چهارشنبه 26 آذر1393
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
دانشکده ادبیات فارسی و زبانهای خارجی - دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن
دكتر ابراهيم واشقاني فراهاني معاون پژوهش و فناوري دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي
و دكتر نقي شجاع رئيس دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي واحد رودهن
برچسبها: پژوهشگر برتر دانشکده ادبیات فارسی و زبانهای خارجی
یکشنبه 9 آذر1393
We are a landscape of all we have seen.
Isamu Naguchi, sculptor and architect (1904-1988)
شنبه 1 آذر1393
Othello begins on a street in Venice, in the midst of an argument between Roderigo, a rich man, and Iago. Roderigo has been paying Iago to help him in his suit to Desdemona. But Roderigo has just learned that Desdemona has married Othello, a general whom Iago reluctantly serves as ensign. Iago says he hates Othello, who recently passed him over for the position of lieutenant in favor of the inexperienced soldier Michael Cassio.
Unseen, Iago and Roderigo cry out to Brabanzio that his daughter Desdemona has been stolen by and married to Othello, the Moor. Brabanzio finds that his daughter is indeed missing, and he gathers some officers to find Othello. Not wanting his hatred of Othello to be known, Iago leaves Roderigo and hurries back to Othello before Brabanzio sees him. At Othello’s lodgings, Cassio arrives with an urgent message from the duke: Othello’s help is needed in the matter of the imminent Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Not long afterward, Brabanzio arrives with Roderigo and others, and accuses Othello of stealing his daughter by witchcraft. When he finds out that Othello is on his way to speak with the duke, -Brabanzio decides to go along and accuse Othello before the assembled senate.
Brabanzio’s plan backfires. The duke and senate are very sympathetic toward Othello. Given a chance to speak for himself, Othello explains that he wooed and won Desdemona not by witchcraft but with the stories of his adventures in travel and war. The duke finds Othello’s explanation convincing, and Desdemona herself enters at this point to defend her choice in marriage and to announce to her father that her allegiance is now to her husband. Brabanzio is frustrated, but acquiesces and allows the senate meeting to resume. The duke says that Othello must go to Cyprus to aid in the defense against the Turks, who are headed for the island. Desdemona insists that she accompany her husband on his trip, and preparations are made for them to depart that night.
In Cyprus the following day, two gentlemen stand on the shore with Montano, the governor of Cyprus. A third gentleman arrives and reports that the Turkish fleet has been wrecked in a storm at sea. Cassio, whose ship did not suffer the same fate, arrives soon after, followed by a second ship carrying Iago, Roderigo, Desdemona, and Emilia, Iago’s wife. Once they have landed, Othello’s ship is sighted, and the group goes to the harbor. As they wait for Othello, Cassio greets Desdemona by clasping her hand. Watching them, Iago tells the audience that he will use “as little a web as this” hand-holding to ensnare Cassio (II.i.169).
Othello arrives, greets his wife, and announces that there will be reveling that evening to celebrate Cyprus’s safety from the Turks. Once everyone has left, Roderigo complains to Iago that he has no chance of breaking up Othello’s marriage. Iago assures Roderigo that as soon as Desdemona’s “blood is made dull with the act of sport,” she will lose interest in Othello and seek sexual satisfaction elsewhere (II.i.222). However, Iago warns that “elsewhere” will likely be with Cassio. Iago counsels Roderigo that he should cast Cassio into disgrace by starting a fight with Cassio at the evening’s revels. In a soliloquy, Iago explains to the audience that eliminating Cassio is the first crucial step in his plan to ruin Othello. That night, Iago gets Cassio drunk and then sends Roderigo to start a fight with him. Apparently provoked by Roderigo, Cassio chases Roderigo across the stage. Governor Montano attempts to hold Cassio down, and Cassio stabs him. Iago sends Roderigo to raise alarm in the town.
The alarm is rung, and Othello, who had left earlier with plans to consummate his marriage, soon arrives to still the commotion. When Othello demands to know who began the fight, Iago feigns reluctance to implicate his “friend” Cassio, but he ultimately tells the whole story. Othello then strips Cassio of his rank of lieutenant. Cassio is extremely upset, and he laments to Iago, once everyone else has gone, that his reputation has been ruined forever. Iago assures Cassio that he can get back into Othello’s good graces by using Desdemona as an intermediary. In a soliloquy, Iago tells us that he will frame Cassio and Desdemona as lovers to make -Othello jealous.
In an attempt at reconciliation, Cassio sends some musicians to play beneath Othello’s window. Othello, however, sends his clown to tell the musicians to go away. Hoping to arrange a meeting with Desdemona, Cassio asks the clown, a peasant who serves Othello, to send Emilia to him. After the clown departs, Iago passes by and tells Cassio that he will get Othello out of the way so that Cassio can speak privately with Desdemona. Othello, Iago, and a gentleman go to examine some of the town’s fortifications.
Desdemona is quite sympathetic to Cassio’s request and promises that she will do everything she can to make Othello forgive his former lieutenant. As Cassio is about to leave, Othello and Iago return. Feeling uneasy, Cassio leaves without talking to Othello. Othello inquires whether it was Cassio who just parted from his wife, and Iago, beginning to kindle Othello’s fire of jealousy, replies, “No, sure, I cannot think it, / That he would steal away so guilty-like, / Seeing your coming” (III.iii.37–39).
Othello becomes upset and moody, and Iago furthers his goal of removing both Cassio and Othello by suggesting that Cassio and Desdemona are involved in an affair. Desdemona’s entreaties to Othello to reinstate Cassio as lieutenant add to Othello’s almost immediate conviction that his wife is unfaithful. After Othello’s conversation with Iago, Desdemona comes to call Othello to supper and finds him feeling unwell. She offers him her handkerchief to wrap around his head, but he finds it to be “[t]oo little” and lets it drop to the floor (III.iii.291). Desdemona and Othello go to dinner, and Emilia picks up the handkerchief, mentioning to the audience that Iago has always wanted her to steal it for him.
Iago is ecstatic when Emilia gives him the handkerchief, which he plants in Cassio’s room as “evidence” of his affair with Desdemona. When Othello demands “ocular proof” (III.iii.365) that his wife is unfaithful, Iago says that he has seen Cassio “wipe his beard” (III.iii.444) with Desdemona’s handkerchief—the first gift Othello ever gave her. Othello vows to take vengeance on his wife and on Cassio, and Iago vows that he will help him. When Othello sees Desdemona later that evening, he demands the handkerchief of her, but she tells him that she does not have it with her and attempts to change the subject by continuing her suit on Cassio’s behalf. This drives Othello into a further rage, and he storms out. Later, Cassio comes onstage, wondering about the handkerchief he has just found in his chamber. He is greeted by Bianca whom he asks to take the handkerchief and copy its embroidery for him.
