Gov Jane Hull

Jane Dee Hull was born in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 8, 1935. Governor Hull is married to Dr. Terry Hull. Dr. Hull practiced medicine in Pheonix for 32 wears and now works as a consultant. Governor Hull and Dr. Hull have four children and eight grandchildren. Governor Hull received a bachelor’s degree in elementary education from the University of Kansas and also did postgraduate work in political science and economics at Arizona State University. She is a graduate of the Josephson Ethics Institute.
Governor Hull and her husband moved to Arizona in 1962. Dr. Hull served as a physician in public health service and the Governor taught school on the Navajo Nation until 1964. In 1979 Governor Hull was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives. She served from 1999 to 1992, and she was the first woman speaker of the house. In 1993, she ran a successful campaign for secretary of state, becoming the second woman to hold that office and the first Republican since 1931.

Since her inducted into office, Hull lists education, healthcare, the economy and preserving the state’s natural beauty as her top priorities. Governor Hull is a strong supporter of Homeland Security measures to ensure the safety of the people of Arizona. During her term as governor, Hull has appointed a record amount of judicial appointments.
Her Students FIRST’ school facilities funding program ensures equity for every student in Arizona, no matter where they live. Forty-four new schools were built and opened and another 120 new schools have been approved. An addition, $1 billion dollars will be set aside for upgrading current school buildings. In Hull’s Education 2000 program, which will raise $459 million in new funds, provides higher teacher salaries and smaller classrooms in kindergarten through high school.
Since the Governors acceptance into office, nearly 136,000 children of the working and lower class will now receive health coverage thanks to the Governor’s KidsCare program. In behavioral health, funding for the seriously mentally ill has increased by 80 percent since the Governor took office, up from $102 million in fiscal year 1997 to $185 million in fiscal year 2001. The Governor also obtained approval to build a new Arizona State Hospital and the initial phases of construction have begun.
Under Governor Hull’s leadership and contract with Qwest Communications, Arizona is one of the first states to assure that all of Arizona’s public schools will have access to the Internet. All the students in more than 1,200 schools in Arizona will have their own e-mail addresses and all teachers will be able to create their own web sites.
Hull has worked extensively on trade issues with Mexican officials and other governors of Border States. She has been selected to chair the 2002 20th Anniversary Border Governors’ Conference. Governor Hull was selected to chair the Western Governors’ Association and will serve the WGA through August 2002.

Governor Hull does not plan to run for governor in 2003. She will support party mate, Matt Salmon for the next election.


Manns 1
Ken Manns
Mike Sanders
English 10002
15 February 2001
“To Be Awake is to Be Alive”
Why do so few Americans not see all of the problems in society? Do they simply not care or are they not able to see them? With Thoreau’s statement, “To be awake is to be alive”, he implies that Americans have their eyes closed to these issues. They do not choose to overlook these issues but they simply pass them by because their eyes are shut. Some people are not able to grasp the concept in Thoreau’s statement and find it to be foreign or subversive because it threatens the way the see the world.
Many people who happen to fall into the cultural norms find Thoreau’s statement to be intimidating. The way they view the world is extremely sheltered they do not choose this, it is jus t the way they are. They have always viewed the world through a screen that filters what they see. This screen is different for each individual depending on his or her cultural background and/or home environment. These factors along with many others create the screen by which they see the world.

Different cultural backgrounds have different taboos. These taboos define what is and is not acceptable for the people within that culture. Such as India where they do not believe in interracial marriages while in Western Europe most
people do not have an issue with them. Home environment is also a major factor in what is allowed though the screen. The beliefs passed down through a family are commonly not questioned. The children are taught the beliefs of the family and are expected to carry on the traditions.

Some people do question their backgrounds by removing the screen. They see the world for what it is both good and bad and not how they would like to see it. Meanwhile, others cringe at the thought of removing the screen. These people are so used to the screen they are afraid of what might lay on the other side. Some are so dependent on this screen they would even feel that Thoreau’s statement is subversive. They feel as though removing the screen could potentially alter their entire existence. Having this screen is not a terrible thing but not knowing what lies on the other side is.

Thoreau’s statement is not universally true. For some people it is necessary to question the beliefs passed to them. For those people the screen is a hindrance from the world around them. Others need the screen to protect them from what they are not familiar with. They cannot handle ideas that are filtered by their screen. Neither way of viewing the world is correct, each has its own problems but both can be utilized to view the world.

Works Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York: Norton, 1951.
English Essays

Bluest eye

Toni Morrisons novel, The Bluest Eye, presents the lives of several impoverished black families in the 1940s in a rather unconventional and painful manner. Ms. Morrison leads the reader through the lives of select children and adults, describing a few powerful incidents, thoughts and experiences that lend insight into the motivation and. behavior of these characters. In a somewhat unconventional manner, the young lives of Pauline Williams Breedlove and Charles (Cholly) Breedlove are presented to the reader. Through these descriptions, the reader comes to understand how they become the kind of adults they are. Background information is given not necessarily to incur sympathy but to lend understanding.

The narrator makes the point that Paulines young life is filled with excuses because of her crippled foot. She could not understand why she of all the other children in her family had no nickname, no funny anecdotes about the things she had done or why she never felt at home anywhere. These experiences made her draw in upon herself and rely on a life she created, “restricted as a child to this cocoon of her family spinnings, she cultivated quiet and private pleasures, she liked most of all to arrange things.” Thus as she approached womanhood, Pauline began to search for the life she did not have as a child.

After her marriage and children, Pauline becomes employed with a well to do white family who satisfied much of this hunger. As the narrator says, “praise, power and luxury were hers in this household…here she could arrange things, clean things, line things up in neat rows…here she found beauty, order, cleanliness and praise.” Morrison describes another important phase in Paulines life, saying, “Pauline was fifteen, still keeping house, but with less enthusiasm. Fantasies about men and love and touching were drawing her mind and hands away from her work.”
Thus it seems perfectly obvious how Pauline fell for the mysterious figure of Cholly Breedlove, “when the stranger, the someone appeared out of no where, Pauline was grateful but not surprised. Pauline and Cholly loved each other he seemed to relish her company and even to enjoy her country ways…. She was secure and grateful, he was kind and lively.”
For the first time Pauline realized love and acceptance could be hers and she fell into a relationship with Cholly Breedlove with ease. By describing Paulines yearnings for order beauty companionship and love as a child, Toni Morrison makes it very clear to the reader how Pauline could fall in love with the idea of Cholly and then quickly learn to hate him as his shortcomings manifested themselves. Thus, Paulines actions as an adult are more easily understood through this knowledge of her childhood.

