Ross Perot Troll Doll, sure

                                    her red white and blue cheerleader’s skirt

                                    would appeal to male voters. When she didn’t

                                    make the primary, tabloids spotted her

                                    shopping at Macy’s and eating a hot fudge sundae

                                    So maybe this time she’s aligning with the feminist--

                                    saying that math is particularly tough

                                    on women--there are scales and dress sizes,

                                    bust measurements and calories

                                    all designed to keep us counting and counting. (Duhamel 60)

In the presidential race when Barbie ran against another doll, which conveniently was male, she lost. Her loss of the vote was not the demeaning aspect. That feature came into play when she went into the election wearing a red white and blue cheerleading skirt. Yes, the colors were quite patriotic however, Barbie was given no pass from objectification because it was obvious that the garment would appeal to the male voters and their perverse fantasies. Maybe this is the reason why Duhamel decided to give Barbie the benefit of the doubt; saying Barbie was actually on women’s side when she said “math class is tough”. After all, she could have meant that math class is tough on women because it teaches them how to perform all of the counts and measurements that society convinces them are their defining features. It is possible that Barbie was not only eating the sundae to comfort herself because of the loss, but that she was sending a symbolic middle finger to those whom only see her as a pretty face in a patriotic cheerleading skirt.

            Regarding Barbie’s ambiguous statement, Duhamel tries to decipher if there were any hidden messages:

                                    In anagram-language Math class is tough

                                    translates to Last hog scum hat

                                    or Shout at clam gist. No one knows for sure

                                    exactly what Barbie is talking about.

                                    Yet we sense she picks her words

                                    the way she picks her wardrobe--

                                    nothing sloppy, always a grand design

                                    that makes the rest of us feel half in, half out. (Duhamel 61)

The benefit of the doubt gets thrown away as Duhamel concedes her statement about Barbie siding with the feminist. In no language is “math class is tough” translated into a less vague meaning. However, Barbie is famous for always presenting herself as the perfect women. It is unlikely that she chose those at random because nothing she does is anything less than planned. Her “perfection” is what makes women feel like they could never reach the high standards that she can, but will certainly still be expected to.

Denise Duhamel is trying to give insight into how under the patriarchy, women are constantly being degraded and underestimated for their intellectual capabilities, through the trope of Barbie. Overall, the true meaning behind Barbie’s infamous phrase “math class is tough” may never be exposed, but because she never does much to be seen in bad light, it can lead one to think that perhaps Barbie meant exactly what she said--no double meaning attached. It is fathomable that she was manipulated into thinking she was giving simple commentary on the subject when in fact, she was a messenger for the patriarchy; sending women the daily reminder that they will always be the underdog.                          

Works Cited

Duhamel, Denise. “Math Class Is Tough.” Kinky. Alexandria, Va: Orchises P, 1997. 60-61. Print