Through Iago’s machinations, Othello becomes so consumed by jealousy that he falls into a trance and has a fit of epilepsy. As he writhes on the ground, Cassio comes by, and Iago tells him to come back in a few minutes to talk. Once Othello recovers, Iago tells him of the meeting he has planned with Cassio. He instructs Othello to hide nearby and watch as Iago extracts from Cassio the story of his affair with Desdemona. While Othello stands out of earshot, Iago pumps Cassio for information about Bianca, causing Cassio to laugh and confirm Othello’s suspicions. Bianca herself then enters with Desdemona’s handkerchief, reprimanding Cassio for making her copy out the embroidery of a love token given to him by another woman. When Desdemona enters with Lodovico and Lodovico subsequently gives Othello a letter from Venice calling him home and instating Cassio as his replacement, Othello goes over the edge, striking Desdemona and then storming out.
That night, Othello accuses Desdemona of being a whore. He ignores her protestations, seconded by Emilia, that she is innocent. Iago assures Desdemona that Othello is simply upset about matters of state. Later that night, however, Othello ominously tells Desdemona to wait for him in bed and to send Emilia away. Meanwhile, Iago assures the still-complaining Roderigo that everything is going as planned: in order to prevent Desdemona and Othello from leaving, Roderigo must kill Cassio. Then he will have a clear avenue to his love.
Iago instructs Roderigo to ambush Cassio, but Roderigo misses his mark and Cassio wounds him instead. Iago wounds Cassio and runs away. When Othello hears Cassio’s cry, he assumes that Iago has killed Cassio as he said he would. Lodovico and Graziano enter to see what the commotion is about. Iago enters shortly thereafter and flies into a pretend rage as he “discovers” Cassio’s assailant Roderigo, whom he murders. Cassio is taken to have his wound dressed.
Meanwhile, Othello stands over his sleeping wife in their bedchamber, preparing to kill her. Desdemona wakes and attempts to plead with Othello. She asserts her innocence, but Othello smothers her. Emilia enters with the news that Roderigo is dead. Othello asks if Cassio is dead too and is mortified when Emilia says he is not. After crying out that she has been murdered, Desdemona changes her story before she dies, claiming that she has committed suicide. Emilia asks Othello what happened, and Othello tells her that he has killed Desdemona for her infidelity, which Iago brought to his attention.
Montano, Graziano, and Iago come into the room. Iago attempts to silence Emilia, who realizes what Iago has done. At first, Othello insists that Iago has told the truth, citing the handkerchief as evidence. Once Emilia tells him how she found the handkerchief and gave it to Iago, Othello is crushed and begins to weep. He tries to kill Iago but is disarmed. Iago kills Emilia and flees, but he is caught by Lodovico and Montano, who return holding Iago captive. They also bring Cassio, who is now in a chair because of his wound. Othello wounds Iago and is disarmed. Lodovico tells Othello that he must come with them back to Venice to be tried. Othello makes a speech about how he would like to be remembered, then kills himself with a sword he had hidden on his person. The play closes with a speech by Lodovico. He gives Othello’s house and goods to Graziano and orders that Iago be executed.
Beginning with the opening lines of the play, Othello remains at a distance from much of the action that concerns and affects him. Roderigo and Iago refer ambiguously to a “he” or “him” for much of the first scene. When they begin to specify whom they are talking about, especially once they stand beneath Brabanzio’s window, they do so with racial epithets, not names. These include “the Moor” (I.i.57), “the thick-lips” (I.i.66), “an old black ram” (I.i.88), and “a Barbary horse” (I.i.113). Although Othello appears at the beginning of the second scene, we do not hear his name until well into Act I, scene iii (I.iii.48). Later, Othello’s will be the last of the three ships to arrive at Cyprus in Act II, scene i; Othello will stand apart while Cassio and Iago supposedly discuss Desdemona in Act IV, scene i; and Othello will assume that Cassio is dead without being present when the fight takes place in Act V, scene i. Othello’s status as an outsider may be the reason he is such easy prey for Iago.
Although Othello is a cultural and racial outsider in Venice, his skill as a soldier and leader is nevertheless valuable and necessary to the state, and he is an integral part of Venetian civic society. He is in great demand by the duke and senate, as evidenced by Cassio’s comment that the senate “sent about three several quests” to look for Othello (I.ii.46). The Venetian government trusts Othello enough to put him in full martial and political command of Cyprus; indeed, in his dying speech, Othello reminds the Venetians of the “service” he has done their state (V.ii.348).
Those who consider Othello their social and civic peer, such as Desdemona and Brabanzio, nevertheless seem drawn to him because of his exotic qualities. Othello admits as much when he tells the duke about his friendship with Brabanzio. He says, -“[Desdemona’s] father loved me, oft invited me, / Still questioned me the story of my life / From year to year” (I.iii.127–129). -Othello is also able to captivate his peers with his speech. The duke’s reply to Othello’s speech about how he wooed Desdemona with his tales of adventure is: “I think this tale would win my daughter too” (I.iii.170).
Othello sometimes makes a point of presenting himself as an outsider, whether because he recognizes his exotic appeal or because he is self-conscious of and defensive about his difference from other Venetians. For example, in spite of his obvious eloquence in Act I, scene iii, he protests, “Rude am I in my speech, / And little blessed with the soft phrase of peace” (I.iii.81–82). While Othello is never rude in his speech, he does allow his eloquence to suffer as he is put under increasing strain by Iago’s plots. In the final moments of the play, Othello regains his composure and, once again, seduces both his onstage and offstage audiences with his words. The speech that precedes his suicide is a tale that could woo almost anyone. It is the tension between Othello’s victimization at the hands of a foreign culture and his own willingness to torment himself that makes him a tragic figure rather than simply Iago’s ridiculous puppet.
Possibly the most heinous villain in Shakespeare, Iago is fascinating for his most terrible characteristic: his utter lack of convincing motivation for his actions. In the first scene, he claims to be angry at Othello for having passed him over for the position of lieutenant (I.i. 7–32). He is willing to take revenge on anyone—Othello, Desdemona, Cassio, Roderigo, even Emilia—at the slightest provocation and enjoys the pain and damage he causes.