One of the most striking images is the description of Cholly Breedloves is his memory of a picnic where a family is enjoying a watermelon which the father smashes against a rock. Cholly is impressed with the image of the father holding the melon high above his head like the devil holding the earth up, ready to smash it. “He never felt anything thinking about God, hut just the idea of the devil excited him. And now, the strong black devil was blotting out the sun and getting ready to smash open the world.” This passage is a foreshadowing of Chollys adult life. He is attracted to the idea of power, strength and excitement and as a strong black adult, Cholly feels his freedom and uses it against himself and his family.

Another powerful incident, Chollys first sexual experience, gives insight into the rage, confusion and tenderness he feels towards women in his adult life. The narrator describes the incident with Darlene and the white men through Cholly’s eyes. The reader understands the initial excitement of young sexual energy, and the later humiliation of being caught by the cruel white men. Cholly directs his anger towards Darlene rather than towards the white men so that he can cope and go on.

Cholly did not necessarily understand at the time but, “hating them would have consumed him, burned him up like a piece of soft coal,” so, “for now, he hated the one who had created the situation, the one that bore witness to his failure, his impotencethe one who he had not been able to protect, to spare, to cover from the moon glow of the flashlight.” The desire to protect and the fear of not being able to are a recurring theme throughout Chollys life.

Even in Chollys final scene of the novel, the rape of his daughter, Cholly feels tenderness through the brutality of his actions. The sight of Pecola washing dishes “filled him with a wondering softness. Not the usual lust to part tight legs with his own, but a tenderness, a protectiveness. If this scene had not been told through Chollys eyes, the reader would have had no idea what was going on in his mind. Tenderness is not an emotion often equated with rape, The initial assumption would have been immediate judgement without understanding. As the scene is presented however, the reader is free to make judgements from an informed view, not necessarily to excuse brutality but to understand,
By developing the novel in such a way that the reader understands the motivation behind desperateness, fear, and brutality, Toni Morrison walks the thin line of the relationship between sympathy and judgement of the characters lives.

I found this book provocative in that it examined the “bad guys” life to such an extent that sympathy was possible. One obvious argument against this style is that explanation excuses cruelty and therefore Pauline and Cholly’s actions as adults are justified. However, this reaction is based solely on the responses of the reader. Morrison presents the facts of the Breedlove’s young lives without making pronounced judgements. The author presents a spread of experiences and actions and it is up to the individual to pick and choose what he must to create his own responses to the novel.

I think that it is possible for each individual reader to have completely different responses to the ways in which Cholly and Pauline are presented. I found the spectrum of interpretation o$ this novel to be a broad as each individual’s experiences. The reader seems to get as much from the novel as he brings into it. Possibly, Toni Mossison intended the reader to be involved in her novel to the extent that he is forced to explore the relationship between sympathy and judgment, understanding and blindly condemning.

/ Pages : 1,076 / 24


James A. Irvin
BUSI 472
Case #5
Napster: The Debate Over Copyright Infringement
In early 1999, Shawn Fanning, a Northeastern University freshman, created Napster software. That summer he made it available for free through his website. Napster is a peer-to-peer technology, which makes it possible for users to freely share their music files through the internet with other users all over the world. Specifically, this is how Napster works:
1.)A user sends a request for a song.

2.)Napster checks its database of music to see if the song is on the PC hard-drive of
another Napster user whose computer is turned on (Note: No music is stored on
Napster servers).

3.)Napster finds the song.

4.)Napster sends the song in MP3 format to the user who requested
On December 6, 1999 the record industry sued Napster in Federal District Court for copyright infringements, and petitioned that court to shut down Napster. On July 26, 2000 the judge issued a temporary injunction to shut down Napster, and the next day Napster appealed the ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The following day the Appeals Court granted Napster temporary reprieve against injunction so they could further review the injunction request. On October 2, 2000 the opposing parties presented their supporting arguments before the Court. The case was finally resolved on February 12, 2001 when a ruling by the District Court of Appeals upheld the original ruling that Napster was aware its users were swapping copyrighted materials. Subsequently, Napster was ordered to stop allowing its millions of users to swap copyrighted material without a fee.
There are several ethical issues involved in this case. First is the theft of the copyrighted music produced by artists who have not given Napster the right to transmit their music. Secondly, is the right of Napster to provide a legitimate service to consumers, and how that right has been attacked by artists in the recording industry. There are, indeed, two sides to this story.

The stakeholders involved in this case are the artists, the recording industry as a whole, retailers, and consumers. All of these stakeholders are affected equally in this matter. The artists, recording industry, and music retailers face substantial loss of income if consumers realize, and decide, that they can simply download music instead of purchasing it. Likewise, the consumer now has the opportunity to obtain music for free for which they otherwise would have had to pay, perhaps an artificially high price.

Among the Biblical standards present in this case are trust, respect, responsibility, fairness, and citizenship. With respect to trust, Napster claims that it has put trust in its users that they will not download or share copyrighted material. Though Napster itself does not steal any copyrighted material, it has been proven that, more often than not, its users do. Napster users have not shown respect for the autonomy of the artists who produce the copyrighted music that they are downloading. Though the company is receiving much criticism, Napster has shown some semblance of responsibility, fairness, and citizenship.

Napster has demonstrated responsibility by offering $1 billion to the recording industry to settle its lawsuit. It has demonstrated fairness and citizenship by cooperating with the due process of the law and obeying the commands of the Court. The company was sued, then filed an appeal to the decision handed down by the court, lost its appeal, and finally abided by the court’s ruling.
One alternative Napster could pursue would be to work with the music industry to distribute certain sample tracks to the public. These tracks could be distributed royalty-free as promotion for the album, or Napster could agree to pay royalties. A cooperative effort with the music industry has the advantage of being totally legal and stopping all conflicts between Napster and the RIAA. However, such a model would mean a great reduction in the number of songs available and would eliminate the ‘sharing’ aspect of the program.

Another option for Napster, though it would be unethical, would be that being adopted by other similar information-sharing applications like Freenet and Gnutella is to make file transfers over the application anonymous. Adding to that, the fact that the central servers themselves do not have to contain any copyrighted files, tracking down users breaching copyright legislation will be incredibly difficult. Advantage of the anonymous peer-to-peer model is that if no corporation, individual or other entity claims ownership, no one can be sued. And because no files are stored on the central server, no copyright is being infringed there. The disadvantage of this method, would be that Napster would still be breaking the law, and undoubtedly new legislation would be brought in and measures would be taken to stop the service. Furthermore, if Napster could not take credit officially for their software, then they could not profit from it, something they need to do, considering the investment in the company.

