Wizard Of Oz The Great And Powerful Oz - 1063 Words

John Sabo Loiacono CP English III 19 January 2017 Wizard of Oz Personification â€Å"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,† said The Great and Powerful Oz. In The Wizard of Oz realizing that a simple man can do great things is the most potent statement in the story. The Wizard was a simple man from a simple place, but managed to control an entire city just because he believed in himself. Self –belief can be very powerful and allow you to achieve great things like completing an education, getting a dream job, or even giving the mindset to overcome an illness. In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum uses personification of the Scarecrow, the Lion, and the Tin Woodsman to accomplish the importance of believing in oneself. In the†¦show more content†¦He wants to be freed, but sadly he is unable to do so by himself. The Tin Woodsman mumbles to Dorothy and The Scarecrow to get the can of oil and to lubricate his parts so he can move freely again. The Scarecrow, using his witty mind, was able to listen to The Tin Woodsman and did what he asked. Despite having no heart, the woodsman was very gracious and so thankful for being let free that he cried. Showing emotions is another example of L. Frank Baum using personification to further the theme of self-belief. The Tin Woodsman then tells Dorothy, You people with hearts, he said, have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful.† By this he meant that Dorothy and The Scarecrow both could express compassion and love, but, since he lacked a heart, he would be unable to be naturally loving and caring. Although The Tin Woodsman did not have a heart, he showed the most compassion out of the g roup, and compassion is another example of L. Frank Baum using personification to demonstrate self-belief. Finally, Dorothy and her crew come upon the cowardly lion in the forest. The lion although frightened and alone in the woods, tried to give the illusion of bravery when he first sees them. Demonstrating courage is another example of L. Frank Baum using personification to present the theme of self-belief. The lion further proves his bravery byShow MoreRelatedThe Wizard Of Oz Character Analysis1387 Words   |  6 Pagestruly it is not the case. In L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz, the main character, Dorothy, is portraying the role of an independent female as opposed to the typical damsel in distress. She unintentionally kills the Wicked Witch of the Eest and is praised as a heroine in the land of Oz. Dorothy is the complete opposite of the ideal female character. She is portrayed as self-reliant, strong and peaceful all throughout the story. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy not only shows her independence throughRead MoreAnalysis Of The Book Oz And On Kahani 949 Words   |  4 Pagesthat all speak in unison and weave new stories together (Rushdie 84-86). Floating gardens can talk and groom story streams. A planet can be held still so that one side is constantly in light and shadows can become sentient beings on the other side. In Oz and on Kahani, anything is possible, which is quite different from Kansas and the Sad City, where every day goes by just as dismally and uneventfully as the one before. The distinction between the two settings, just like the distinction between dreamRead MoreThe History Behind The Wizard Of Oz949 Words   |  4 PagesThe History behind the Wizard of Oz Stories have deeper meaning than what they appear. Life events such as the government, economy, or something happening to an individual can inspire them to express themselves through writing. In the original story of â€Å"The Wizard of Oz†, it tells a tale far more than people realize. The story portrays the government during the time period and hidden symbolism within the story and characters. â€Å"The Wizard of Oz† was written in 1900 by L. Frank Baum. In America,Read MoreEssay about The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum1076 Words   |  5 PagesThe Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum was the first fairytale written in United States. Baum wrote TheWonderful Wizard of Oz during a time in history that was The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum was the first fairytale written in United States. Baum wrote TheWonderful Wizard of Oz during a time in history that was not known for its social justices. The story focused on the many similarties between Baums characters and the United States during the 1800s. It is suggested thatRead MoreMovie Review : The Wizard Of Oz1682 Words   |  7 Pages The Wizard of Oz is a MGM blockbuster based on the novel written by L. Frank Baum. The film was directed by Victor Fleming and George Cukor, and released in 1939. The cinematographer responsible for this classic film is Harold Rosson. The main characters included, Dorthy, played by Judy Garland. The Scarecrow, played by Ray Bolger. The Tin Man, played by Jack Haley. And the Cowardly Lion, played by Bert Lahr. This fantasy film was was as much of a hit during its release, as it is now, 75 years laterRead MoreReverse Gender Roles in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz1228 Words   |  5 Pages The role gender holds in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is not one many were familiar with at the time it was written. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz reverses the accepted gender roles of its time, women taking control, even helping men in times of need. This idea is de picted throughout the entire novel, affecting almost every character introduced. This novel essentially questions and challenges the accepted beliefs on the roles of gender in the society at that time, showing how things would be if rolesRead MoreAnalysis Of Frank Baum s The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz948 Words   |  4 PagesIn Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, a tornado rips Dorothy from her home in Kansas and drops her in the Land of Oz. To get home, she must seek answers from the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz in the Emerald City. In similar fashion, Mississippi has been caught in the grips of a tornado that has left both public school educators and state legislators looking for answers to the state’s education problems. Unfortunately, many legislators seem to be more interested in taking on the role ofRead MoreThe Wonderful Wizard Of Oz1446 Words   |  6 PagesAP Book Report 1. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz 2. L. Frank Baum was the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Written in the 1900’s was later on published on September 1, 1900 3. Lyman Frank Baum better known as, L. Frank Baum, was born May 15, 1856 in Chittenango, New York. He was a newspaper editor, author, film producer, author, and screenwriter. 4. Characters: Major: Dorothy: Dorothy is a little girl who lives in Kansas who lives with her aunt and uncle. After a cyclone hits her aunt and unclesRead MoreAnalysis Of The Play Somewhere Over The Rainbow 859 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"Wonders of the World.† Then a twister disrupted their conversation and Dorothy has to run home for shelter. She makes it back inside the house and end up hitting her head. The house is swept up by the Twister. Dorothy ended up Landing in a land called Oz and find out quickly that she had killed the Wicked Witch of the East. Glinda the Good Witch of the North appears and welcomes Dorothy to Munchkin Land. Glinda calls out to the munchkins with a song called â€Å"Come Out.† The munchkins welcome Dorothy andRead MoreWizard of Oz Political Allegory1305 Words   |  6 Pages repeated Dorothy. A young girl trying to go back home to Kansas after a cyclone lands her and her dog, Toto, in the Land of Oz. There Dorothy meets the Scarecrow, the TinMan, and the Cow ardly Lion who are all in need of something that is considered important to them; a brain, a heart, and courage. Along the way, they have to travel to Emerald City to see the Wizard of Oz, directed by the Good Witch of the North, especially for Dorothy to get back home. However, Dorothy and the gang run into problems

The Five Factor Model Of Personality - 1704 Words

This essay will firstly assess a variety of models of personality, firstly taking into account Gordon Allport’s model, followed by Raymond Cattell’s 16 trait factor model and Eysenck’s, 3 factor model. Before, critically discussing the five factor model of personality and individual traits, these are made up of the characteristics of an individual which includes their, thoughts and behaviours that make a person unique. Finally this essay will suggest one other factor which might usefully be added to the five factor model to improve it. Gordon Allport, (1897-1967) was one of the founding fathers of personality psychology. He discovered a variety of personality traits, compiling a list of over 4,000 different characteristics, he sorted them into three different trait categories. First one was Cardinal traits, this is a trait that takes charge of an individual s entire personality, and however, it is thought to be quite rare. The second being Central traits this was a very popular trait which most individuals showed having reasonably high levels of, kindness and honesty are examples of these traits. Finally the last personality trait Allport categorised was called Secondary traits, these are personality traits that are only existing under a number of circumstances. Such as, getting nervous before delivering a speech to a large group of people. (Allport 1936). Later, Raymond Cattell analysed Allport’s list of 4,500 traits and narrowed it down to just under 200Show MoreRelatedThe Five Factor Model Of Personality853 Words   |  4 PagesAn analysis of the five factor model of personality Many contemporary psychologists believe that there are five basic dimensions of personality and refer to them as the ‘Big Five’. The five-factor model (FFM) of personality is a theory based on five core categories of human personality – openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. While different theorists may use different terminology, the five factors or personality traits have shown a rather consistent pattern overRead MoreThe Five Factor Model Of Personality1041 Words   |  5 PagesPersonality is a multifaceted concept that is difficult to explain but upon further inspection can be analyzed and broken down. Personality, when broken down, is really just a pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors within an individual (Cervone Pervin, 2013). These patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior can be broken down further into what personality theorists call traits. A personality trait is a particularly consistent manner of behavior or emotion that someone presents in a varietyRead MoreThe Five Factor Model Of Personality1940 Words   |  8 PagesThe five-factor model (FFM) is a contemporary construct describing personality. It incorporates five traits – openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism also referred to as OCEAN. Within each dimension, there are specific personality attributes, for example, openness includes subcategories of feelings and actions. The FFM was influenced by Cattell’s 16-factor model (1957) and shares traits with many other personality theories such as Eysenck’s PEN model. There has beenRead MoreThe Potential Of The Five Factor Personality Model1126 Words   |  5 PagesMG4C2: Organizational Behavior ‘The potential of the Five Factor personality model to predict employee performance has been overestimated.’ Discuss. Personality can be defined as the qualities that make a person’s ‘unique’ character. The Five Factor personality model is described as a ‘hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of 5 dimensions’ (McCrae and John, 2005) that can be used to describe personality. These ‘Big Five’ factors are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, AgreeablenessRead MoreFive Factor Model Personality Inventory1296 Words   |  6 PagesUse the Five Factor Model Personality Inventory to rate yourself on the Big Five personality dimensions. Describe each factor of your Big Five Personality Inventory. Which factor shows the greatest value in predicting your behavior? Why does it? Select one of your friends. Identify the qualities that make that person substantially different from you. In what ways are you basically similar? Which dominates, the differences or similarities? You must attach the Five Factor Model Personality InventoryRead MoreT he Five Factor Model Of A Personality Test1621 Words   |  7 PagesFive Factor Model Individuals are often confronted with situations in which they only have very little information about the persons they have to interact with; to handle such situations, have been shown to spontaneously form first impressions in an extremely fast manner (Walker Vetter, 2016, p. 609). Personality allows an individual to obtain a specific amount of information about the person as a whole. Within this paper, one will discuss each trait originated under the five factor modelRead More The Five Factor Model Of Personality Essay2253 Words   |  10 Pages  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The precise definition of personality has been a point of discussion amongst many different theorists within many different disciplines since the beginning of civilization. Personality can be defined as the distinctive and characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior that define an individuals personal style and influence his or her interactions with the environment (Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith Bem, 1993: 525). It can be proposed that personality psychology has two differentRead MoreFive Factor Model Of Personality Test Essay784 Words   |  4 PagesFive Factor Model of Personality Test Everyone we meet in life will have a different personality. Understanding personality traits can be useful for counselors. Counselors can use personality assessments to learn what influences a person’s development. I took Buchanan’s personality test to discover my personality style. Buchanan’s quiz uses the Five Factor Model of Personality Test (FFPT). Buchanan’s questionnaire covered topics of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, andRead MoreThe Five Factor Model : The Following Big Five Personality Traits Essay1316 Words   |  6 PagesThe Five Factor Model, which utilizes the following Big five personality traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, is used to interpret an individual’s personality. It has been said that you can look at a person’s territory, whether it be their bedroom or any other space that only they inhabit, and use the Five Factor Model to judge what their personality may be like from their personal spaces. Room A and Room B are the two spaces I will be using to describeRead MorePredicting Athletic Performance Using The Five Factor Model Of Personality1108 Words   |  5 P agesperformance using the five factor model of personality by Ralph L. Piedmont, David C. Hill, Susana Blanco seeks to address how the five factor model of personality when utilized, is a suitable predictor of athletic performance and how it is can assist in gaining an insight and understanding of the competitive nature within athletes, to show if there was a correlation between personality traits within different competitive sport. There have been many other studies used to evaluate personality within sport

Carr and the Thesis free essay sample