Iago is often funny, especially in his scenes with the foolish Roderigo, which serve as a showcase of Iago’s manipulative -abilities. He seems almost to wink at the audience as he revels in his own skill. As entertained spectators, we find ourselves on Iago’s side when he is with Roderigo, but the interactions between the two also reveal a streak of cowardice in Iago—a cowardice that becomes manifest in the final scene, when Iago kills his own wife (V.ii.231–242). Iago’s murder of Emilia could also stem from the general hatred of women that he displays. He certainly seems to take great pleasure in preventing Othello from enjoying marital happiness.
It is Iago’s talent for understanding and manipulating the desires of those around him that makes him both a powerful and a compelling figure. Iago is able to take the handkerchief from Emilia and know that he can deflect her questions; he is able to tell Othello of the handkerchief and know that Othello will not doubt him; he is able to tell the audience, “And what’s he then that says I play the villain,” and know that it will laugh as though he were a clown (II.iii.310). Though the most inveterate liar, Iago inspires all of the play’s characters the trait that is most lethal to Othello: trust.
Desdemona is a more plausible, well-rounded figure than much criticism has given her credit for. Arguments that see Desdemona as stereotypically weak and submissive ignore the conviction and authority of her first speech (“My noble father, / I do perceive here a divided duty” [I.iii.179–180]) and her terse fury after Othello strikes her (“I have not deserved this” [IV.i.236]). Similarly, critics who argue that Desdemona’s slightly bizarre bawdy jesting with Iago in Act II, scene i, is either an interpolation not written by Shakespeare or a mere vulgarity ignore the fact that Desdemona is young, sexual, and recently married. She later displays the same chiding, almost mischievous wit in Act III, scene iii, lines 61–84, when she attempts to persuade Othello to forgive Cassio.
Desdemona is at times a submissive character, most notably in her willingness to take credit for her own murder. In response to Emilia’s question, “O, who hath done this deed?” Desdemona’s final words are, “Nobody, I myself. Farewell. / Commend me to my kind lord. O, farewell” (V.ii.133–134). The play, then, depicts Desdemona contradictorily as a self-effacing, faithful wife and as a bold, independent personality. This contradiction may be intentional, meant to portray the way Desdemona herself feels after defending her choice of marriage to her father in Act I, scene iii, and then almost immediately being put in the position of defending her fidelity to her husband. She begins the play as a supremely independent person, but midway through she must struggle against all odds to convince Othello that she is not too independent. The manner in which Desdemona is murdered—smothered by a pillow in a bed covered in her wedding sheets—is symbolic: she is literally suffocated beneath the demands put on her fidelity. Since her first lines, Desdemona has seemed capable of meeting or even rising above those demands. In the end, Othello stifles the speech that made Desdemona so powerful.
Tragically, Desdemona is apparently aware of her imminent death. She, not Othello, asks Emilia to put her wedding sheets on the bed, and she asks Emilia to bury her in these sheets should she die first. The last time we see Desdemona before she awakens to find Othello standing over her with murder in his eyes, she sings a song she learned from her mother’s maid: “She was in love; and he proved mad / And did forsake her. She had a song of willow. / . . . / And she died singing it. That song tonight / Will not go from my mind” (IV.iii.27–30). Like the audience, Desdemona seems able only to watch as her husband is driven insane with jealousy. Though she maintains to the end that she is “guiltless,” Desdemona also forgives her husband (V.ii.133). Her forgiveness of Othello may help the audience to forgive him as well.
The Incompatibility of Military Heroism & Love
Before and above all else, Othello is a soldier. From the earliest moments in the play, his career affects his married life. Asking “fit disposition” for his wife after being ordered to Cyprus (I.iii.234), Othello notes that “the tyrant custom . . . / Hath made the flinty and steel couch of war / My thrice-driven bed of down” (I.iii.227–229). While Desdemona is used to better “accommodation,” she nevertheless accompanies her husband to Cyprus (I.iii.236). Moreover, she is unperturbed by the tempest or Turks that threatened their crossing, and genuinely curious rather than irate when she is roused from bed by the drunken brawl in Act II, scene iii. She is, indeed, Othello’s “fair warrior,” and he is happiest when he has her by his side in the midst of military conflict or business (II.i.179). The military also provides Othello with a means to gain acceptance in Venetian society. While the Venetians in the play are generally fearful of the prospect of Othello’s social entrance into white society through his marriage to Desdemona, all Venetians respect and honor him as a soldier. Mercenary Moors were, in fact, commonplace at the time.
Othello predicates his success in love on his success as a soldier, wooing Desdemona with tales of his military travels and battles. Once the Turks are drowned—by natural rather than military might—Othello is left without anything to do: the last act of military administration we see him perform is the viewing of fortifications in the extremely short second scene of Act III. No longer having a means of proving his manhood or honor in a public setting such as the court or the battlefield, Othello begins to feel uneasy with his footing in a private setting, the bedroom.
The Danger of Isolation
The action of Othello moves from the metropolis of Venice to the island of Cyprus. Protected by military fortifications as well as by the forces of nature, Cyprus faces little threat from external forces. Once Othello, Iago, Desdemona, Emilia, and Roderigo have come to Cyprus, they have nothing to do but prey upon one another. Isolation enables many of the play’s most important effects: Iago frequently speaks in soliloquies; Othello stands apart while Iago talks with Cassio in Act IV, scene i, and is left alone onstage with the bodies of Emilia and Desdemona for a few moments in Act V, scene ii; Roderigo seems attached to no one in the play except Iago. And, most prominently, Othello is visibly isolated from the other characters by his physical stature and the color of his skin. Iago is an expert at manipulating the distance between characters, isolating his victims so that they fall prey to their own obsessions. At the same time, Iago, of necessity always standing apart, falls prey to his own obsession with revenge. The characterscannot be islands, the play seems to say: self-isolation as an act of self-preservation leads ultimately to self-destruction. Such self-isolation leads to the deaths of Roderigo, Iago, Othello, and even Emilia.
Sight and Blindness
The action of the play depends heavily on characters not seeing things: Othello accuses his wife although he never sees her infidelity, and Emilia, although she watches Othello erupt into a rage about the missing handkerchief, does not figuratively “see” what her husband has done.