Perhaps the optimal solution for Napster’s dilemma is the possibility of a cable TV type payment. Users pay a certain monthly fee for all the downloaded music they wanted. They could chat with their favorite artists, get first claim on concert tickets, and browse possible downloads by genre. The new system would pay the artists their royalties and sell millions of older titles that at present are sitting in vaults because no stores will give them shelf space. This option has the advantages of cooperation between the music industry and Napster. Napster users will have the same type of service as they do now, with extras so they won’t have to turn to no-fee options (Gnutella and Freenet). Music companies will be able to use the Internet for sales of all their merchandise. If music companies can package a better experience people will pay for it. In a recent survey of college students more than two thirds of the respondents would be willing to pay for a $20 dollar monthly fee of a similar service. The only foreseeable disadvantage of this solution is the plausibility of the record companies cooperating in such an effort.

Opposing The Death Penalty

Opposing The Death Penalty
Taking this course has made me ponder on many issues which I never
deemed worthy of my thoughts. I always considered the death penalty one of
those things which I never had to concern myself with. First of all I’m not
planning to commit any vial crimes, and I don’t think anyone I care about has
those plans either. Secondly, I’ve never been conscious or concerned with the
likes of criminals. When we began speaking on the subject, I thought we were
only going to talk about the institution of racism in capital punishment, and
was quite unaware of the feeling this subject would arouse in me. Needless to
say, I have formed some opinions on the issue which confused even me.

I always considered myself pro-capital punishment. I was of the mind
that if someone killed me, I would like my death avenged, but pondering on the
issue of cultural differences has made me doubt my prior convictions. First of
all, I am against the use of the lethal injection. I understand that it is
cleaner, but if the law wants to inflict death as a punishment, it must
understand that death is not a pretty thing. Criminals are painlessly put to
sleep, and die in the same manner that Dr. Kavorkian’s patients choose.

Personally, if I was faced with the option of living the remainder of my life in
isolation, perpetually haunted by pain and images of terror, I would absolutely
chose to die by lethal injection. There is no true punishment in this method,
except the fear of going to hell, which I strongly doubt is of much concern to
most convicts on death row.

Assuming that the judicial processes which convict these individuals
are legitimate, the only common bond within this group is that they are all
mortal, and hold no respect for human life. These delinquents are on death row,
because they have committed a crime of such ghastly proportions, that society
has deemed them unfit to live. They deliberately and nonchalantly depraved
another human of their life. They emphatically partook in reprehensible malice
of inhuman dimensions, never bothered by their conscience. They are sick and
vile individuals who do not acknowledge social conventions such as religion and
the law. They have broken the law, and in leaving it they removed themselves
from the protection of the law. The 8th Amendment should no longer apply to
these sick dements who deserve none of my compassion. Yet, the bleeding hearts
continue to defend them and oppose capital punishment because it is too cruel.

In an article in the Chicago Tribune, the Roman Catholic church vented its
opposition to capital punishment by affirming that “human life is sacred” and
that “a truly just and humane society” is compelled “to protect and enhance” all
human lives at every degree of development, “the bishop concluded in the
statement that execution are “an inappropriate response on moral and practical
grounds.” But what this argument refuses to acknowledge is that these
individuals ceased to be human when they renounced their humanity through murder.

They do not recognize morality or the principles of humanity. They have chosen
to go against the laws of every religion and society known to civilization.

They have belittled themselves to the stature of animals, and as so, renounce
their conscience. Many of them, like those who belong to gangs in LA, don’t
even consider death a punishment. Dying is a part of life, and “you can be a
king or a street sweeper, but everybody dances with the Grim Reaper.” (Robert
Alton Harris-gassed April 21, 1992) These individuals are so warped, that the
death penalty would be among the most pleasant punishments they could receive.

They have very little they care about, if they cared they wouldn’t have put
themselves in this situation, and they are departing this life for the next.

Very few of them believe in religion, so they have no hell to fear. More than
anything they are being freed from their present dismal situation. The death
sentence would only serve as punishment for moral, religious (Christians, Jews,
Muslims…not Buddhist of Hindus) individuals who respect human life and have
something to live for; in reality, these are not the people on death row. I
therefore believe capital punishment too lenient a penalty for these fiend, but
at least when they were fried they felt a few minutes of pain to recompense for
their victim’s suffering.

Please forgive my vindictive reaction, but a dear relative of mine was
raped and murdered by one of these beasts; he is still at large. Needless to
say, I believe a harsher form of punishment should be placed on their lives. I
have therefore devised a more austere discipline which, conveyed in the form of
fear, would severely downsize heinous crimes, and would also be cheaper.

Instead of simply killing them why don’t we just maim them to the point where
they are no longer a threat to society. First you amputate their legs from the
knee down, so they can no longer walk. Then you cut off their arms so they can
no longer shoot, strangle, hit or stab anyone. Then you cut out their tongues
so they no longer speak their ideas of hate. Then you burn their faces till
they are so ugly to look at that they are ashamed to be alive. Then you
castrate them to make sure they can no longer partake in pleasure. In this
disheveled state you throw them out to the streets so they can see and hear the
pain, agony and injustice that they so freely bestowed on their victims. They
will truly suffer for their crimes.They will be the new example for future
criminals. No longer will the villain be worshipped by the mass media, or by
the youngsters on the streets. The gangster will then cease to exist, and only
the mentally retarded will perpetuate their heinous crimes.

Isn’t it sad that our situation has become so grave that we must
actually look to these alternatives to solve the problem. I think everyone
knows that the only way to help ourselves to a better life is through education,
but politicians continue to withdraw funding for schools. We are going about
the solution in the wrong way. If we teach people to value themselves and
accept others, and therefore dissolve economic and class differences, we will
truly begin to put an end to crime. Till then we will have to accept our

Social Issues

The Taming of the Shrew: The Mirror of Film

In the late twentieth century, it is not unusual for audience members to come away from productions of The Taming of the Shrew with the impression that they have just witnessed the story of a dynamic woman turned into a Stepford wife.1 There are also Shakespearean critics who hold such views. G. I. Duthie, for instance, describes Katherina as a “spirited woman who is cowed into abject submission by the violence of an egregious bully” (147). John Fletcher’s 1611 play The Woman’s Prize, or the Tamer Tamed, in which Petruchio’s second wife treats him as he had treated Kate,2 suggests that even during Shakespeare’s lifetime the battle of the sexes within the play had become a battle of the critics outside it.3
Shakespearean scholars on the other side argue, as Charles Boyce does, that far from being a tale of domination, “the play’s main plot concerns the development of character and of love in a particular sort of personality” (626). Boyce goes on to say that “The violence in The Shrew–except for the beatings of servants … is limited to Katherina’s own assaults on Bianca and Petruchio” (626). Nor is Boyce alone in his belief that Petruchio is physically kind to Kate; as Robert Speaight writes, “It is only to others that he is rough” (59).

