W.S.Maugham "In a Strange Land"

Interpretation

Author

W. Somerset Maugham (born Jan. 25, 1874, Paris, Francedied Dec. 16, 1965, Nice) was an English novelist, playwright, and short-story writer. He abandoned a short career in medicine when his first novel, “Liza of Lambeth” (1897), had some success. His plays, mainly Edwardian social comedies, brought him financial security. His reputation rests primarily on the novels “Of Human Bondage” (1915), “The Moon and Sixpence” (1919), “Cakes and Ale” (1930), and “The Razor's Edge” (1944), all of which were adapted for film and some for television. His short stories often portray the confusion of Europeans in alien surroundings. His works, regarded less highly today than formerly, are characterized by a clear, unadorned style, cosmopolitan settings, and a shrewd understanding of human nature.

Title

Direct meaning: In a Strange Land means to be in a foreign land/country which is unfamiliar and odd to you.

Indirect Meaning: Strange Land as a place where even your compatriots behave in a different and peculiar way as though they are of a different nationality and have an unusual thinking, but at the same time a new place of living do not affect them (an Englishwoman married an Italian, moved to Turkey where they bought a hotel, and after her husband’s death adopted his illegitimate sons without thinking of it as of something bad and wrong; but at the same time she managed to live in a new country without its having touched her).

Themes

True love has no borders (an English woman married an Italian, moved to Turkey where she later adopted his two illegitimate sons), misunderstanding between compatriots (Signora Niccolini’s decision to marry an Italian was not greeted by her English relatives and compatriots, because they looked at foreigners as on those who were almost imbecile), and is it possible to change your thinking and the manner of living after spending many years in a foreign country ( though Signora Niccolini spent  30 years in Turkey she remained a pattern of decorum. The foreign country didn’t affect her.  She remained the precise, prim English woman, knowing her place, through all the vicissitudes because she had no faculty of surprise).

Summary

While travelling in Minor Asia (Turkey) a vacationer stays at a hotel where he meets Signore Niccolini - an extraordinary English woman. She tells him the story of her life. She was a house-keeper in service in a noble English family, and her husband Signor Niccolini was a chef. When they saved a certain amount of money they were married, retired from service, and bought a hotel in Turkey (at which the main character stays). Her husband died fifteen years ago and she never returned to England. It was strange for the main character that Signora Niccolini could have lived in Turkey for 30 years without its having touched her. But what surprised him most, is the fact that she had two adopted illegitimate sons of her husband and didn’t consider that as something wrong, telling the vacationer that her husband was a full-blooded man.

Main idea

I think that this story implies rather interesting example of how a person can be the very image of his/her country (Signora Niccolini was a strict, modest and prim Englishwoman) and at the same time behave rather unusually and contradict his/her views and opinions (though Signora Niccolini considered foreigners to be imbecile she married an Italian and moved to Turkey with him. Moreover, she adopted her husband’s two illegitimate sons and didn’t consider that as something wrong, proudly telling the vacationer that her husband was a full-blooded man).

Character sketch

The main characters of this short story are the vacationer and Signora Niccolini. As for Signora Niccolini (she is described directly by the author), she was an Englishwoman and served in a house of a noble English family where she met her future husband who served there as a chef. When they saved a certain amount of money they were married, retired from service, and bought a hotel in Turkey (they left England because her family didn’t like the idea of marrying a foreigner (Signor Niccolini was an Italian). Her husband died after living fifteen years in Turkey and she had to manage the hotel on her own. Moreover, it was extraordinary that she could have lived for 30 years in a foreign country without its having touched her (she remained a pattern of decorum: the precise, prim English woman, knowing her place, through all the vicissitudes because she had no faculty of surprise. She took everything that came as a matter of course. She looked upon everyone who wasn’t English as a foreigner and therefore as someone, almost imbecile, for whom allowances must be made. She ruled her staff despotically, and everything about the hotel was clean and neat. Moreover, just because she didn’t have her own children she had adopted two illegitimate sons of her husband and didn’t consider that as something wrong (she told the vacationer with a mixture of pride, primness, and satisfaction that her husband was a full-blooded man).