Since the handkerchief was the first gift Desdemona received from Othello, she keeps it about her constantly as a symbol of Othello’s love. Iago manipulates the handkerchief so that Othello comes to see it as a symbol of Desdemona herself—her faith and chastity. By taking possession of it, he is able to convert it into evidence of her infidelity. Othello claims that his mother used it to keep his father faithful to her, so, to him, the handkerchief represents marital fidelity.
The Song “Willow”
As she prepares for bed in Act V, Desdemona sings a song about a woman who is betrayed by her lover. She was taught the song by her mother’s maid, Barbary, who suffered a misfortune similar to that of the woman in the song; she even died singing “Willow.” The song’s lyrics suggest that both men and women are unfaithful to one another. To Desdemona, the song seems to represent a melancholy and resigned acceptance of her alienation from Othello’s affections, and singing it leads her to question Emilia about the nature and practice of infidelity.
پنجشنبه 8 آبان1393
Thalia and Melpomene: Zeus’s Daughters
Comedy is funny; tragedy is sad. Comedy has a happy ending, tragedy an unhappy one
The typical ending for comedy is a marriage; the typical ending for tragedy is death
Aristotle: 384 – 322 BC
The first great theorist of dramatic arts was Aristotle whose discussion of tragedy in Poetics has dominated critical thought ever since
Definition of Tragedy
A tragedy is the imitation in dramatic form of an action that is serious and complete, with incidents arousing pity and fear wherewith it effects a catharsis of such emotions
The language is pleasurable and appropriate
The chief characters are noble personages (“better than ourselves”) and the actions they perform are noble actions
Catharsis: “Purgation”—Emotional Release
Definition of Tragedy
The plot involves a change in the protagonist’s fortune, in which he usually falls from happiness to misery
The protagonist, though not perfect, is hardly a bad person; his misfortunes result not from character deficiencies but rather from what Aristotle calls hamartia (tragic flaw), a criminal act committed in ignorance of some material fact or even for the sake of a greater good
A tragic plot has organic unity: the events follow not just after one another but because of one another
The best tragic plots involve a reversal (a change from one state of things within the play to its opposite) or a discovery (a change from ignorance to knowledge) or both
“Tragic Flaw”: some fault of character such as inordinate ambition, quickness to anger, a tendency to jealousy, or overweening pride
Jealousy: Othello’s Hamartia/Tragic Flaw
Tragic hero is a man of noble stature. He is not an ordinary man. In Greek and Shakespearean tragedy, he is usually a prince or a king
The tragic hero is good, though not perfect, and his fall results from his committing what Aristotle calls “an act of injustice” (hamatia) either through ignorance or from a conviction
The hero’s downfall is his own fault, the result of his own free choice — not the result of pure accident or someone else’s villainy or some overriding malignant fate
Nevertheless, the hero’s misfortune is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime
Yet the tragic fall is not pure loss. Though it may result in the protagonist’s death, it involves, before his death, some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge—“discovery”—a change from ignorance to knowledge
Though it arouses solemn emotions—pity and fear, says Aristotle, but compassion and awe might be better terms—tragedy, when well performed, does not leave its audience in a state of depression
Macbeth as a Tragic Hero
Because comedy exposes human folly, its function is partly critical and corrective
Comedy reveals to us a spectacle of human ridiculousness that it makes us want to avoid
Romantic comedy puts its emphasis upon sympathetic rather than ridiculous characters
The norms of comedy are primarily social: Where tragedies tend to isolate their protagonists to emphasize their uniqueness, comedies put their protagonists in the midst of a group to emphasize their commonness
Melodrama, like tragedy attempts to arouse feelings of fear and pity, but it does so ordinarily through cruder means. The conflict is an oversimplified one between good and evil depicted in absolute terms
Deus ex machina
Rescue by an act of divine intervention
More consistently than comedy, is aimed at rousing explosive laughter. But the means are cruder. The conflicts are violent and usually at the physical level
پنجشنبه 8 آبان1393
Drama makes use of plot and characters, develops themes, arouses emotional responses, and may be either literary or commercial
Drama is written primarily to be performed
Drama normally presents its action
a) through actors
b) on a stage
c) before an audience
Aeschylus: 525 – 456 BC
The father of European drama/tragedy
The most important idea in the plays of Aeschylus: a firm belief in the power of religion, in Man’s relationship with God/gods
Sophocles: 497 – 406 BC
Sophocles represents the climax of Greek drama
Many critics consider that, apart from Shakespeare, he is the greatest dramatist the world has ever known
His plays are closer to our modern understanding and sympathy, because they seem more real and natural
Euripides: 480 – 406 BC
The main change which Euripides made was not in the shape of the plays, but in their meaning. The authority of gods is questioned
Aristophanes: 446 – 386 BC
His comedies were not about very general ideas, such as Man’s relations with God, but about local events and conditions
Aristophanes wrote about the social problems of his time
Drama in the Middle Ages & The Renaissance
Drama was reborn in the Church. It was dominated by religion, but this time it was Christianity, and not the old religion of the Greeks
Their purpose was to give people a clearer understanding of the Gospel’s stories
Taken from the Bible known as
1) Morality Plays
2) Miracle Plays
Instead of choosing subjects from the Bible, the new playwrights looked back to Roman times for their subjects
Drama became a hobby for people
Historical Plays: the history of England’s kings
William Shakespeare: the greatest playwright the world has ever known
Shakespeare’s The Globe
Direct & Intensified Influence of Drama
Because a play presents its action through actors, its impact is direct, immediate, and heightened by the actors’ skills
Because a play presents its action before an audience, the experience it creates is communal, and its impact is intensified
Characters are presented as speaking to themselves — that is, they think out loud
Characters turn from the persons with whom they are conversing to speak directly to (or for the benefit of) the audience, thus letting the audience know what they are really thinking or feeling as opposed to what they pretend to be thinking or feeling
Act & Scene
Act: a major division in the action of a play
Scene: acts are subdivided into scenes. The end of a scene is usually indicated by a dropped curtain, and the end of an act by a dropped curtain and an intermission
In Greek plays, dancing and chanting by a chorus served as a scene divider
جمعه 2 آبان1393
Greek theater was very different from what we call theater today. It was, first of all, part of a religious festival. To attend a performance of one of these plays was an act of worship, not entertainment or intellectual pastime. But it is difficult for us to even begin to understand this aspect of the Greek theater, because the religion in question was very different from modern religions.
A second way in which Greek theater was different from modern theater is in its cultural centrality: every citizen attended these plays. Greek plays were put on at annual festivals (at the beginning of spring), often for as many as 15,000 spectators at once. They dazzled viewers with their special effects, singing, and dancing, as well as with their beautiful language. At the end of each year’s festivals, judges would vote to decide which playwright’s play was the best. In these competitions, Sophocles was king.