Much of the confusion comes from a simultaneous idealization of the twentieth century4 and denigration of the sixteenth, a glorification of the sensibilities of modern critics, directors, and audiences coupled with a condemnation of the “medieval” insensitivity of the playwright. For example, Jonathan Miller, director of the 1980 BBC Shrew, says, “Shakespeare is extolling the virtues of the obedient wife … in accordance with the sixteenth-century belief that for the orderly running of society, some sort of sacrifice of personal freedom is necessary.” He defends his position with an attack, arguing that “If we wish to make all plays from the past conform to our ideals … we’re simply rewriting all plays and turning them into modern ones,” a practice he calls “historical suburbanism” (140).

However, he is himself engaging in a procedure which might be called historical blurring, allowing certain historical trends to obscure individuals and their divergent opinions.5 No period can be correctly characterized as homogeneous, certainly not a time as tendentious as the Renaissance. To maintain that women’s rights were not hotly debated by Shakespeare and his contemporaries is ignorance coupled with arrogance, and to fit the creator of Portia, Rosalind, and Viola into the company of male supremacists requires an adept mental contortionist.6 One need look no further than John Fletcher’s epilogue to The Tamer Tamed for a flat contradiction of Jonathan Miller’s implied Renaissance world picture. In the epilogue, Fletcher claims his play is “meant/ To teach both Sexes due equality; And as they stand bound, to love mutually” (148).

Those critics who acquit Shakespeare of male chauvinism often accuse him of bad craftsmanship. Thus H. J. Oliver writes in his introduction to the Oxford edition of the play, “In The Taming of the Shrew he Shakespeare was dramatizing material from unrealistic literature that was perfectly acceptable on the level of the Punch and Judy show but ran the risk of embarrassing as soon as it rose above that level” (51). He has previously said, “We sympathize with Katherine–and as soon as we do, farce becomes impossible” (51). But rather than assuming that Shrew should therefore be played as comedy and not farce, Oliver decides that Shakespeare has been led astray by his low comedy source.

Directors of stage and film versions of the play must also participate in this long-running and complex controversy, choosing sides and making critical judgements as they make their artistic choices. If the five film versions of the play which are currently available are not likely to give a definitive answer, they certainly provide a representative sample, a set of performance texts with which to explore Shakespeare’s blueprint. They include a “live” television production with Charlton Heston, a full-scale movie version directed by Franco Zeffirelli, a filmed stage production from the 1982 Stratford, Ontario Shakespeare Festival, the BBC’s television studio version made for the thirty-seven play Canon in the Can, and, finally, Bard’s made-for-videocassette version filmed on a replica Shakespearean stage without the audience.

Those directors who see the play as a man’s violent domination of a woman have manipulated the text in two main ways. One is to foreground the violence a la Charles Marowitz, who declares that “The modern technique of brainwashing is, almost to the letter, what Petruchio makes Katherine undergo” (18). Keith Digby’s 1980 Stratford, Ontario, production, for instance, characterized Petruchio’s ministrations as “brutality in a concerted application to destroy Kate’s individuality through her total subjugation” (Loudon 678).7
Another and more “popular means of not dealing directly with the main story has been” as Tice L. Miller writes, “to mock it by turning the production into knockabout farce” (662). This was the strategy of the 1991 Utah Shakespearean Festival production, a strategy which, as usual, pleased most audience members while infuriating those who felt that Kate or Shakespeare or both had been violated.8 Nancy Mellich wrote in her Salt Lake Tribune review, “As interpreted by director Kathleen Conlin, Petruchio is a muscle-flexing bully, Kate a groveling, shrieking victim, and poor Will Shakespeare a male chauvinist…. What a pity, because that is a grave disservice to these witty, feisty, intelligent and immensely appealing characters.”
Both the Charlton Heston “live” television Shrew and the Bard versions employ comic violence and clearly signal Petruchio’s physical domination of Kate. The sparse, sixty- minute production starring Charlton Heston emphasizes the comic violence and eliminates much of the wit combat. Kate first enters at the beginning of Act 2, dressed for equestrian exercise and beating Bianca with a riding crop at Perhaps this is an indication of the horseplay to come.

Because the first scene between Petruchio and Kate is so abbreviated, the physical action therein is concentrated, and the sparring seems more physical than intellectual; of the 88 lines in the text, 34 have been cut. The combat becomes heated when Kate threatens, “best beware my sting” (2.1.210) and bites Petruchio’s hand. When he moves to grab her bottom on the line “Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting?/ In his tail” (2.1.213-14), she slaps his hand. After Petruchio proclaims himself a gentleman (2.1.217), Kate lustily exclaims, “That I’ll try” and slaps his face, finally provoking him to anger. His response, after Kate declares, “If you strike me you are no gentleman” (2.1.220), is to slap her twice (not, however, as hard as she slapped him). He holds her wrists behind her back with one arm as he compliments her from 2.1.236-244, and Kate stamps on his foot at “Thou art pleasant, gamesome…” (2.1.239). Then, just before he says, “Nor hast thou pleasure to be cross in talk” (2.1.243), Petruchio puts his hand over her mouth to prevent her from speaking, and she promptly bites it.

Kate has escaped his grasp by 2.1.251, and she begins throwing bric-a-brac and potted plants at him; she then tries to beat him with the broken lute when he says, “be thou Dian and let her be Kate” (2.1.254), but she misses and falls over his lap in a spanking position. And Petruchio does just that on line 260.

The Bard production too includes much horseplay but moves even further in the direction of farce. Throughout the performance, everyone on stage sighs when Bianca is mentioned, and the entire cast leans whenever anyone says “Pisa.” Additional instances of the Bard’s shtick are Lucentio’s unsuccessful attempt to quote a Shakespearean sonnet, “Shall I compare thee to a…. Shall I compare thee to a….” just before 1.1.14; the playing out of the lute-smashing scene on screen; and Petruchio’s and Hortensio’s apparent fear of being struck by lightning after the former says, “though she chide as loud/ As thunder when the clouds in autumn crack” (1.2.94-5), and again after Hortensio says, “Her name is Katherina Minola” (1.2.98).

