“In what ways does Rebecca demonstrate and subvert the conventions of the romantic genre? ” In Rebecca du Maurier appears to conform to the conventions of the romantic genre however, du Maurier has also subverted the genre of romance through her representation of the relationship between the narrator and Maxim and the structure of the novel. She has also incorporated of elements of the gothic genre and the psychological thriller. On the surface Rebecca appears to demonstrate the conventions of the romantic genre.
The storyline includes a heroine, who is thinks herself to be very plain “with straight, bobbed hair and youthful, unpowdered face, dressed in an ill-fitting coat and skirt…”, as well as a hero, who the heroine believes is “arresting, sensitive and medieval in some strange inexplicable way” as well as dark and mysterious. One convention of the romantic genre used in Rebecca is the exotic location at which they meet, Monte Carlo, and where Maxim asks her to “come home to Manderly” with him.
Like in many other romance novels there is someone who tries to break up the ‘happy couple’ as well as the ‘other woman’ however in Rebecca these are two different people. Mrs Van Hopper thinks the narrator is “making a big mistake” by marrying Maxim but does not try and stop the wedding as she thinks it will not work out anyway. In a very romantic genre-like style Maxim ‘saves’ the narrator from Mrs Van Hopper.
The narrator doesn’t listen to what Mrs Van Hopper says because she has found a “new confidence” and starts to fantasize about herself and Maxim “planning the future”, sitting “together in the dining room” and being able to “talk … about being happy”. Another convention of the romance genre is the ‘other woman’ who in Rebecca is the late Mrs de Winter. The narrator believes that Rebecca represents the love of Maxim’s life. When she finds the note that Rebecca had written in a book for Maxim, she decides to burn it and when she does, the narrator feels “the same freshness, the same gay confidence” that you feel at the “beginning of the year”.
The narrator burns Rebecca’s signature and watches the fragments flutter “to grey ashes” and then goes and washes her “hands in the basin” symbolising that she has washed her hands and her mind of Rebecca and feels triumphant over her. Rebecca demonstrates the basic conventions of a romance novel. Although Rebecca was first listed as a romance novel, in many ways it subverts the conventions. In most romance novels the plain heroine become beautiful by changing something about her, but in Rebecca the narrator stays the same throughout the novel and even when Beatrice tries to fix her hair she just makes it “worse. Another way in which du Maurier subverts the conventions of a romantic genre is how she structures the book. The wedding is at the start of the book rather than at the end and the book is on their life after being married not leading up to the marriage. Another factor on the structure of the novel is how they don’t have a happy ending, instead they watch their house burn down and the reader knows, from the start of the book, that the house is never restored and they are never happy. The convention of the ‘other woman’ is also subverted because she never does go away.
Instead she haunts Maxim and the narrator through memories, Mrs Danvers and even her routines that she left behind. The narrator is very aware of the fact that she is “sitting in Rebecca’s chair” and “leaning against Rebecca’s cushion”. Even the dog lays “his head upon” her knee “because that had been his custom”. Maxim does not change his routine which gives the impression that he still remembers her and the way she ran his house. The narrator is always trying to fit into ‘coats’ that are “too big” and “too long” that Rebecca has left.
Everyone around her is subconsciously comparing her to Rebecca and the narrator feels very uncomfortable around most people. In some way it is almost like Daphne du Maurier takes the conventions of a romance-genre and twists them so although Maxim apparently ‘saves’ the narrator from Mrs Van Hopper in fact he destroys her life. His world is full of pain and torture and now she has to go through that too. Another way in which Rebecca subverts the conventions of the romance-genre is by incorporating a murder into the plot.
The narrator thinks Maxim to be dark and mysterious, which he is, because he has been hiding the fact that he killed his first wife and apparently his child. Daphne du Maurier has written a romance novel that actually subverts the conventions of a romance in many ways. In Rebecca du Maurier has hybridised the romance with the gothic genre and the psychological thriller. In Chapter One the scene at Manderly closely resembles a nightmare. The imagery often relates back to a labyrinth and a monster which the readers can connect to the Greek story about Theseus and the labyrinth.
The story of the labyrinth and the monster symbolise Manderly as the labyrinth and Maxim being the monster at the middle of all the problems at Manderly. Du Maurier has also written a lot of imagery of death, and monstrosity and unnatural matings. All of these subtle hints are foretelling what is happening further on in the book. The death images predict the story about Maxim and Rebecca’s murder. The monstrosity symbolism is warning the reader about the monstrosity and torture of life at Manderly.