Greek theater still needs to be read, but we must not forget that, because it is so alien to us, reading these plays calls not only for analysis, but also for imagination.
A plague has stricken Thebes. The citizens gather outside the palace of their king, Oedipus, asking him to take action. Oedipus replies that he already sent his brother-in-law, Creon, to the oracle at Delphi to learn how to help the city. Creon returns with a message from the oracle: the plague will end when the murderer of Laius, former king of Thebes, is caught and expelled; the murderer is within the city. Oedipus questions Creon about the murder of Laius, who was killed by thieves on his way to consult an oracle. Only one of his fellow travelers escaped alive. Oedipus promises to solve the mystery of Laius’s death, vowing to curse and drive out the murderer.
Oedipus sends for Tiresias, the blind prophet, and asks him what he knows about the murder. Tiresias responds cryptically, lamenting his ability to see the truth when the truth brings nothing but pain. At first he refuses to tell Oedipus what he knows. Oedipus curses and insults the old man, going so far as to accuse him of the murder. These taunts provoke Tiresias into revealing that Oedipus himself is the murderer. Oedipus naturally refuses to believe Tiresias’s accusation. He accuses Creon and Tiresias of conspiring against his life, and charges Tiresias with insanity. He asks why Tiresias did nothing when Thebes suffered under a plague once before. At that time, a Sphinx held the city captive and refused to leave until someone answered her riddle. Oedipus brags that he alone was able to solve the puzzle. Tiresias defends his skills as a prophet, noting that Oedipus’s parents found him trustworthy. At this mention of his parents, Oedipus, who grew up in the distant city of Corinth, asks how Tiresias knew his parents. But Tiresias answers enigmatically. Then, before leaving the stage, Tiresias puts forth one last riddle, saying that the murderer of Laius will turn out to be both father and brother to his own children, and the son of his own wife.
After Tiresias leaves, Oedipus threatens Creon with death or exile for conspiring with the prophet. Oedipus’s wife, Jocasta (also the widow of King Laius), enters and asks why the men shout at one another. Oedipus explains to Jocasta that the prophet has charged him with Laius’s murder, and Jocasta replies that all prophecies are false. As proof, she notes that the Delphic oracle once told Laius he would be murdered by his son, when in fact his son was cast out of Thebes as a baby, and Laius was murdered by a band of thieves. Her description of Laius’s murder, however, sounds familiar to Oedipus, and he asks further questions. Jocasta tells him that Laius was killed at a three-way crossroads, just before Oedipus arrived in Thebes. Oedipus, stunned, tells his wife that he may be the one who murdered Laius. He tells Jocasta that, long ago, when he was the prince of Corinth, he overheard someone mention at a banquet that he was not really the son of the king and queen. He therefore traveled to the oracle of Delphi, who did not answer him but did tell him he would murder his father and sleep with his mother. Hearing this, Oedipus fled his home, never to return. It was then, on the journey that would take him to Thebes, that Oedipus was confronted and harassed by a group of travelers, whom he killed in self-defense. This skirmish occurred at the very crossroads where Laius was killed.
Oedipus sends for the man who survived the attack, a shepherd, in the hope that he will not be identified as the murderer. Outside the palace, a messenger approaches Jocasta and tells her that he has come from Corinth to inform Oedipus that his father, Polybus, is dead, and that Corinth has asked Oedipus to come and rule there in his place. Jocasta rejoices, convinced that Polybus’s death from natural causes has disproved the prophecy that Oedipus would murder his father. At Jocasta’s summons, Oedipus comes outside, hears the news, and rejoices with her. He now feels much more inclined to agree with the queen in deeming prophecies worthless and viewing chance as the principle governing the world. But while Oedipus finds great comfort in the fact that one-half of the prophecy has been disproved, he still fears the other half—the half that claimed he would sleep with his mother.
The messenger remarks that Oedipus need not worry, because Polybus and his wife, Merope, are not Oedipus’s biological parents. The messenger, a shepherd by profession, knows firsthand that Oedipus came to Corinth as an orphan. One day long ago, he was tending his sheep when another shepherd approached him carrying a baby, its ankles pinned together. The messenger took the baby to the royal family of Corinth, and they raised him as their own. That baby was Oedipus. Oedipus asks who the other shepherd was, and the messenger answers that he was a servant of Laius.
Oedipus asks that this shepherd be brought forth to testify, but Jocasta, beginning to suspect the truth, begs her husband not to seek more information. She runs back into the palace. The shepherd then enters. Oedipus interrogates him, asking who gave him the baby. The shepherd refuses to disclose anything, and Oedipus threatens him with torture. Finally, he answers that the child came from the house of Laius. Questioned further, he answers that the baby was in fact the child of Laius himself, and that it was Jocasta who gave him the infant, ordering him to kill it, as it had been prophesied that the child would kill his parents. But the shepherd pitied the child, and decided that the prophecy could be avoided just as well if the child were to grow up in a foreign city, far from his true parents. The shepherd therefore passed the boy on to the shepherd in Corinth.
Realizing who he is and who his parents are, Oedipus screams that he sees the truth and flees back into the palace. The shepherd and the messenger slowly exit the stage. A second messenger enters and describes scenes of suffering. Jocasta has hanged herself, and Oedipus, finding her dead, has pulled the pins from her robe and stabbed out his own eyes. Oedipus now emerges from the palace, bleeding and begging to be exiled. He asks Creon to send him away from Thebes and to look after his daughters, Antigone and Ismene. Creon, covetous of royal power, is all too happy to oblige.
The Willingness to Ignore the Truth
When Oedipus and Jocasta begin to get close to the truth about Laius’s murder, in Oedipus the King, Oedipus fastens onto a detail in the hope of exonerating himself. Jocasta says that she was told that Laius was killed by “strangers,” whereas Oedipus knows that he acted alone when he killed a man in similar circumstances. This is an extraordinary moment because it calls into question the entire truth-seeking process Oedipus believes himself to be undertaking. Both Oedipus and Jocasta act as though the servant’s story, once spoken, is irrefutable history. Neither can face the possibility of what it would mean if the servant were wrong. This is perhaps why Jocasta feels she can tell Oedipus of the prophecy that her son would kill his father, and Oedipus can tell her about the similar prophecy given him by an oracle (867–875), and neither feels compelled to remark on the coincidence; or why Oedipus can hear the story of Jocasta binding her child’s ankles (780–781) and not think of his own swollen feet. While the information in these speeches is largely intended to make the audience painfully aware of the tragic irony, it also emphasizes just how desperately Oedipus and Jocasta do not want to speak the obvious truth: they look at the circumstances and details of everyday life and pretend not to see them.