Katherine and Petruchio dive into the violence enthusiastically if not immediately, and when they do, the text becomes subordinate to the action, despite the fact that all the lines in this encounter are intact. The first truly violent action comes at 2.1.217, when Kate punches her suitor in the jaw and knocks him to the ground. Petruchio jumps up, looking as though he’s going to punch her back, but he controls the urge. Some of the most noteworthy bits of roughhousing occur from lines 236-65, during which Petruchio grabs Kate from behind (236), and Kate flips him over her back (237). At line 239, Petruchio grabs her from behind again, lifts her from the floor, then, as he says, “slow in speech” (240), he puts his hand over her mouth. Kate, of course, takes this opportunity to bite his hand (243), after which he lets her go. When Petruchio speaks of “gentle conference” (245), she jumps on his back and grabs his face.

Later, at 2.1.255, Kate lunges at him and falls to the floor, giving Petruchio the opportunity to seize her ankle and bend her knee so she can’t get up. After line 257, “It is extempore from my mother wit,” Petruchio bites her toe; she screams, shakes Petruchio off, pins him on the floor and bends his knee into the same awkward position, before she replies, “A witty mother! Witless else her son” (258). Finally, Petruchio twists around and pushes Katherine to the floor at “Marry, so I mean, sweet Katherine, in your bed” (2.1.260). He kneels between her legs, catches her wrists, and holds her down while he forcefully insists that they will be married.10
Although most productions of Shrew cut the Induction (as four of these five films have done) the play within the play is still part of Shakespeare’s text and his intent, and this pointedly artificial structure can show the actors in the main plot as role players whose actions shift with their situations. Further, inside the play within the play are yet other productions which may be used to distract from any unpleasantness (real or imagined) in the main plot. Bianca’s suitors–Lucentio and Hortensio–disguise themselves to woo her, and Lucentio, who pretends to be the emissary of Gremio, directs his own actors–Tranio and a chance-met Pedant–in a comedy designed to end with Lucentio’s wedding to Bianca. Meanwhile, Petruchio and his servants play out a drama which might be called Petruchio the Shrew.

Indeed, there is scarcely a scene which does not involve a deceptive performance for an on-stage audience. The Induction draws attention to the tricks of actors and to the acting that others do, “And if the boy have not a woman’s gift/ To rain a shower of commanded tears,/ An onion will do well for such a shift” (1.124-6). Preceded by those lines, Kate’s words to Bianca, “A pretty peat! It is best/ Put finger in the eye, and she knew why” (1.1.78-79), show Bianca as a boy actor who plays the role of a girl who pretends to cry. Kate accuses her sister of playing father’s pet, and much of Kate’s shrewish behavior may be attributed to her frustration with the success of Bianca’s role playing. Enter Petruchio to act many parts–fortune hunter, wealthy suitor, swaggering master, true lover, shrew tamer, and–in the pursuit of this last–shrew. In this shifting, indeed very opal of a context it is hard to take Petruchio seriously as an advocate of the right rule of the sixteenth century male and yet the Induction and its implications are Shakespeare’s.

By including the Induction and emphasizing the play-within-a-play aspect of Shrew, the Stratford Festival has foregrounded the kind of performance which a stage production can do best. As H. R. Coursen declared, “The production’s outstanding quality was its theatricality” (286). In fact, the Stratford film goes beyond the lines and stage directions included in most texts of the play to achieve that theatricality. The Shrew players bow, for example, in recognition of Christopher Sly and company and allow Sly to act out the part of Biondello. Later on in the play, Sly takes on directorial authority, demanding from his seat in the balcony that Vincentio not be taken to prison. In addition, Petruchio and Kate, on their way to the bed chamber, walk past and acknowledge their onstage audience, and Petruchio’s taming soliloquy of 4.1.182-205 is delivered on the balcony in their midst.11 The film concludes with lines from The Taming of A Shrew, in which Christopher Sly, waking to find that he is not a lord, decides that he must have dreamt the play and declares that he is going home to tame his own wife.

The violence was minimized in this production, giving more attention to the combat of wits. This reduction did not, of course, please everyone. Ralph Berry complained, “To see the Shrew assimilated into homiletic drama is hard for those of us who regard its vital essences as brutality and sexuality” (200).12 It is, perhaps, significant that Berry links those two words and lists brutality first, but like so much Shakespeare criticism, it says more about the psychology of the critic than the reality of the play.

Nevertheless, not all physical confrontation was eliminated. Petruchio says, “In sooth, you scape not so” and chases Kate when she tries to leave; he then grabs her from behind, lifts her off the floor, carries her to a chair, and places her on his lap. Kate bites him when he tells her she is “passing courteous” and thus escapes from his lap, but Petruchio recaptures her by reaching across the table and pulling her up onto it. There is indeed much fighting over and even kicking of tables.

For this production, the end result of Petruchio’s behavior modification was not a broken or even subdued Kate but a Kate who has seen through the layers of role playing to reality. After Petruchio exits on “what o’clock I say it is” and Hortensio says, “this gallant will command the sun,” Kate suddenly realizes what Petruchio is up to. Her enlightenment consists of a small “oh,” then a larger one followed by quiet laughter.

If the Stratford Festival emphasized that part of Shrew which is best played on a stage, Zeffirelli’s retelling of Shakespeare’s story provided the maximum number of opportunities for a movie camera. Petruchio’s wooing of and confrontation with Katherine becomes a chase scene through Baptista’s house and over the rooftop with opportunities for swinging on ropes, smashing wooden structures, and repeatedly falling into a large pile of wool. Kate in her turn becomes the pursuer after the wedding, tracking her new husband over rough country during a storm.

As a result of this filmic revision, Zeffirelli’s Shrew avoided the direct violence usually included in 2.1 by turning the scene into a series of chases through Baptista’s house. After he says “I’ll crave the day/ When I shall ask the banns and when be married” (2.1.179-80), Petruchio rolls up his sleeves and enters a room to find Kate destroying a music stand. She throws a small lute at him when he says he has heard “her mildness praised in every town” (191), and she kicks Petruchio’s stool out from under him at line 198. But after she insists that she is “Too light for such a swain as you to catch,” she pretends Baptista has entered the room and says, “Father, this man…” and, when Petruchio turns round to look for Baptista, she slips out of the room, initiating a chase through the household.

