Three Sisters Scenework essays

Three Sisters Scenework essays Three Sisters, by Anton Chekhov, embodies many different themes and ideas. In my exploration of the play I will be referring to those which involve Olga, the character I represented in our first scene study. The main themes of Three Sisters include frustration, eviction, and the idea of family. The sisters are frustrated at not being able to go back to their hometown, Moscow. This is something they have dreamed about for a long time. Olga says in Act One, Oh God, I woke up this morning... I saw the spring, and I felt such a great surge of joy, such a passionate longing for home [Moscow]. This is the central plot of the play, but of course each of the characters has their own frustrations. Olga is frustrated at her career. She has been given the position of headmistress at a school, a job she did not willingly take. Olga also has to deal with many of her siblings problems, since their mother passed away and Olga became the mother figure of the family. In our scene (Act Three, lines 322-439), Olga enters on Irinas line, Throw me away, throw me away, I cant go on...! She comforts and counsels her on the subject of marriage and a womans duty in life. Masha awakens, and Olga promptly expresses her discomfort for Mashas affair with Vershinin, clearly showing her disappoi ntment in her younger sisters decisions. In addition to her sisters problems, she also deals with her frustrations over not getting married. This makes it emotionally difficult to help Irina with her romantic situation, and even more difficult to listen to Masha speak of love. Olga clearly embodies frustration in this scene, as well as in the play as a whole. The idea of eviction is also presented in this play. The sisters feel evicted from Moscow, as they find out that they are never going back. This is part of the main driving plot. They fe ...

Why plagiarism doesnt pay - Emphasis

Why plagiarism doesnt pay Why plagiarism doesnt pay Here are the plagiarists of Internet Town With Ctrl+C and clattering keys They prowl and creep when you’re asleep   And take whatever they please. Sounds good, right? They aren’t my words though: we lifted them from Allan Ahlberg’s Cops and Robbers, then made a couple of tweaks. These days, pinching stuff from the internet is all the rage, simply because it’s (a) incredibly easy and (b) a short-cut to mountains of free web content. Obviously, plagiarism is unethical. We all know that text or images taken from another source should be properly attributed, in a footnote or through ‘quote marks’. But ethics aside, plagiarism is simply bad business. Ello ello, whats going on here? Let’s say that you copy and paste a chunk of text from a website into your own report, press release or company brochure. It may look good. It may read well. But the basic fact is, people will notice. Stolen goods – in writing just as at a car-boot sale – stand out. If they find your content via a search engine, they’ll immediately see that yours is not the only site to carry the text in question. If they’re editors and run plagiarism software (such as Turnitin or iThenticate), they’ll quickly see through your sleight-of-mouse. Most importantly, copied text stands out to anyone who pays enough attention to your writing (and if people aren’t paying enough attention to your writing, you’ve got a whole other problem). Changes in tone, style, vocabulary and voice register with readers, even if they don’t realise it. It makes for a bumpy ride. It makes the reader less comfortable with your content. And it makes them less likely either to sympathise with you or believe you (or ‘you’). OK, so you think again, and go to what we might call ‘level 2’ plagiarism. You rip off, but you re-write. You change maybe one word in ten, alter ‘cannot’ to ‘can’t’, cut out a handful of adverbs. Presto! ‘New’ content. There are two problems here. Which of the two you encounter depends on how good a writer you are. Problem one: the hybrid In the first case, you wade in, thesaurus in hand, and make a terrible hash of the job. You lack the technical knowledge to amend the text appropriately (which is probably why you stole it in the first place). A synonym in the wrong hands can be a dangerous thing – and the results are likely to both point up your obvious attempt to plagiarise and cause the reader great amusement/frustration. I’ve encountered these weird hybrids in the wild many times. Let’s create one at random. Here’s the original text: The potential loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited in the event of an unlimited rise in the price of the instrument; however, in practice, the short seller will be required to post margin or collateral to cover losses, and any inability to do so on a timely basis would cause its broker or counterparty to liquidate the position. That’s from Wikipedia’s page on ‘short-selling’, a financial concept chosen at random from the almost infinite number of topics about which I know nothing. We want to use this content in our report, but we don’t want anyone to know that we purloined it. Right – where’s that thesaurus? The would-be slaughter on a dumpy auction is tentatively on tap in the event of an infinite augment in the consequences of the utensil Hmm. Perhaps this isn’t the best approach after all. This example may seem far-fetched (it was done using MS Word’s ‘thesaurus’ tool, by the way), but I have come across real-life examples that are just as bizarre. It’s what comes of failing to show sufficient respect for the process of writing – of imagining that one word is just as good as another, that writing skills can be bluffed and technical know-how mimicked without consequence. The consequence is, of course, that the shortcomings you hoped to conceal by appropriating another’s work are laid bare. In the end, it undermines your reputation, rather than enhancing it. In this case, shortcuts just won’t cut it. Expertise is what you need, and if you don’t have it yourself, you’re better off buying it in than trying to rip it off. Problem two: the long shortcut And this is where the second problem comes in. Perhaps you do have the knowledge to make the necessary amendments without turning the content into a laughing stock. Perhaps you know that ‘short-selling’ might be better replaced with ‘going short’ or ‘shorting’ than with ‘dumpy auction’. Clever you! But then in that case, why are you copying content in the first place? More often than not you’ll find that, by the time you’ve re-worked a sentence to eliminate every trace of the original, you’ve used just as much time and effort as if you’d bitten the bullet and written it yourself. It reminds me of the story of the boy who tried to cheat in his exams by writing the answers on his shirt cuff. By the time he’d done that, he’d memorised them all anyway. This is a confidence issue. You have to remember that, very often, if you’re good enough to fake it, you’re good enough to do it for real. Ultimately, even if you’re prepared to ruthlessly jettison what they taught you at school about stealing being wrong, it’s still seldom a good idea. If you do it badly, you’ll get caught – and if you do it well enough not to get caught, it probably wasn’t worth doing it in the first place.

Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words - 2

Company Law - Essay Example The most appropriate remedy that Quincy should avail is the second remedy of applying for an order from the court on the ground that the company's affairs are being conducted in a manner which is 'unfairly prejudicial' under Part 30 CA 206, ss 994-998 because this remedy allows Roar to continue its business. CA 2006 (s 994) gives Quincy very flexible solutions to disagreements within Roar without having to necessarily wind up the company under the first remedy. Specifically, s 994(1) CA 2006 provides as follows: "A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground - (a) that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or (b) that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is or would be so prejudicial. The 'Act or omission' under this Section can include either an isolated act or omission or a continuing situation, depending on the circumstances. In fact, in Re Norvabron Pty Ltd (No 2) (1986) 11 ACLR 33, this can even include an act which took place before the petitioner became a shareholder. Furthermore, the legal import of the term 'C onduct of the company's affairs' has been considered in Re Legal Costs Negotiators Ltd (1999) 2 BCLC 171 CA wherein there were originally four individuals who set up a company, each was a director and employee and each had an equal amount of shares. When the relationship with one person broke down, he was dismissed subsequently as an employee although he resigned as a director just before he was removed. Nonetheless, he remained a shareholder although he refused to sell his shares to the other three. When the majority petitioned under s 459 CA 2006 for an order that he should transfer his shares to them, the petition was rejected because of the distinction between this remedy and personal actions, i.e. in this statutory remedy, what is relevant to consider is the 'company's affairs'. In the given situation, the following facts clearly indicate that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted by Patrick and Sally in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of Quincy, a minority; and an actual act of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is so prejudicial to Quincy: Patrick and Sally have remove Quincy as a director; Patrick and Sally take out any profit from the business as director's salaries; and they also decide to change the nature of the business which by the Articles of Association requires a 75% majority. In fact, the 75% requirement in amending the Articles of Incorporation was not met because Patrick and Sally only owned at least 70% of the shares. Moreover, Patrick and Sally appropriated several valuable contracts to Sally's company, Tiddles Limited (Tiddles) which would normally have gone to Roar in order to make sure that no benefit will come to Quincy from these contracts. Clearly, these events and the facts taken together not only constitute a basis to grant an application for an order based on the ground that the company'