Edward Carr begins What is History? By saying what he thinks history is not†¦by being negative. In Carr’s words, what history is not, or should not be, is a way of constructing historical accounts that are obsessed with both the facts and the documents which are said to contain them. Carr believes that by doing this the profoundly important shaping power of the historian will surely be downplayed. Carr goes on to argue – in his first chapter- that this downgrading of historiography arose because mainstream historians combined three things: first, a simple but very strong assertion that the proper function of the historian was to show the past as ‘it really was’; second, a positivist stress on inductive method, where you first get the facts and then draw conclusions from them; and third – and this especially in Great Britain – a dominant empiricist rationale. Together, these constituted for Carr what still stood for the ‘commonsenseà ¢â‚¬â„¢ view of history: The empirical theory of knowledge presupposes a complete separation between subject and object. Facts, like sense-impressions, impinge on the observer from outside and are independent of his consciousness. The process of reception is passive: having received the data, he then acts on them†¦This consists of a corpus of ascertained facts†¦First get your facts straight, then plunge at your peril into the shifting sands of interpretation – that is the ultimate wisdom of the empirical, commonsense school of history. 2 Clearly, however, commonsense doesn’t work for Mr.Carr. For he sees this as precisely the view one has to reject. Unfortunately things begin to get a little complicated when Carr tries to show the light, since while it seems he has three philosophical ways of going about his studies one being epistemological and two ideological his prioritizing of the epistemological over the ideological makes history a science too complex for comprehension to anyone other than himself. Carr’s epistemological argument states that not all the ‘facts of the past’ are actually ‘historical facts. Furthermore, there are vital distinctions to be drawn between the ‘events’ of the past, the ‘facts’ of the past and the ‘historical’ facts. That ‘historical facts’ only become this way is by being branded so by recognized historians. Carr develops this argument as follows: What is a historical fact? †¦According to the commonsense view, there are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which form, so to speak, the backbone of history the fact, for example, that the battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. But this view calls for two observations. In the first place, it is not with facts like these that the historian is primarily concerned. It is no doubt important to know that the great battle was fought in 1066 and not 1065 or 1067†¦The historian must not get these things wrong. But when points of this kind are raised, I am reminded of Housman’s remark that ‘accuracy is a duty, not a virtue’. To praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well-seasoned timber. It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function. It is precisely for matters of this kind that the historian is entitled to rely on what have been called the ‘auxiliary sciences’ of history archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, chronology, and so-forth. 3 Carr thinks that the insertion of such facts into a historical account, and the significance which they will have relative to other selected facts, depends not on any quality intrinsic to the facts ‘in and for themselves,’ but on the reading of events the historian chooses to give: It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context†¦The only reason why we are interested to know that the battle was fought at Hastings in 1066 is that historians regard it as a major historical event. It is the historian who has decided for his own reasons that Caesar’s crossing of that petty stream, the Rubicon, is a fact of history, whereas the crossings of the Rubicon by millions of other people†¦interests nobody at all†¦The historian is [therefore] necessarily selective. The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate. 4 Following on from this, Carr ends his argument with an illustration of the process by which a slight event from the past is transformed into a ‘historical fact’. At Stalybridge Wakes, in 1850, Carr tells us about a gingerbread seller being beaten to death by an angry mob; this is a well documented and authentic ‘fact from the past. But for it to become a ‘historical fact,’ Carr argues that it needed to be taken up by historians and inserted by them into their interpretations, thence becoming part of our historical memory. In other words concludes Carr: Its status as a historical fact will turn on a question of interpretation. This element of interpretation enters into every fact of history. 