This Petruchio is, initially, obsessed with money and not much else. When Hortensio says, in lines which exist in the screenplay but not in Shakespeare’s text, “Now Petruchio, if I do plot thy match with Katherine, there is a favor I would ask of thee to help me woo her younger sister, Bianca,” Petruchio responds, “Ask it, and so it be not gold, tis granted.” In addition, when he enters Baptista’s home, he eagerly inspects a silver serving set which is on a table. Zeffirelli has shifted lines so that the first thing Petruchio says to his future father-in-law is, “What dowry shall I have with her as wife?” He repeats the question in its rightful place (2.1.119-20), and when Baptista tells him he shall have twenty thousand crowns, he utters an “Ah!” of pleasure, and smiles. Also, after he tells Kate, “Will you, nill you, I will marry you,” she says, “I’d rather die” and jumps out a high window (onto a roof, we soon discover); he shows no concern for Katherine personally at this point, but mutters anxiously, “My twenty thousand crowns,” looking exceedingly relieved when he finds that he has not lost her dowry.

While this production is less violent than one might expect from a director as concerned with physical action as Zeffirelli,13 Petruchio’s characterization is considerably darker than Shakespeare’s play indicates. After the marriage, Petruchio puts Kate on a mule, and he and Grumio gallop off toward his house without waiting for her. Kate chases after them in the rain and finds a shortcut over a mountain; when she gets to the other side, however, her mule is startled by Petruchio’s horse and throws her into a pond. Petruchio chortles and rides on without offering assistance, leaving her to survive the rain (which soon turns to snow) on her own.

When Petruchio reaches his home, he celebrates by throwing gold to his servants. He looks disappointed and disgruntled when Kate walks through the door, as though he had hoped she was dead and the dowry his with no further trouble, and his complaints to his servants concerning the lack of preparation for his bride’s arrival seem a desperate attempt to cover his surprise and excuse his boorishness. But despite this unpromising (and unShakespearean beginning), by the end of the film, this Petruchio and Kate have realized the love which their first glimpses of each other suggested they might find. As Jack Jorgens says, “Their struggle, really a mutual taming, is ‘the old game’–they test each other, school each other” (68). If this Petruchio is not a conscious improver of Kate, he does change her (as she changes him) for the better, a message of hope which the rainbows and syrupy music have been foreshadowing all along.

Except for its omission of the Induction, the BBC Shrew is the truest to the text of the five films. It is also the one version which foregrounds the words rather than the comedic business of the play. Petruchio’s confiding of his strategy to the audience is given full weight both before his first encounter with Katherine and at his own home. Suddenly, the extended hawk-taming metaphor in 4.1 leaps out as, if not the center of the play, at least the central explanation for Petruchio’s behavior. In his soliloquy, he explains the theory of his taming, using an image that nearly everyone in Shakespeare’s audience would have understood and that few people in modern audiences do. The comparison with the art of falconry is especially significant, since the falconer undertakes only to redirect the hawk’s natural impulses; it is impossible to break such a bird’s spirit. As T. H. White writes in The Goshawk, “Any cruelty, being immediately resented, was worse than useless” (16). Petruchio speaks of “a way to kill a wife with kindness” (4.1.197), and his words to Katherine are almost always gentle. He praises her wit and beauty in phrases that must ring in her ears with a refreshing strangeness.

This is, of course, precisely the wrong way to break her. If that were his intention, he would be better advised to make her worthlessness clear to her, until in very weariness and despair she does as she is told. Instead, he treats her as a lady who deserves the best of everything, while acting himself as the very mirror of her shrewishness. In no other production is this as clear as in the BBC. John Cleese’s clever glances out at the television audience make it plain that his own shrewishness is mere performance.

Indeed the sole blow between Katherine and Petruchio comes at 2.1.217 when the play’s stage directions indicate that Kate “strikes him.” The only other physical clashes between the two occur at 2.1.234 when Petruchio grabs her arm to restrain her from leaving the room; at 2.1.314 when he twists her arm behind her back and leads her out of the room; and at 2.1.317 when Kate pushes him away. They even manage to maintain a civilized (though sarcastic) tone of voice throughout most of the episode, communicating through the meaning rather than the volume of their words.

The BBC is the only film where Petruchio does not carry Katherine off stage after the wedding scene, and the only film in which Petruchio’s pretense of rescuing Kate from the wedding guests is even mildly convincing.

As in the Stratford, Ontario production, when the newlyweds arrive at Petruchio’s house, Petruchio behaves abominably toward his servants, but, when he speaks to Kate, he is all mildness and manners. For instance, after he scolds and kicks the servant who is removing his boots, saying, “Take that, and mend the plucking of the other,” he exclaims with the greatest gusto, “Be merry, Kate” (4.1.142-3). In addition, it is clear that this “taming” is just as rough on Petruchio as it is on Kate when he wearily reveals his strategy at the end of 4.1; also, he sounds discouraged when he tells Kate, “Look what I speak or do or think to do,/ You are still crossing it” (4.3.190-91).

A particularly amusing instance of Petruchio’s imitation of Kate’s behavior (and his deliberate ignoring of her wishes) comes when she throws a tearful fit because Petruchio has rejected the new hat at 4.3.73-80. He responds by throwing the same sort of tantrum, whimpering, “A custard-coffin, a bauble, a silken pie./ I love thee well in that thou lik’st it not” (4.3.81-3).

Kate sees through and decides to play along with Petruchio’s game at 4.5.12, agreeing that the sun is “moon or sun or what you please” and addressing Vincentio as a “young budding virgin”; it seems that she has learned marital cooperation and equality. However, Kate’s speech concerning woman’s place is not more playacting, but is delivered in earnest, recommending submission rather than equality, a message that is emphasized by the psalm which the dinner guests sing at the end of the play.

It is unfortunate that Jonathan Miller has used subtext to subvert what is otherwise an excellent version of Shakespeare’s text. Having established an intellectual and physical equality between Kate and Petruchio from the opening scenes, he takes it away by sleight of hand at the conclusion.14 And surely the creator of those ludicrous Puritans Angelo, Jacques, and Malvolio deserves better than to have their creed substituted for his own.

If it is not finally possible to point out or even imagine a definitive production of Shrew, it is possible to separate Shakespeare’s play from some of the misunderstandings and misapprehensions that have collected round it like cobwebs. The play does not demand brutality, nor is it a sixteenth century tract for the subjugation of women. As usual, Shakespeare is subtler than his interpreters and more modern than the historians and pseudo-historians who seek to place him in an imagined past with which they themselves are more comfortable. Shakespeare’s great strength is his understanding of human beings, and until actors, directors and critics can better that understanding, they–and we–would be better advised to learn from Shakespeare than to try to give him lessons in the form of revisions.

