The dramatic energy Essay Example For Students

The dramatic energy Essay If we now turn to idea of Englishness and how Leavis explored it, it is then interesting to see that two of the highly respected authors are not English. Conrad as mentioned before was Polish and James an American. It gives one the impression that the English language is something that is aspired to, as Leavis says that, Conrads themes and interests demanded the concreteness and action the dramatic energy of English. 7 Likewise, the idea of Englishness suggests a certain degree of superiority (at least, in comparison to European writing), and that the English language symbolises morality and certain decorum that is very difficult to find anywhere else. In consequence, literature can defined exclusively as an English phenomenon. Why then Leavis picked non-English authors? One could suggest that he simply did not have a wide enough selection of English authors that personify his ideals. We will write a custom essay on The dramatic energy specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now It is as well crucial to look carefully at some authors who are disqualified by Leavis and do not belong to his implied definition of literature. One of the rejected one by the critic is Henry Fielding. Though he is interested in human topics, his concerns are simple and produce an effect of anything but monotony 8 according to Leavis. However, it should be mentioned that his novels provided the basis for Jane Austins studies and future development as an artist. That is why; Fielding narratives cannot be entirely discredited. Another example would be Richardson; as for Leavis he is unable to present relations between ladies and gentlemen in a subtle way.9 Leavis compares Richardson with George Eliot, who is portraying characters and their relationship with great deal of erudition. Both of the writers, Fielding and Richardson, demonstrate restrictions in their works and this being so do not conform to the implicated definition of literature set by Leavis. Moreover, such authors as Daniel Defoe and Charles Dickens did not manage to find a place in Leaviss hall of literary fame.  Furthermore, one can notice that another example of an authors work with early success, which however in the end followed the wrong direction, are the works of D. H. Lawrence. Leavis made it clear that such work of D. H. Lawrence can be compared to that of George Eliot as Lawrence, in his work is to be known for his approach to experience and characters creation within his novels, similarly to George Eliot. Nonetheless, Leavis claims Lawrences enthusiasm for the subject matter produces an impression of the novel being written in a rush. Leavis claims that some of his novels are not sufficiently building into a whole.10, such as Women in Love and Rainbow. Whether my points are true or not, it is fair to say they are examples of the critics idea of literature which represents particular form of it, still showing his personal elaborate explanations of his definition of literature. In addition to the previous paragraph, we can see that F. R. Leavis has put together a highly selective, distinctive method of putting literature into categories. Works of authors such as Jane Austen, George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph Conrad, Leavis would classify as classical examples of traditional literature. Novels by the above authors contain specific characteristics of what Leavis describes and defines as a literature. These characteristics are: authors interest in life, distinctive form as well as style, a particular depiction of moral issues and the idea of Englishness. Chris Baldwick conveys the reasons behind Leavis categorisation, the major point being that literature has a certain moral function within society. Furthermore, to remember past experience with the use of the portrayal of life, to preserve culture, and to maintain the language within. 11 .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 , .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .postImageUrl , .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 , .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:hover , .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:visited , .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:active { border:0!important; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:active , .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13 .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ub567e228488ce4307c6a8038214b5e13:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Macbeth, tragedy by William Shakespeare EssayOverall The Great Tradition celebrates English language and certainly encourages the reader to take pride in English Literature, but on the other hand one could say that it unfairly excludes the wide range of world literature that have plenty to offer. One thing is for certain, whether or not one agrees with Leavis, his influence in defining what literature is continues to be held with great esteem. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baldick, Christoher. The Leavises: Armed Against the Herd, The Social Mission of  English Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.  Eagleton, Terry. The Rise of English, Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:  Blackwell, 1983.

End of the Vietnam War - Fall of Saigon

End of the Vietnam War - Fall of Saigon Previous Page | Vietnam War 101 Working for Peace With the failure of the 1972 Easter Offensive, North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho became concerned that his nation could become isolated if President Richard Nixons policy of dà ©tente softened relations between the United States and his allies, the Soviet Union and China.  As such he relaxed the Norths position in the ongoing peace negotiations and stated that the South Vietnamese government could remain in power as the two sides sought a permanent solution.  Responding to this change,  Nixon’s National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, commenced secret talks with Tho in October.  Ã‚   After ten days, these proved successful and a draft peace document was produced.  Angered at having been excluded from the talks, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu demanded major alterations to the document and spoke out against the proposed peace.  In response, the North Vietnamese published the details of the agreement and stalled the negotiations. Feeling that Hanoi had attempted to embarrass him and to force them back the table, Nixon ordered the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong in late December 1972 (Operation Linebacker II). On January 15, 1973, after pressuring South Vietnam to accept the peace deal, Nixon announced the end of offensive operations against North Vietnam. Paris Peace Accords The Paris Peace Accords ending the conflict were signed January 27, 1973, and were followed by the withdrawal of the remaining American troops. The terms of the accords called for a complete ceasefire in South Vietnam, allowed North Vietnamese forces to retain the territory they had captured, released US prisoners of war, and called for both sides to find a political solution to the conflict. To achieve a lasting peace, the Saigon government and Vietcong were work towards a lasting settlement that would result in free and democratic elections in South Vietnam.  As an enticement to Thieu, Nixon offered US airpower to enforce the peace terms. Standing Alone, South Vietnam Falls With US forces gone from the country, South Vietnam stood alone. Though the Paris Peace Accords were in place, fighting continued and in January 1974 Thieu publicly stated that the agreement was no longer in effect. The situation worsened the following year with the fall of Richard Nixon due to Watergate and passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 by Congress which cut off all military aid to Saigon. This act removed the threat of air strikes should North Vietnam break the terms of the accords. Shortly after the act’s passage, North Vietnam began a limited offensive in Phuoc Long Province to test Saigon’s resolve. The province fell quickly and Hanoi pressed the attack. Surprised by the ease of their advance, against largely incompetent ARVN forces, the North Vietnamese stormed through the south, and threatened Saigon.  With the enemy nearing, President Gerald Ford ordered the evacuation of American personnel and embassy staff.  In addition, efforts were made to remove as many friendly South Vietnamese refugees as possible.  These missions were accomplished through Operations Babylift, New Life, and Frequent Wind in the weeks and days before the city fell.  Advancing quickly, North Vietnamese troops finally captured Saigon on April 30, 1975. South Vietnam surrendered the same day. After thirty years of conflict, Ho Chi Minh’s vision of a united, communist Vietnam had been realized. Casualties of the Vietnam War During the Vietnam War, the United States suffered 58,119 killed, 153,303 wounded, and 1,948 missing in action. Casualty figures for the Republic of Vietnam are estimated at 230,000 killed and 1,169,763 wounded. Combined the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong suffered approximately 1,100,000 killed in action and an unknown number of wounded. It is estimated that between 2 to 4 million Vietnamese civilians were killed during the conflict. Previous Page | Vietnam War 101