ellauri018.html on line 736: 1501: Ismail I establishes the Safavid dynasty in Persia and declares Shiism the state religion.
ellauri097.html on line 420: Kant held that all rational persons have an a priori understanding of the basic principles of morality. These consist of duties, both to oneself and to others, and above all the duty to respect rational agents. Most persons, however, do not understand that morality is a priori, and their moral commitments are therefore vulnerable to corrosive skeptical criticism. In The Metaphysics of Morals Kant formulates the ultimate standard for moral judgment, namely universalizability, and establishes the rational necessity of morality.
ellauri112.html on line 727: The film’s strength – for its first two thirds – is the relationship between the two women at the heart of the narrative. We learn through a clumsy coincidence at the beginning of the film that Marlo is bisexual; as her intimacy with Tully expands to fill the vacuum of her absentee marriage, it becomes a tender eroticism. This is mediated, always, through other bodies: as Tully cradles the baby who has just finished feeding, she talks about how the ‘molecules’ of the child still exist within the mother; later, in a bar toilet, she gently wets a paper towel and uses it to draw the milk out of Marlo’s swollen breasts. In a pivotal scene, Marlo sits behind Tully and instructs her on what to do to arouse her sleep-befuddled husband. This moment can be read as emblematic of the film’s mistreatment of the queer intimacy it establishes. Coming after a discussion of sexual history and sexual fantasy, Marlo reveals to Tully that she has a waitress’s uniform that she’s never used, bought to surprise her husband. As Tully puts the outfit on, which fits her pre-natal body in a way it wouldn’t Marlo, the moment of sexual possibility between the women is subsumed into heteronormative, ageist fantasy: Tully’s young, and therefore fantasy-appropriate, body is used as bait to ‘recharge’ the masculine battery.
ellauri133.html on line 71: Dialogue. Normally, dialogue is great and really lifts a story, but if you don't have any idea about the characters who are talking, it won't work. One line of speech can work. For instance "All cars proceed immediately to Main Street. Major riot in progress." establishes the setting and gives a lot of hints about the MC. What Main Character? This MUST be some tv watching imbecile who can't handle more than one face at a time. And why those fucking patrol cars again?
ellauri270.html on line 313: This seemingly idyllic beginning establishes a setting at odds with the violent resolution of the story. Early details, such as sun and flowers, all have positive connotations, and establish the theme of the juxtaposition of peace and violence. The lottery is mentioned in the first paragraph, but not explained until the last lines.
ellauri270.html on line 337: Tessie Hutchinson’s late arrival establishes her character in a few sentences: she cares little about the lottery and the pomp and circumstance of the ritual. She is different from the other villagers, and thus a potential rebel against the structure of the village and the lottery.
ellauri270.html on line 365: The conversation between Mr. Adams and Old Man Warner establishes why the lottery is continued in this village, while it has been ended in others: the power of tradition. As the oldest man in the village, Old Man Warner links the lottery to traditional civilization, equating its removal to a breakdown of society and a return to a primitive state. For the villagers, the lottery demonstrates the organization and power of society—that is, a group of people submitting to shared rules in exchange for protection and support. But we see that the lottery also shows the arbitrariness and corruption of many of these social rules.
ellauri279.html on line 199: In his sensational exposé, Informer 001 or the Myth of Pavlik Morozov, a product of research carried out clandestinely in the Soviet Union between 1980 and 1984, he demolished the long-standing, “official” Soviet version of the young, thirteen-year old “pioneer” (who never was) and communist martyr – designated, in 1934, a Soviet literary hero at the First Congress of Soviet Writers – who had turned in his father to the authorities for treasonable activity. The boy was subsequently murdered, according to the authorities, by members of his own family. The young Pavlik did, in fact, denounce his father, but, as Yuri demonstrates, he appears to have been put up to it by his mother, seeking revenge for her husband’s infidelity. As to who actually killed Pavlik, Yuri establishes that it was certainly not family members who were hauled before a Soviet court and subsequently executed. No less a literary figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn hailed the publication of the book in 1987, claiming that it was “through books such as this that as many Soviet lies will eventually be told as revealed.”
xxx/ellauri149.html on line 485: Also, something of note is that, as much as he dislikes it, the mob is technically just calling him to do his job, which puts them mostly on the side of Rome ("We have no king but Caesar")...sort of. So by appeasing them THEN, he establishes himself as being both pro-Rome and pro-Jews.
9