1The term comes from Ira Levin’s 1972 novel, The Stepford Wives and the film of the same name that was made from it in 1975. In both, women are replaced by docile android replicas with limited vocabularies and insatiable desires to clean house. Return to text.
2It is worth noting in this context that “shrew” was a title which initially belonged to men anyway, the word appearing first (the Oxford English Dictionary indicates) in 1250 and not being applied to women until 1386. Return to text.
3However, Fletcher’s association with Shakespeare’s company and his later collaboration on Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen give credence to Ann Thompson’s contention that by writing The Tamer Tamed, “Fletcher was … putting the play into its traditional context of the war of the sexes, a context in which normally … a story about a husband outwitting … his wife is capped … by one in which a wife outwits her husband, the overall moral being that … the best marriages are based on equality and mutual respect” (18). Given Shakespeare’s pre-eminence as a playwright for the King’s Men, his financial share in the company, and the theatrical failure of Fletcher’s The Faithful Shepherdess (published in 1610), it is hard to imagine Fletcher’s sequel to Shrew as anything other than a compliment to its author and a continuation of his themes. Return to text.
4See, for instance, chapter five of Susan Faludi’s Backlash, “Fatal and Fetal Visions: The Backlash in the Movies” (112-139). Return to text.
5As Willcox and Arnstein write in The Age of Aristocracy, “A society, past or present, can be described only in generalizations, which by their nature are unsatisfactory” (47). Return to text.
6If it is objected that these women wear male attire and thus take on male characteristics, one might point to the many women in Shakespeare’s plays who exhibit “masculine” traits without adopting male attire or becoming monsters: Cordelia leads an army in King Lear; Helena, though a “right maid” for her cowardice, chases her lover through the forest night in Midsummer; another Helena outwits and ultimately catches Bertram in marriage in All’s Well, in part because of her skill in the “masculine” profession of physician; Beatrice expresses a desire to eat Claudio’s “heart in the market place” in Much Ado; and Paulina is the only member of Leontes’ court courageous enough to call the King mad in The Winter’s Tale. Return to text.
7Interestingly, Sherry Flett played Katherine in this Stratford Shrew and in the very different 1982 Stratford Festival production which we will examine later. Return to text.
8In addition to the knockabout elements, the USF played down the Kate-Petruchio problem by treating the play as an opportunity for ensemble performance, giving the Bianca subplot and even Hortensio’s widow a prominence they seldom attain. Return to text.
9All act, scene and line references are to the Signet Classic Shakespeare, Sylvan Barnet, editor. Return to text.
10If this is to be taken as a comic threat of rape, it is more in the spirit of the twentieth century and, for example, the 1991 Kevin Costner Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves than of anything Shakespearean. Return to text.
11Performance is emphasized in another way at Petruchio’s home in Act 4 where Petruchio demonstrates how foolish Kate’s shrewish behavior looks to others by playing it himself. He behaves like an outraged monster with his servants, as when he calls a servingman “A whoreson, beetle-headed, flap-eared knave (4.1.151), but is the very epitome of courtesy when he addresses Kate. For instance, just after he curses the servingman, he calmly invites, “Come, Kate, sit down; I know you have a stomach” (4.1.152). Return to text.
12Berry objected to the Stratford Festival’s program notes which suggested “‘Petruchio frees her from this role of shrew by enacting a calculated plan of behaviour modification'” (200). Berry was taken to task by H. R. Coursen, who said, “While I am no fan of a director’s program notes, good actors overcome concepts. And this concept does have textual support. Petruchio is holding a mirror up to Kate” (287). Return to text.
13However, as Jack Jorgens points out, the physical has not been abandoned or even subordinated, “Apart from sentimental romance, Zeffirelli’s major emphasis is upon farce. The film delights in harmless violence and festive destruction” (71). Return to text.
14Scott McMillan sees Miller’s production as more deadly, in fact, “a straightforward piece of shrew bashing. Casting John Cleese as Petruchio was first greeted as a sign of zaniness, but the anti-feminist inheritance from ‘Monty Python’ was here being turned to explicit purpose…. Kate’s concluding speech about the simplicity of women is the most centered and valorized speech in all of Miller’s productions” (80). Return to text.

A Room Of One’s Own

Hundreds of years ago, an unconscious culture diseased the female population. Similar to Shakespeare’s sister, women were conditioned to conform to a feminine ideology. This concept of femininity spread through out the country essentially defining the nature of a woman and robbing them of their innate sense of self. While women may have dreamed about the day when their creative spirit could be unleashed, those dreams were quickly interrupted by the powerful grasp of male dominance. By repressing women, the feminine role of dependency and obedience was maintained. In return, society’s power structure became refueled and the patriarchy was perpetuated. Through time the power structure has broken down, however, I believe Shakespeare’s sister continues to exist in many women, still in search of a room of one’s own.
Virginia Woolf stressed the importance of having a room of one’s own or a place to discover and explore the creative self. She encourages the young women to develop the habit of freedom and the courage to write exactly what they think. More than seventy years later, Woolf’s words remain applicable. Women are still struggling to confront the courage and face the factthat there is no arm to cling to. For, while the societal barriers have disappeared, the mental barriers have not. Though few women are expected to be submissive and obedient, the ideology of the feminine role continues to starve women’s souls. The pressure to get married and have children while pushing one’s personal desires and passions aside persists.
Thus, when a woman’s soul is in a state of starvation, she becomes a walking skeleton, merely existing through life. As the natural gifts she is born with stay buried and unnourished, she becomes a complete stranger to herself. In order to reawaken the sense of self, she must express her instinctive cravings. When this is accomplished Shakespeare’s sister will emerge and a room of one’s own will be discovered.
English Essays

Descriptive Essay

Descriptive Essay of My Watch
My article of clothing is with me at all times. It consists of a 3cm
circular base and two separate straps, each 6cm long connected by a metal
clasp. These two straps and a clasp are then connected to the top and
bottom of the base. The straps are outlined in hard rigid silver, looking
as my uncle’s smoothly brushed gray hair. Through the center of the 2cm
wide straps is a 1cm in width gold strip. The gold looks as bright as a
gold chalice from my local church. The clasp is a hard silvery gray such
as that which borders the straps. The letters ‘SEIKO’ are clearly placed
on the clasp in raised lettering. The clasp looks 3cm long when in the
closed position, but when opened it extends to 11cm as two more 4cm metal
pieces open outward.

The face of the object is encircled with a gold color, gold as the trim
on my father’s Cadillac. Inside the gold trim, the background is a black
color. The black is like the black rubber on my car’s Cooper tires.

Towards the top of this face, there is a number 12, the bottom has a number
6, and the leftmost number has a number 9. Each of these numbers are
raised in lettering in a gold color. On the rightmost side, there is a
1/2cm x 1/5cm sized box. This box is then further separated in two parts.