The Limits of Free Will
Prophecy is a central part of Oedipus the King. The play begins with Creon’s return from the oracle at Delphi, where he has learned that the plague will be lifted if Thebes banishes the man who killed Laius. Tiresias prophesies the capture of one who is both father and brother to his own children. Oedipus tells Jocasta of a prophecy he heard as a youth, that he would kill his father and sleep with his mother, and Jocasta tells Oedipus of a similar prophecy given to Laius, that her son would grow up to kill his father. Oedipus and Jocasta debate the extent to which prophecies should be trusted at all, and when all of the prophecies come true, it appears that one of Sophocles’ aims is to justify the powers of the gods and prophets, which had recently come under attack in fifth-century b.c. Athens.
Sophocles’ audience would, of course, have known the story of Oedipus, which only increases the sense of complete inevitability about how the play would end. It is difficult to say how justly one can accuse Oedipus of being “blind” or foolish when he seems to have no choice about fulfilling the prophecy: he is sent away from Thebes as a baby and by a remarkable coincidence saved and raised as a prince in Corinth. Hearing that he is fated to kill his father, he flees Corinth and, by a still more remarkable coincidence, ends up back in Thebes, now king and husband in his actual father’s place. Oedipus seems only to desire to flee his fate, but his fate continually catches up with him. Many people have tried to argue that Oedipus brings about his catastrophe because of a “tragic flaw,” but nobody has managed to create a consensus about what Oedipus’s flaw actually is. Perhaps his story is meant to show that error and disaster can happen to anyone, that human beings are relatively powerless before fate or the gods, and that a cautious humility is the best attitude toward life.
Sight and Blindness
References to eyesight and vision, both literal and metaphorical, are very frequent in the play. Quite often, the image of clear vision is used as a metaphor for knowledge and insight. In fact, this metaphor is so much a part of the Greek way of thinking that it is almost not a metaphor at all, just as in modern English: to say “I see the truth” or “I see the way things are” is a perfectly ordinary use of language. However, the references to eyesight and insight in the play form a meaningful pattern in combination with the references to literal and metaphorical blindness. Oedipus is famed for his clear-sightedness and quick comprehension, but he discovers that he has been blind to the truth for many years, and then he blinds himself so as not to have to look on his own children/siblings. Tiresias is blind, yet he sees farther than others. Overall, the play seems to say that human beings can demonstrate remarkable powers of intellectual penetration and insight, and that they have a great capacity for knowledge, but that even the smartest human being is liable to error, that the human capability for knowledge is ultimately quite limited and unreliable.
Oedipus’s Swollen Foot
Oedipus gets his name, as the Corinthian messenger tells us in Oedipus the King, from the fact that he was left in the mountains with his ankles pinned together. Jocasta explains that Laius abandoned him in this state on a barren mountain shortly after he was born. The injury leaves Oedipus with a vivid scar for the rest of his life. Oedipus’s injury symbolizes the way in which fate has marked him and set him apart. It also symbolizes the way his movements have been confined and constrained since birth, by Apollo’s prophecy to Laius.
The Three-way Crossroads
In Oedipus the King, Jocasta says that Laius was slain at a place where three roads meet. This crossroads is referred to a number of times during the play, and it symbolizes the crucial moment, long before the events of the play, when Oedipus began to fulfill the dreadful prophecy that he would murder his father and marry his mother. A crossroads is a place where a choice has to be made, so crossroads usually symbolize moments where decisions will have important consequences but where different choices are still possible. In Oedipus the King, the crossroads is part of the distant past, dimly remembered, and Oedipus was not aware at the time that he was making a fateful decision. In this play, the crossroads symbolizes fate and the awesome power of prophecy rather than freedom and choice.
Analysis of Major Characters
Oedipus is a man of swift action and great insight. At the opening of Oedipus the King, we see that these qualities make him an excellent ruler who anticipates his subjects’ needs. When the citizens of Thebes beg him to do something about the plague, for example, Oedipus is one step ahead of them—he has already sent Creon to the oracle at Delphi for advice. But later, we see that Oedipus’s habit of acting swiftly has a dangerous side. When he tells the story of killing the band of travelers who attempted to shove him off the three-way crossroads, Oedipus shows that he has the capacity to behave rashly.
At the beginning of Oedipus the King, Oedipus is hugely confident, and with good reason. He has saved Thebes from the curse of the Sphinx and become king virtually overnight. He proclaims his name proudly as though it were itself a healing charm: “Here I am myself— / you all know me, the world knows my fame: / I am Oedipus” (7–9). By the end of this tragedy, however, Oedipus’s name will have become a curse, so much so that, in Oedipus at Colonus, the Leader of the Chorus is terrified even to hear it and cries: “You, you’re that man?” (238).
Oedipus’s swiftness and confidence continue to the very end of Oedipus the King. We see him interrogate Creon, call for Tiresias, threaten to banish Tiresias and Creon, call for the servant who escaped the attack on Laius, call for the shepherd who brought him to Corinth, rush into the palace to stab out his own eyes, and then demand to be exiled. He is constantly in motion, seemingly trying to keep pace with his fate, even as it goes well beyond his reach.
The Chorus reacts to events as they happen, generally in a predictable, though not consistent, way. It generally expresses a longing for calm and stability. For example, in Oedipus the King, it asks Oedipus not to banish Creon (725–733). In moments like this, the Chorus seeks to maintain the status quo, which is generally seen to be the wrong thing. The Chorus is not cowardly so much as nervous and complacent—above all, it hopes to prevent upheaval.
At the end of Oedipus the King, the Chorus conflates the people of “Thebes” with the audience in the theater. The message of the play, delivered directly to that audience, is one of complete despair: “count no man happy till he dies, free of pain at last” (1684). Because the Chorus, and not one of the individual characters, delivers this message, the play ends by giving the audience a false sense of closure. That is, the Chorus makes it sound like Oedipus is dead, and their final line suggests there might be some relief. But the audience must immediately realize, of course, that Oedipus is not dead. He wanders, blind and miserable, somewhere outside of Thebes. The audience, like Oedipus, does not know what the future holds in store. The play’s ability to universalize, to make the audience feel implicated in the emotions of the Chorus as well as those of the protagonist, is what makes it a particularly harrowing tragedy, an archetypal story in Western culture.