The ‘unnatural matings’ between the trees foretell the marriage between Maxim and the narrator, which is not one of love but in Maxim’s case a distraction. Du Maurier has incorporated the psychological thriller through Rebecca. Rebecca haunts Maxim with the guilt that affects his mind. Rebecca haunts the narrator through many ways. The narrator is obsessed with Rebecca and although is ‘forbidden’ to know information about her, tries to find out as much as she can. Also Rebecca had left many belongings behind with her writing and signature and since no one has taken her things away the narrator is forced to embrace Rebecca everyday.
Mrs Danvers also haunts them by reminding the couple, especially the narrator, about Rebecca and how everything used to be different. The way we are inside the narrators mind, makes the book very psychological. We know everything the narrator sees, knows and thinks about. Daphne du Maurier has written a book that both demonstrates and subverts the conventions of the romance novel. She has also integrated elements of the gothic genre and a psychological thriller through death and the ‘adventures’ of the mind.
Inconvenient Truth
Note
This assignment requires viewing a DVD – “An Inconvenient Truth. ” You have four options. 1. Go to the CSUDH Library Instructional Media Center (LIB C121) and ask to view “An Inconvenient Truth”, which is posted on their web server. Note that the IMC is closed on weekends and certain Fridays.
Most public libraries will have the video for checkout. 3. You can also rent the DVD (check Wherehouse, Blockbuster, etc. ).
Go the following website (foreign subtitles are a bit distracting) – http://topdocumentaryfilms. om/an-inconvenient-truth/ Answer the following questions, some of which are taken from the “Special Feature Update. ” Please note: Whether you like Al Gore or not, please keep in my mind that he is presenting the cumulative work of leading scientists (see answer to #16).
- In two words, what is the topic of this film?
- Name the four spheres of the Earth. Of these, which one(s) do humans have the most impact on?
- What causes the greenhouse effect?
- What causes the annual downturns in carbon dioxide production?
- What does Lonnie Thompson use to measure past CO2 and O2 levels?Other than CO2 and O2 levels, what other parameter can he and fellow scientists determine?
- For tropical glaciers (e. g. , Peru), how far back in time can they go using this technique?
- How far back in time can they go using this technique in Antarctica?
- How well do CO2 levels and temperature match over this time?
- List the ten hottest years on record (make sure you see the Special Feature “Update”).
- What is the hottest year on record?
- Other than temperature, what other weather phenomena (there are several) have set records in the last few years?
- Where on Earth is global warming the most pronounced?
- What causes ocean waters to sink? (name two factors)
- What caused the Little Ice Age in Europe?
- Melting of what two large ice masses is of most concern in regard to rising sea levels?
- How many scientific articles (as opposed to those in the popular press) were surveyed here in regard to global warming? How many of these articles disputed that global warming is indeed occurring?
- Are we ahead of – or behind – China in regard to vehicle fuel efficiency?
- Why did Ford, GM and Chrysler undergo a harsh downturn relative to other car makers?
- Do we currently have the technology to solve the global warming problem?
- We have made great progress in fixing another major environmental problem – which one was that?
- What is the correlation between temperature increase and global catastrophes? List four types of catastrophes related to temperature, and discuss the role temperature plays (some obvious of course! ).
- What are the implications of ocean acidification?
- Why does reduction in soil moisture content pose an impending disaster for many areas in the world?
- Global warming causes permafrost to melt.
Isaac Newton – The Product Of Time And Circumstance
Isaac Newton once said, “I have stood on the shoulders of giants. ” Explain this statement and explain how Newton was the product of time and circumstance. When Isaac Newton said, “I have stood on the shoulders of giants,” he demonstrated that he knew his place in the scientific community. In the relay race of astronomic science, Newton was the last of the runners to be passed the baton, and he, adding to the work of many great scientific minds before him, sprinted the home stretch.
Newton understood that his findings weren’t entirely his; they merely, but greatly, added to and reinforced the claims of past scientists. Before the Revolution in Astronomy, the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic System of the Universe was accepted by all and questioned by none. Abnegation of this theory all started with Nicholas Copernicus. He was the first to propose a heliocentric universe in place of a previously accepted geocentric one. This means that he got the ball rolling for the argument that the sun was the center of the universe, rather than the earth. His book, On Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, was published at his death.