5 This is the substance of Carr’s first argument and the first ‘positionâ€⠄¢ that is easily taken away after a quick read his work. Thereby initially surmising that Carr thinks that all history is just interpretation and there are really no such things as facts. This could be an easily mislead conclusion if one ceases to read any further. If the interpretation of Carr stops at this point, then not only are we left with a strong impression that his whole argument about the nature of history, and the status of historical knowledge, is effectively epistemological and skeptical, but we are also not in a good position to see why. It’s not until a few pages past the Stalybridge example that Carr rejects that there was too skeptical a relativism of Collingwood, and begins a few pages after that to reinstate ‘the facts’ in a rather unproblematical way, which eventually leads him towards his own version of objectivity. Carr’s other two arguments are therefore crucial to follow, and not because they are explicitly ideological. The first of the two arguments is a perfectly reasonable one, in which Carr is opposed to the obsession of facts, because of the resulting common sense view of history that turns into an ideological expression of liberalism. Carr’s argument runs as follows. The classical, liberal idea of progress was that individuals would, in exercising their freedom in ways which took ‘account’ of the competing claims of others somehow and without too much intervention, move towards a harmony of interests resulting in a greater, freer harmony for all. Carr thinks that this idea was then extended into the argument for a sort of general intellectual laissez-faire, and then more particularly into history. For Carr, the fundamental idea supporting liberal historiography was that historians, all going about their work in different ways but mindful of the ways of others, would be able to collect the facts and allow the ‘free-play’ of such facts, thereby securing that they were in harmony with the events of the past which were now truthfully represented. As Carr puts this: The nineteenth century was, for the intellectuals of Western Europe, a comfortable period exuding confidence and optimism. The facts were on the whole satisfactory; and the inclination to ask and answer awkward questions about them correspondingly weak†¦The liberal†¦view of history had a close affinity with the economic doctrine of laissez-faire – also the product of a serene and self-confident outlook on the world. Let everyone get on with his particular job, and the hidden hand would take care of the universal harmony. The facts of history were themselves a demonstration of the supreme fact of a beneficent and apparently infinite progress towards higher things. 6 Carr’s second argument is therefore both straightforward and ideological. His point is that the idea of the freedom of the facts to speak for themselves arose from the happy coincidence that they just happened to speak liberal. But of course Carr did not. Thereby knowing that in the history he wrote the facts had to be made to speak in a way other than liberal (i. e. in a Marxist type of way) then his own experience of making ‘the facts’, his facts, is universalized to become everyone’s experience. Historians, including liberals, have to transform the ‘facts of the past’ into ‘historical facts’ by their positioned intervention. And so, Carr’s second argument against ‘commonsense’ history is ideological. For that matter, so is the third. But if the second of Carr’s arguments is easy to see, his third and final one is not. This argument needs a little ironing out. In the first two critiques of ‘commonsense’ history, Carr has effectively argued that the facts have no ‘intrinsic’ value, but that they’ve only gained their ‘relative’ value when historians put them into their accounts after all the other facts were under consideration. The conclusion Carr drew is that the facts only speak when the historian calls upon them to do so. However, it was part of Carr’s position that liberals had not recognized the shaping power of the historian because of the ‘cult of the fact’ and that, because of the dominance of liberal ideology, their view had become commonsense, not only for themselves, but for practically all historiography. It appeared to Carr that historians seemed to subscribe to the position that they ought to act as the channel through which ‘the facts of the past for their own sake’ were allowed self-expression. But Carr, not wanting to go the route of his fellow historians, nor wanting to succumb to the intellectual complaints about the demise of the experience of originality, says: In the following pages I shall try to distance myself from prevailing trends among Western intellectuals†¦to show how and why I think they have gone astray and to stake out a claim, if not for an optimistic, at any rate for a saner and more balanced outlook on the future. 7 It is therefore this very pointed position which stands behind and gives most, if not all, of the reason for Carr’s writing What is History? Carr himself seems to be quite clear that the real motive behind his text was the ideological necessity to re-think and re-articulate the idea of continued historical progress among the ‘conditions’ and the doubters of his own ‘skeptical days’. Carr’s ‘real’ concern was ‘the fact’ that he thought the future of the whole modern world was at stake. Carr’s own optimism cannot be supported by ‘the facts’, so that his own position is just his opinion, as equally without foundation as those held by optimistic liberals. Consequently, the only conclusion that can arguably be drawn is that ‘the past’ doesn’t actually enter into historiography, except rhetorically. In actuality there should be no nostalgia for the loss of a ‘real’ past, no sentimental memory of a more certain time, nor a panic that there are no foundations for knowledge other than rhetorical conversation.