My impression

I like this story; I think it stimulates your thinking. Moreover, at the same time, I find it rather amusing and entertaining. A strict, modest and prim Englishwoman married a foreigner (an Italian) though she considered foreigners to be imbecile. Moreover, she adopted her husband’s two illegitimate sons (for she didn’t have her own children) and didn’t consider that as something wrong, proudly telling the vacationer that her husband was a full-blooded man. All in all, as W. S. Maugham said “The novel may stimulate you to think. It may satisfy your aesthetic sense. It may arouse your moral emotions. But if it does not entertain you it is a bad novel. It is merely laziness that induces people to go to novels for instruction on subjects that are the province of experts. There is no short road to knowledge and you will only waste your time if you seek it in a work of fiction”.

Rendering №12

The article published on the website of the newspaper “The Los Angeles Times” on November 30, 2012 is headlined “U.S. seeks to protect 66 kinds of coral”. The article reports at length that the federal government on Friday proposed protecting 66 kinds of corals under the Endangered Species Act, an acknowledgment that these reef-building animals are suffering so many insults they are threatened with extinction. Speaking of this situation it is necessary to note that the proposal, which covers corals in the Pacific and the Caribbean, lists 19 ways that corals are under assault. The government was prodded into action by the Center for Biological Diversity.

It’s an open secret that the world's oceans contain more than 700 species of stony corals, small animals that live in colonies and form elaborate and colorful structures with exoskeletons that resemble everything from the folds of a human brain to the horns of elk or deer. So, it is necessary to point out that a third of these reef-building corals are listed as threatened with extinction by the World Conservation Union, an international consortium of scientists. The Center for Biological Diversity used this international list to push for U.S. protection of those in American waters.

Analyzing this situation it is necessary to emphasize that the fisheries service also proposed to reclassify staghorn and elkhorn corals from "threatened" to the more severe category of "endangered. About 98% of staghorn and 90% to 95% of elkhorn coral have disappeared since 1980. In resolute terms the author of the article makes it clear that these corals have become overgrown by seaweed when too many algae-eating fish are removed from the reefs. They have suffered from disease and suffocation when bathed in nutrient-rich sewage and farm runoff, particularly in South Florida.

Giving appraisal of the situation it’s necessary to point out that corals have been hit by periodic "bleaching" events, which is a sort of heatstroke, when waters get too hot. It's a result of rising global temperatures because of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — mostly from burning fossil fuels. Besides, there is every reason to believe that the oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the C02 accumulated since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, setting off a chemical reaction that makes seawater increasingly acidic. So, there are signs that this situation poses another long-term threat to corals, which rely on alkaline seawater to provide them building materials to form their exoskeletons.

The article draws a conclusion that Federal scientists cited ocean acidification as one of the most serious threats to corals surviving to the end of the century. It was revealed that the worst threats, according to federal rankings, were hot water causing bleaching and the spread of disease. Farther down the list were more localized problems from overfishing, nutrient pollution, the discharge of sediments and toxic chemicals from the land, and destructive fishing practices.

As for me, I think that nowadays we should care not only about money and ourselves but also about our nature and the environment. We need to protect our world and it’s up to us to defend nature, and ensure its continuing existence and future recovery. Humans can’t survive alone on this planet. We depend on every living thing for the lives we so selfishly lead, and it is our duty to protect it since we've decided it's our right to do whatever we want. The only thing I can say is SAVE THE CORALS. SAVE THE ANIMALS. SAVE THE OCEANS. SAVE YOUR EARTH, YOUR HOME. We are nothing on our own.

Rendering №11

 

