Famous Latin-American Writers

Juan Rulfo, Octavio Paz,Carlos Fuentes and Isabel Allende are all famous Latin American writers. Rulfo,Paz and Fuentes are all Mexican writers. A common theme in their books was how they used real life events and put a surrealist twist on them, such as Juan Rulfo who is famous for the book El Llano en IIamas which is centred around life in Mexico during the Mexican revolution. Rulfo influenced writers such as Gaberial Garcia Marquez. Octavio Paz who is a Mexican writer poet and diplomat he is famous for writing about surrealism in his works. Carlos Fuentes also uses life experiences to write his books. His first novel La región más transparente was centered on Mexico City and Mexican culture. Finally Isabel Allende is well known for her novels the house of spirits and city of beasts. She was born in Peru but is now a Chilean writer. She uses Magic Realism in her books and is also influenced by her culture.

The Thousand Days' War

The Thousand Days’ War was fought from 1899-1902 and around 100,000 people died from the war. The conflict was between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the main cause of the war was the election in 1898. Manuel Antonio Sanclemente, a conservative, was elected president of Colombia, but due to his ill health most of the work was done by the vice president, José Manuel Marroquín, The Liberals were furious and believed that election fraud had taken place, so the liberal generals planned a rebellion for October 1899. The Liberals were successful in the battle of Peralonso but they were outnumbered in the battle of Palonegro. This defeat ruined the liberal army and they had to surrender. Throughout the war moderate liberals were trying to stop the two sides but they both refused to agree with one another, even so they signed the Treaty of Neerlandia on October 24^th 1902 which was basically a truce between the liberals and the conservatives. The war was formally ended on November 21^st 1902 when a second treaty was signed on the American Battleship, Wisconsin.

Some Thoughts on the Common Toad-- Commentary

 Some Thoughts on the Common Toad written by George Orwell is an essay about a common toad coming out for spring time. The meaning that Orwell is trying to send out in this essay is how spring can be enjoyed by everyone at the cost of nothing and whether you are living in the country or in a city it can be seen from everywhere.   The meaning is expressed through the tone, voice, purpose, mood and literary features.

The voice of this essay is first person narrative where the first person is Orwell himself discussing his opinions and thoughts on spring. Orwell's thoughts on the essay topic is how spring can be enjoyed by everyone for absolutely nothing but because of how people live some people are unable to do so because of how nothing can be “admired except steel and concrete, one merely makes it a little surer that human beings will have no outlet for their surplus energy except in hatred and leadership worship”(Orwell). The purpose that Orwell is trying to send out in his essay is how spring keeps on going in peoples hectic lives and nothing, not even “the atom bombs [that] are piling up in the factories [or]the lies [that] are streaming from the loudspeakers” can stop it from happening. The mood that reflects from the essay is a sort of sadness for how people are unable to see the little wonders, but it also creates a sense of calmness that in all the busy lifestyles there is always something to break away from that.

Imagery is used throughout Orwell’s essay and is how he helps convey his message across to readers. In the beginning of the essay when Orwell is describing the toad coming out of hibernation and compares “the toad [having] a very spiritual look, like a strict Anglo-Catholic towards the end of lent” (Orwell). Another use of imagery is how he describes the toads eyes as being strangely large and the colour being “like gold, or more exactly it is like the golden-coloured semi-precious stone... called a chrysoberyl” (Orwell). This simile shows us how Orwell was trying to show how even in something not that pretty as a toad there is still beauty if you take the time to see it. Furthermore, when Orwell is talking about how “spring is commonly referred to as “a miracle””(Orwell) he discusses how London transforms when March comes around and “down in the square the sooty privets have turned bright green, the leaves are thickening on the chestnut trees, the daffodils are out, the wallflowers are budding, the policeman's tunic looks positively a pleasant shade of blue, the fishmonger greets his customers with a smile, and even the sparrows are quite a different colour, having felt the balminess of the air and nerved themselves to take a bath, their first since last September”, this passage uses a lot of imagery and shows how people seem to be happier during the time of spring.

In summary Orwell’s essay Some thoughts on a common toad is about a toad coming out of hibernation in spring time but the deeper meaning of this essay is how spring can be enjoyed by everyone for the price of nothing also how spring seems to carry on unofficially. The deeper meaning is enhanced by the tone, voice, purpose, mood and literary features.

Commentary on Shooting an Elephant

Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell is an essay which is written during the early 20^th century and is set in India which is under the rule of Britain in this time. Orwell explains throughout his essay his dislike of imperialism and colonial Britain and their control. I think that Orwell is trying to show us how people’s decisions are effected by social influences, such as imperialism. Symbolism and chronology all enhance the meaning of the essay.

The shooting of the elephant is a symbolism to the narrators’ freedom. In the beginning of the essay when the narrator, who I think is Orwell himself, tells the readers about how he thinks “that imperialism was an evil thing” this shows us that he was against Britain and their ways of controlling people. Also for me this shows how Orwell enjoyed his freedom but also how it did not seem to have a lot if it due to his position. The narrator also talks about how the rule of Britain traps people into a system and that he is actually hindered by the all the hatred and rage for the empire he serves in. This reflects his behaviour later on in the essay when he has to make a decision between whether to kill the elephant or not to. He knows that if he does not kill the elephant it will causes problems for the village but at the same time he knows that he does not want to harm the elephant. Regardless of all the moral and ethical reasons to kill and not to kill the elephant he makes a decision because he believes that as a man of power he must control the situation but by doing that I think that he thinks he is surcoming to the rule of Britain and somehow losing his freedom from doing so.

The chronology of this essay matches the central meaning. I think that the story takes place in less than an hour or two and the actual decision of killing the elephant is only a mere second. In the beginning the narrator talks about himself and what he does. Not until the 4^th paragraph does the actually story take place. Once he gets to the village he talks about how he cannot find the elephant and this is written in a away where it seems like a lot of time has passed between the time he arrives to the village until he hears a “loud, scandalized cry of “go away, child! Go away this instant””. Once the narrator sees the elephant from a distance he waits to see if he will come back and ruin the village again. It can be assumed that he waited for a while because he talks about how the crowd of people grew every minute. He plans out what he will do about the situation and it seems like he is taking longer than necessary to kill the elephant. Finally he shoots the elephant and “in that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious”. The chronology matches the central meaning because in the beginning he was taking a long time to find the elephant or even make up his mind on what to do about it but the pressure of the civilians coming and cheering him on helps him make a decision this matches how in the beginning he had this hatred for imperialism because of all the negative things that he associates with it. As soon as he realizes what he has to do and once he shoots the gun he realizes just as fast as the bullet hit the elephant his freedom was taken away from him become he had let he go to the ways of imperialism.

Overall what George Orwell is trying to say in this essay is that social influences affect people’s decision making and that without the people cheering on the narrator he might have left that elephant alone and not have shoot it but due to the social implications and how he was perceived as an authoritative figure he had to take control of the situation but when he did he realized that he lost some of his freedom and surcomed to imperialism.