2/3s of the box is devoted towards showing the current day’s first 3
letters, now showing a THU for Thursday. The remaining space of the box is
set aside for the date of the month. In this box the number 14 is shown.

Both, the day and the date, are in white colors. This white is like a
white hospital gown, starched and cleaned. The face of the object has 56
small lines all facing from the outside of the circle towards the middle.

These gold lines are equally separated all aro the face of the object.

There are 4 places where there is no line, instead a white dot exists.

There are 8 more gold lines, very similar except 3 times longer (1/2cm)
equally spaced around the face as well, with the exception of the numbers
and the small box which are counted as well into the spacing. From the
center of the watch are 3 thin strands of golden color rods, just like a
strand of goldenrod colored growing wheat.

Black Cat By Poe

The Romantic period has numerous characteristics that help to distinguish it
from other literary periods. A large majority of the pieces found in this period
have at least one of the distinctive elements. Edgar Allan Poe uses a few of
these elements to put a time frame on his short story, “The Black
Cat”. Poe begins his short story by saying that “For the most wild,
yet most homely narrative which I am about to pen, I neither expect nor solicit
belief”. A big characteristic of Romanticism is a willing suspension of
disbelief. It is never even thought that the plot to the story would be taken as
being true, but rather as a made up story to get the attention of the reader.

This also allows the reader to imagine if such a case were to actually occur.

Each word that is read is meant to be doubted, and thought of as being
absolutely bizarre, and with each new twist more doubt is created. Escapism,
another key factor in Romanticism, is seen throughout the short story. The main
character, who is never specifically identified, is running from his life by
drinking alcohol. The alcohol eventually leads to the destruction of the first
black cat, Pluto. The man felt the need to escape from Pluto even though the
animal was one of his most beloved pets. His wife and the second cat are being
run from merely for the disturbing conscious that they provide for him. Bizarre
and unusual plots are often found in the Romantic period, and Poe does not hold
back in his efforts. To deliberately cut the cats eye out of its socket is both
bizarre and unusual regardless of being intoxicated or not. Even further, to
hang the cat by a noose is ranked borderline for insanity. But the most abnormal
act is that of getting rid of your wife by creating a tomb in the walls of your
home would definitely be insane. Such acts are used in this literary piece to
illustrate clearly that many factors weigh in to the different writing periods.

The Romantic period, known for such elements as improbable plots and unlikely
characters, is an important era in literature. Poe used a very unusual plot to
create a vivid image of what the Romantic period truly was, and his work will be
looked at for years to come.

Chaos Vs. Order

Chaos Vs. Order
The short story by James Thurber, “The Catbird Seat”, describes a man, Mr.

Erwin Martin, who is very precise and logical in everything he does including his job and
how he reacts when his order is disrupted by a loud, meddlesome woman, Mrs. Ulgine
Barrows, who has much persuasion with the company president, Mr. Fitweiler.Mr.
Martins order is disrupted by this chaos in the company and he can not have it so he
decides he must kill Mrs. Barrows to get things back the way they were.The theme of
the story is the battle for favorable position or to sit “in the catbird seat” and if one stays
calm and keeps themselves in order they can eventually win over the chaos in their life.

In the story Mr. Martin is the character who epitomizes order. He was very organized and kept a strict schedule.He arrived at work every day at eight thirty and walked home at five thirty, he ate dinner at Schrafts every night at eight, then took a walk and usually was in bed around eleven.He was described as “neat, quiet, attentive” and coworkers described him as “infallible” and “the most efficient worker.”His job at F & S was as head of the filing department.His very job deals with keeping things organized.He also was said to have never drank anything stronger than ginger ale and never smoked in his life.This also represents perfection.He views Mrs. Barrows not as a person but as a “mistake” made by his boss, Mr. Fitweiler.He decides he must “rub out” the mistake by killing Mrs. Barrows.He is so exact in his ways that he spends a week coming up with a plan and goes over it every night.Another thing he does every night is he goes over his “case” against!
Mrs. Barrows.He acts as the attorney, judge, and jury making his case against Mrs. Barrows.This also shows of a very organized mind.He objects and sustains himself, raps a gavel in his mind, charges Mrs. Barrows with “willful, blatant, and persistent attempts to destroy the efficiency and system of F & S” and recommends the death penalty (318).He, of course, is also the executioner.He comes up with an organized plan in which he thinks of almost every possibility.He buys cigarettes to smoke at her apartment which will be his “red herring” since no one would suspect him if he left one there because everyone knows he doesnt smoke.He was a very clever man who even got one of his assistants to believe he liked Mrs. Barrows.Mr. Martin represents order in the story and is almost too perfect.

Just as Mr. Martin represents order in the story, Mrs. Barrows represents chaos.She was loud and obnoxious.She was described using animal words such as “brayed,” “quacked,” and “like a circus horse.”Also, she never walked into a room, she “bounced,” “romped,” or “catapulted.”She didnt have to work hard to get her position as the adviser to Mr. Fitweiler, she just got the job after saving him from getting hurt by a large man at a party.She was the cause of many firings at F & S and also caused some to quit.She was known for saying ridiculous things all of the time such as “tearing up the pea patch” and “sitting in the catbird seat.She never came into work before ten and was known to brag about the place where she lived.She was planning a “reorganization” of Mr. Martins department and that was where the chaos had to end for Mr. Martin.

The title, “The Catbird Seat,” basically means sitting pretty.Specifically, who is “sitting pretty”.When the story begins its Mrs. Burrows who is “sitting pretty” or better, in a favorable position.She can recommend any change in the company to Mr. Fitweiler and it will most likely be done.She didnt earn her position and in Mr. Martins opinion doesnt know what shes doing so he needsto get rid of her.He sets his plan in motion and when he realizes he cant go through with it, he almost instantly comes with an even better plan and tells Mrs. Barrows he is going to kill Mr. Fitweiler and he does drugs knowing that she will freak out and tell everyone but they know Mr. Martin better than that and wont believe her.Before he leaves her apartment Mr. Martin tells her, “Im sitting in the catbird seat,” and then humorously sticks his tongue out at her. It is the humor in the way the story was written that makes it not seem so bad that this man had planned to commi!
t murder.Mr. Martin then saves himself and the company the next day when he denies what he had done at her apartment to his boss and she is believed to be having a nervous breakdown so she is removed from her position.Mr. Martin by keeping order then, is “sitting in the catbird seat.”
To finish, the story shows a struggle between Mr. Martin and Mrs. Barrows or order and chaos.It is saying that one who takes time to think things through like Mr. Martin and makes decisions based on all the available facts they will come out ahead if they keep calm when faced with adversity or chaos.