Meanwhile, some newspapers continued their campaign this week to have the controversial comedian Frankie Boyle purged from our screens for ever, and even suggested he has been snubbed by the British Comedy awards tonight. Are comedians really more offensive than ever? One of tonight's nominees, Shappi Khorsandi, and fellow comedian Steve Punt discuss new trends in comedy. But first, Emine Saner asks, why all the fuss about Gervais? Steve Punt: The thing that seems odd is that America has this vituperative political culture where there are news channels, radio stations and websites devoted to all-out assaults on politicians, but if you make jokes about Hollywood actors, people throw their hands up in horror.
Mohsin Hamid expresses America is made out to be very prejudice of Muslim people in this novel. The arrogant American that meets up with Changez can be made out to have a strong dislike over Muslim people. However, the novel is more dependent and open to how the reader wants to take this. Hamid simply says what he can in this novel, even if it be racist, but each reader can take it differently. The American in the novel, whenever he is mentioned making a gesture or Changez describes his reaction, that’s the readers chance to think about what Changez is saying and can discuss their own thoughts on what might actually be said here or if the protagonist is saying the truth.
Voltaire wrote this book to further demonstrate his unhappiness with the church, government, and philosophies at that time. He was hoping to inform readers about the ridiculousness of the authority by means of entertainment through satire. This book was not only packed with information, but it was also a fun read relating back to Voltaire's witty and intelligent personality. Since the book was written this way, the greater public was able to understand it, not just intellectuals and nobility, and his ideas and thoughts were more easily spread because of Candide's enjoyability as a novel. I believe the main message Voltaire was trying to get
In Auden’s 1939 poem “The Unknown Citizen,” (Auden, 955) Auden’s uses an exaggerated ironic tone to describe “The Unknown Citizen.” This tone indicates Auden’s sentiments of the government, war, and technology destroying the rights of the average citizen. Several key literary elements form the tone of this poem. The entire poem is satirical, with a humorous tone set throughout. With questions like “Was he free? Was he happy?” (Auden, 955) the author uses a sarcastic questioning method directed at the reader, essentially asking if they feel free and happy with the amount of government involvement in their life.
Daniel at Breakfast The author of this piece of poetry contrasts the major problems in the world, which Daniel reads about in the paper, with the trivialities that Daniel is facing. It shows that it does not seem that Daniel cares very much about the global problems, but when “the coffee’s weak again”, he becomes upset. I believe Phyllis McGinley is trying to tell us that quite many people are just like Daniel. We may be very self-centered and think of ourselves first. We register all the catastrophic happenings around the world, but our own small problems are still the most important ones.
His language proves him to be insecure, angry, rebellious and skeptical of the world around him. When Holden swore for the first time in the book and said “crap”(1) on the first page, I am sure many of you instantly felt an affinity with him, or thought ‘what a guy’. -Holden imagines himself as a hero but he does so by getting words wrong. When listening to Robert Burn’s Comin’ Thro’ The Rye Holden mishears a part of the poem that says “Gin a body meet a body/ comin’ through the rye” and instead thinks that it says “Gin a body catch a body/ comin’ through the rye”. Around this mistake and misinterpretation he creates a fantasy in which he imagines himself saving the children of the world by catching them before they fall off the cliff that is the transition from childhood to adulthood.
Dylan wrote songs that were deep, sad, depressing, happy, and cheery. His songs moved people and were able to evoke a range of emotions from the mood chart. His song topics varied and included “...art and politics, simplicity and difficulty, compromise and genius, love and theft,” (Wilentz, 659) they were able to spring people into action and were able to. Dylan spiced up his lyrics by adding emotion to them, giving them a sense of realism that listeners could relate more to. Dylan’s songs show the injustice but they also show what was wrong with American politics at the time.
While there are undoubtedly subversive, or corrupt elements in the novel, arguments for censoring it generally misrepresent its more nobler intentions and greatly exaggerate its subversive designs. Putting aside the overinflated claims of the novel's most extreme critics and supporters, the diversity and intensity of readers' reactions to The Catcher in the Rye suggest that the issues it raises are significant ones. Consequently, it seems likely that readers will continue to have heated discussions about this "minor" classic for a long time to come. One of the issues that has been debated ever since the novel's initial publication is whether or not it qualifies as a significant work of literature. Does it offer significant insights into the complexities of human existence and the development of American culture, or does it simply appeal to vulgar adolescent minds with its obscene language, complaining about everything without developing any positive insights of its own?
On the contrary, McGough poem has a different viewpoint about war from Brooke’s poem. For example: ‘Patriots are a bit nuts in the head Because they wear red, white and blue- tinted spectacles’ Not only that the poetry form is written as a free verse, but it is written as a free rhyme scheme as well. However, McGough wrote this poem as a parody. He imitates and exaggerated war into
Take that, drunk dude! Stanza 1 Summary Get out the microscope, because we’re going through this poem line-by-line. Line 1 'TERENCE, this is stupid stuff: • The first voice we hear in this poem might surprise you a little. He's bold, to the point, and a little crass. He (and we're just assuming it's a he here, since Houseman was a he and we don't have anything else to go on) doesn't refer to "unpleasant objects" or "disagreeable discourse" like a fancy poet might.