The astronomer was afraid of living through the repercussions of such a controversial claim. As all authoritative figures and church leaders interpreted from the Bible that the earth was the center of the universe, he surely would have been dubbed a heretic and made to suffer serious consequences. Our first runner may not have been a courageous one, but he surely got things moving in the direction of a more realistic, thoughtful world society. The punishments feared by Copernicus were made a reality by Giordano Bruno. Bruno both supported and contributed to Copernicus’s heliocentric theory.
He said that the sun not only is the center of the universe, but also is fundamentally a star, not a planet. With this finding, he went even further so as to claim that since the sun is a star, and all the planets (that we knew of) revolve around the sun, then all the stars have a possibility of having their own little system of planets revolving around them. Furthermore, he drew the conclusion that there are likely other worlds inhabited by intelligent life forms, much like humans. He was burned at the stake for his heresy, proving the magnamity of the challenge facing the astronomic sector of the scientific community.
However, scientists were clever people, and taking Bruno’s approach to asserting heliocentrism as a mistake to learn from, they found ways to assert their theories while pleasing the Church and those invested in scripture. Tycho Brahe exemplified this effort with his extrageoheliocentric theory. As an inhabitant of Denmark, Brahe had access to a better view of the stars than astronomers in other regions of Europe may have had. With this advantage and his many observational instruments, he collected much data about the stars and the planets.
He concluded, like other astronomers, that all planets revolve around the sun. BUT to pacify the ardent Christian geocentric theorists, Brahe said that while the planets make an orbit around the sun, they then make a simultaneous loop around the earth. This way, the earth is still special but it was also acceptable to admit what really happens in space. Through the aforementioned collection of data, Brahe’s assistant Johannes Kepler, who was given the task of continuing Brahe’s work after his death, gathered a basis for his 3 Laws of Planetary Motion.
Kepler, being a religious man, saw the sun as a symbol of God the Father. Thus he concluded that the sun was what forced all the planets to move in the manner they do. He then from there determined that the force that the sun exacts on the planets is weakened as distance from the sun increases. This means that a planet’s orbit speed increases and decreases as it gets closer and further from the sun. For this to be possible, the planets’ orbit physically cannot be perfectly circular, as previously accepted. Therefore, the rotation of the planets around the sun must be elliptical.
Kepler’s conclusion provided one basis among many for Newton to create his theory of universal gravitation. Kepler also improved the pre-existing telescope using his research in optics. Galileo Galilei caught wind of the enhanced invention, and couldn’t resist getting his hands on one. Kepler obliged and Galileo, having improved the telescope even further, began a long process of viewing and plotting which, when published in his Starry Messenger, eventually earned him the title, “father of modern observational astronomy. ”
Galileo was a firm believer of the heliocentric theory, and even went so far as isiting Rome so he could appeal to Catholic Church authorities lest they ban the theories of Copernicus. He conceded that yes, the Scripture may have several verses suggesting the geocentrism of the universe. Galileo believed, however, that scripture might not be intended for such literal interpretation. Though the church denied his request and still commanded him to never hold the Bible-contradicting belief that the earth revolves around the sun. However, they did not deny him the ability to simply discuss the heliocentric theory.
And, with the formal approval of the church and the Pope, that’s exactly what he did in his Dialogue on Two Chief Systems. When the work was published however the church was greatly displeased. Though disguised as a mere discussion, the work did all but completely assert that geocentrists are the unintelligent peers of heliocentrists. Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition when the Pope felt personally insulted by the work. While Galileo followed the Pope’s request in not formally asserting the Copernican theory, his views were clear in his Dialogue.
The inquisition recognized this and condemned him as a heretic, first forcing him to denounce his claims, then sentencing him to a lifetime of house arrest. Last comes sir Isaac Newton. Synthesizing the ideas of his scientific predecessors (the so-called “giants”), Newton further advanced the Scientific Revolution by eliminating the last shred of doubt about the heliocentric theory. When he published Principia Mathematica, Newton asserted the Law of Universal Gravitation and introduced his three legendary laws of motion.
He exhibited the parallel ideas of his theory of gravitation and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, thus proving that the same set of natural laws applies to the motion of both terrestrial and celestial bodies. Newton understood that all the astronomers who lived before him set the stage for his breaking through the die-hard Christian barriers. If he had simply been born earlier, he would’ve been a contributor rather than the finisher. However, lucky for him, he was born when he was, so he was in fact the finisher.