پنجشنبه 3 مهر1393
The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall
یکشنبه 2 شهریور1393
انتشار کتاب تحت عنوان
داستان کوتاه در عمل
Short Story in Practice
گردآوری و تالیف: سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
ناشر: انتشارات علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی
مطالعه این کتاب به دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی برای دروس درآمدی بر ادبیات 1 و داستان کوتاه توصیه می شود.
همچنین برای کنکور کارشناسی ارشد گرایش زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی نیز می تواند مفید باشد.
برچسبها: کتاب داستان کوتاه در عمل, سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
شنبه 1 شهریور1393
انتشار مقاله تحت عنوان
بررسی مفهوم خرده فرهنگ مقاومت سیاهپوستان و شکلگیری آن در شعر امیری باراکا
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
در مجله علمی پژوهشی نقد زبان و ادبیات خارجی (دانشگاه شهید بهشتی)
مقاله مشترک با: جناب آقای دکتر جلال سخنور و جناب آقای دکتر علیرضا جعفری
برچسبها: دکتر جلال سخنور, دکتر علیرضا جعفری, سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
پنجشنبه 2 مرداد1393
انتشار مقاله ای تحت عنوان
پی جویی عناصر پسامدرنیسم در فیلم نمایش ترومن
در سایت ادبی مرور
نویسنده: سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
مطالعه این مقاله برای دانشجویان و پژوهشگرانی که به نظریات پسامدرنیسم و نقد فیلم علاقه دارند می تواند مفید واقع شود.
این مقاله به استاد بزرگوارم جناب آقای دکتر حسین پاینده تقدیم شده است.
لینک دریافت مطلب:
پنجشنبه 12 تیر1393
از مرگ نمی ترسم
من فقط نگرانم
که در شلوغی آن دنیا
مادربزرگ مهربانم را پیدا نکنم ...
(با الهام از بزرگ علوی)
باورم نمیشد سرو هم خم شود...
مادربزرگ مهربانم خداحافظ... هیچگاه از یادم نخواهی رفت... برایم مظهر عشق، صبر، آرامش، مهربانی، گذشت و زندگانی بودی...
پنجشنبه 1 خرداد1393
ارائه مقاله در کنگره ملی تفکر و پژوهش دینی
«مطالعه تطبیقی پیدایش زبانها و ضرورت ترجمه
از دیدگاه قرآن کریم و تورات»
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن
مقاله حاضر مطالعه ای تطبیقی از قرآن کریم و تورات در مورد خواستگاه پیدایش زبان، زبانهای گوناگون و ضرورت ترجمه است. با توجه به دیدگاه والتر بنیامین به کتاب آفرینش در عهد عتیق درباره آفرینش جهان و زبان، در این مقاله در ابتدا به خواستگاه الهی زبان و سپس پیدایش زبانهای گوناگون و ضرورت ترجمه در تورات پرداخته شده است. سپس آیات مبارک قرآن کریم در مورد آفرینش آسمانها و زمین، پیدایش زبان و آموزش آن به انسان (حضرت آدم)، و زبان به عنوان واسطه نزول وحی مطالعه شده است. دلایل وجود زبانهای گوناگون در اقوام و ملل مختلف، ارتباط و تعامل بین اقوام، و در نتیجه ضرورت وجود ترجمه از دیگر موضوعاتی است که در قرآن کریم مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. همچنین ادله قرآن کریم درباره نزول قرآن کریم به زبان عربی و نه دیگر زبانها مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته است.
واژههاي كليدي: والتر بنیامین، نامگذاری، برج بابل، کثرتِ زبانها، ضرورتِ ترجمه
مکان و زمان: اردبیل مهر 1393
جمعه 26 اردیبهشت1393
If it can be dreamed, it can be done
دوشنبه 22 اردیبهشت1393
Martin Amis’s Time’s Arrow as a Historigraphic Metafiction
Seyyed Shahabeddin Sadati
رمان پیکان زمان اثر مارتین امیس به عنوان یک فراداستان تاریخنگارانه
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
هدف از این سمینار یک روزه، آشنایی دانشجویان با
ادبیات مدرنیسم و پست مدرنیسم است
زمان: چهارشنبه مورخ 24 اردیبهشت 1393 ساعت 10 صبح
مکان: دانشکده زبانهای خارجی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن
شنبه 2 فروردین1393
Long Live the Spirit of
October 7, 1934 - January 9, 2014
Amiri Baraka's Biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiri_Baraka
جمعه 1 فروردین1393
«روایتهای خودشیفته: تعریف فراداستان و تکنیکهای آن»
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
در نشریه الکترونیک مرور
لینک مشاهده مطلب:
سه شنبه 20 اسفند1392
Otto Griebel’s “The International”
Realism in the arts may be generally defined as the attempt to represent subject matter truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, implausible, exotic and supernatural elements. The term originated in the 19th century, and was used to describe the work of Gustave Courbet and a group of painters who rejected idealization, focusing instead on everyday life - Wikipedia
Realism vs. Romanticism
Realism revolted against the exotic subject matter and exaggerated emotionalism and drama of the Romantic movement. Instead it sought to portray real and typical contemporary people and situations with truth and accuracy, and not avoiding unpleasant or sordid aspects of life. Realist works depicted people of all classes in situations that arise in ordinary life, and often reflected the changes wrought by the Industrial and Commercial Revolutions - Wikipedia
Truthful representation in art (e.g. literature & painting), of contemporary life and manners
Scientific method: Objectivity & observation in representation
Middle class art
The personality of the author was to be suppressed, or was at least to reduce into the background, since reality was to be seen “as it is” - Dr. Manuchehr Haghighi, Literary Schools
دوشنبه 19 اسفند1392
تحلیل شعر «عروسک نازی ها» اثر یوسف کومانیاکا: شعر معاصر آمریکا
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن
ترجمه شعر «عروسک نازی ها»
دانشجو کارشناسی مترجمی زبان انگلیسی
در نشریه اینترنتی مرور
لینک مشاهده مطلب:
سه شنبه 13 اسفند1392
تحلیل شعر «جان وِین عزیز» اثر لوئیز اردریک: شعر معاصر آمریکا
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن
ترجمه شعر «جان وین عزیز»
کارشناس مترجمی زبان انگلیسی
در سایت ادبی مرور
لینک مشاهده مطلب:
سه شنبه 6 اسفند1392
انتشار مقاله تحت عنوان
تحلیل فیلم باشو غریبه کوچک از دیدگاه نظریه مهاجرت هومی بابا و رابین کوهن
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
در نشریه الکترونیک مرور (ادبیات ایران)
لینک مشاهده مقاله:
یکشنبه 4 اسفند1392
خدمت به مردم تنها یک وظیفه نیست
بلکه کاری است شادی افزا
در معبد زرتشتیان در کرمان بهمن 92 این جمله را دیدم که به نظرم بسیار عمیق و زیبا آمد.
چهارشنبه 30 بهمن1392
ارائه مقاله در دهمین هم اندیشی حلقه نشانه شناسی تهران - نشانه شناسی اخلاق تحت عنوان:
خیانت در معنا و یا کفاره اخلاقی: مطالعه نشانه – معنا شناختی فیلم تاوان
سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن
دانشجو کارشناسی ارشد زبان و ادبیات فرانسه دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران
این مقاله تلاش دارد تا با توجه به نظریات لیندا هاچن و پتریشیا وا در خصوص فراداستان، و تعاریف اخلاق و کارکرد آن به مطالعه نشانه – معنا شناختی فیلم تاوان (بر اساس رمان تاوان نوشته یان مک ایوان به عنوان یک فراداستان) از دیدگاه اخلاقی بپردازد. در تعریف اخلاق باید گفت که اخلاق از وجدانیات فاصله گرفته و با رفتن به سوی فراخود و آفرینش شاهکار، تولید معنایی جدید میکند که مخاطب را همواره شگفت زده میکند. فراداستان داستانی است که درباره داستان نویسی باشد. به عبارت دیگر دغدغه اصلی آن نوشتارِ داستان است. نوشتار مهمترین نشانه در بررسی فیلم تاوان است، زیرا عناصر فیلم همانند تیتراژ، موسیقی، حرکت دوربین (به ویژه بر روی واژگان نوشته شده)، و معنای کلی فیلم در ارتباط با این نشانه است که تعبیر میشوند. در کنار نوشتار، عمل غیر اخلاقی (دروغ گویی) و عذاب وجدان به عنوان دیگر مسائل مهم در این فیلم خودنمایی میکنند. عمل غیراخلاقی در حق خواهر و پسر باغبانشان تا جایی ذهن یکی از شخصیتهای اصلی داستان (برایانی به عنوان کنشگر) را به خود مشغول داشته که برای جبران اخلاقی، دست به نوشتن یک رمان میزند. در فیلم تاوان نوشتار به عنوان نشانه مرکزی کارکرد اخلاقی پیدا کرده است و تبدیل به یک کفاره دینی – مسیحی برای جبران گناهِ مرتکب شده میشود. به بیانی روشنتر، نوشتار در یک رابطه تعاملی با سوژهها قرار گرفته، از نشانه فراتر رفته و با اضافه شدن یک معنا به آن تبدیل به یک ارزش اخلاقی شده است. به عبارتی دیگر، برایانی در کنشی با استفاده از زبان، جبران نوشتاری را به جای کفاره اخلاقی قرار میدهد و بدین ترتیب گفتمان جدید تولید میکند. در آخر، با استفاده از روشهایی همچون مربع نشانه شناختی گریماس و طرحواره تنشی فونتانی تلاش شده نوشتار به عنوان یک کفاره اخلاقی در ارتباط با عناصری همچون سن و سال، وضعیت روحی – روانی، رفتارهای اخلاقی و غیراخلاقی برایانی همانند نفرت و عذاب وجدان از لحاظ نشانه – معنا شناختی اعضای مکتب نشانه شناختی پاریس مورد بررسی قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژگان: تاوان نوشتاری، فراداستان، کفاره اخلاقی، مک ایوان
محل برگزاری همایش: تهران دارآباد دائره المعارف بزرگ اسلامی
زمان: 14 اسفند 1392
لینک دریافت برنامه هم اندیشی:
دوشنبه 16 دی1392
انتشار مقاله تحت عنوان:
Rebelling against the Dominant White Culture: Foucauldian Study of the Concept of Power in Imamu Amiri Baraka's Dutchman
در ژورنال بین المللی International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research
مولف: سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
لینک دریافت مقاله:
سه شنبه 10 دی1392
برای کسی که میفهمه، هیچ توضیحی لازم نیست
برای کسی که نمیفهمه، هر توضیحی اضافه است
دوشنبه 25 آذر1392
ارائه مقاله در همایش ملی افق های پدیدار در آموزش زبان دانشگاه آزاد اهر 28 و 29 آذر 1392
How to Teach “Samples of Simple English Poetry” as an Academic Literary Course in EFL Classes
نویسنده مقاله: سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
توضیح: «چگونگی تدریس درس نمونه های شعر ساده انگلیسی در دانشگاه»
چکیده مقاله در زیر آمده، مقاله کامل را پس از برگزاری همایش نیز در اینجا قرار می دهم
The present study attempts to analyze the function and importance of teaching “Samples of Simple English Poetry” as an academic literary course in classes of teaching English as Second or Foreign Language. Firstly, this study considers different views about using literature in EFL / ESL classes. It reviews briefly the history of using literature in different methods of teaching English as second / foreign language. Then, the definition of poetry, its importance in EFL / ESL classes, and the difficulties of teaching “Samples of Simple English Poetry” are brought. How to select and develop poetic texts in EFL / ESL classes are other important matters which have been scrutinized in this study. Techniques, strategies, activities, and tips of teaching “Samples of Simple English Poetry” are the other major issues which have been studied and explained in this study.
Keywords: EFL / ESL; English Poetry; Teaching Poetry; Samples of Simple Poetry
پنجشنبه 21 آذر1392
انتشار ترجمه درسنامه زبانشناسی عمومی سوسور در نشریه الکترونیک آدم برفی ها
مترجم: سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
لینک دریافت مطلب:
یکشنبه 26 آبان1392
انتشار مقاله تحت عنوان
The influence of ideological state apparatuses in identity formation: Althusserian reading of Amiri Baraka’s “In Memory of Radio”
در ژورنال بین المللی AcademicJournals
مولف: سید شهاب الدین ساداتی
لینک دریافت مقاله
سه شنبه 14 آبان1392
پنجشنبه 9 آبان1392
بحث با ناقص عقلان شیوه استاد نیست
علم افلاطون حریف جهل مادرزاد نیست