      The article published on the news website “YubaNet.com” on November 21, 2012 is headlined “9.6 Million Acres Protected as Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owls”. The article reports at length that conservation groups today hailed protection of 9.6 million acres of critical habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl across federal lands in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, but were deeply disappointed by the exclusion of all private and most state lands, resulting in a 4.2 million cut from the proposed designation. Speaking of this situation it is necessary to note that the owl has continued to decline since being protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, in part because of continued loss of habitat on private and state lands. In this connection it is worthwhile mentioning the fact that today's designation replaces a 2008 designation by the Bush administration that had ignored years of scientific evidence showing that spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest needed more, not less, old-growth forest habitat protection, and had slashed a 1992 designation of nearly 7 million acres by more than 1.5 million acres. It is also necessary to note that Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that “In restoring extensive protections on federal lands, today's decision, protecting millions of acres of habitat for the spotted owl, marks the end of a dark chapter in the Endangered Species Act's implementation when politics were allowed to blot out science. It is, however, deeply disappointing that the Obama administration has elected to exclude all private and most state lands, which are absolutely essential to the recovery of the spotted owl and dozens of other wildlife species”.
     Giving appraisal of the situation it’s necessary to point out that while the final rule restores protections to essential federal lands, it fails to fully account for and implement the recovery goal of critical habitat because it proposes to exclude far too much habitat on non-federal lands. Many of these lands provide essential habitat for the owl; many private lands in the "Redwood Coast" region, for example, are absolutely essential because the owl can nest in younger trees with redwoods and the owl's productivity is consistently higher in the redwood zone as compared with the remainder of the range. In resolute terms the author of the article gives a warning that conservation groups also remain concerned about statements in the proposed critical habitat rule calling for "active management" of spotted owl critical habitat, including logging. The scientific basis for logging existing spotted owl habitat to benefit the species remains questionable, at best, with numerous studies demonstrating the owl is sensitive to logging of its mature and old-growth forest habitat. It’s an open secret that 20 percent of the Pacific Northwest's original old-growth forests remain. In addition to providing critical habitat for spotted owls, salmon, steelhead and other species, mature and old-growth forests are important sources of clean water and help reduce global warming.
     The article concludes by saying that "Independent scientific peer reviews have been crystal clear on owl recovery being tied to protection of old forest habitat especially as competition with the more aggressive barred owl increases and climate change further stresses spotted owl populations," according to Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist and former member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006-2008 recovery team who initially raised concerns about lack of habitat protections under the Bush proposal. In addition, conservation groups, represented by Kristen Boyles, attorney with Earth Justice, successfully challenged the 2008 designation, resulting in today's designation.
     As for me, I think that nowadays we should care not only about money and ourselves but also about our nature and the environment. We need to protect our world and it’s up to us to defend nature, and ensure its continuing existence and future recovery. Humans can’t survive alone on this planet. We depend on every living thing for the lives we so selfishly lead, and it is our duty to protect it since we've decided it's our right to do whatever we want. The only thing I can say is SAVE THE SPOTTED OWL. SAVE THE ANIMALS. SAVE THE TREES. SAVE YOUR EARTH, YOUR HOME. We are nothing on our own.

Rendering №10

     The article published on the website of the newspaper "The Fox News" on July 10, 2012 is headlined "Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University Study shows". The article reports at length that pollution is good for the environment. Speaking of this situation it is necessary to emphasize that while the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a new Auburn University study suggests that air pollution may actually be helping to speed the growth of young, carbon-absorbing forests in the Southeastern U.S region.
      The article quotes Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburn's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences and lead author of the study published in the journal "Ecosystems", saying: "Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake is much faster than other regions.This area has trees that are very young and the growth is very fast. So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere".
      In resolute terms the author of the article expresses the view that, a computer model of the environment set up by the researchers that takes into account natural and man made variables such as land use, climate and pollution in the past century, shows that moderate amounts of air pollution in the form of carbon and nitrogen had a "short term" fertilizing effect on young forests. So, pollution turns out to be good for the environment because "in the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake", and lead to faster forest growth, though "that’s not guaranteed for long".
      In this connection it is worth while mentioning the fact that the Auburn study suggests the Southeast is approaching a “tipping point.” The region’s urban areas are growing. And, despite the temporary fertilization effects of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, Tian said increasing levels of other pollutants, such as ground level ozone, threaten to do more harm than good to the environment in the long-term.
      The article then quotes as "take-home passage" the conclusion that what Americans really need to do is an "urban/land use planning and also air pollution control to help the Southern U.S. forests to become maybe a sustainable carbon sink."
      As for me, it's very surprising that this newspaper along with its correspondent has such beliefs about the environment that are the opposite of truth. They tell us that pollution is good for forests. In other words, it can be that the real pollution is a clear air. It's very strange, and I guess that the editors were off their center when allowed this article to appear in the newspaper.

while the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a new Auburn University study suggests that carbon-absorbing forests are growing faster in Southeastern U.S., thanks to carbon from air pollution.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/328681#ixzz2CUqL0FiY

Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University study shows

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/answer-to-speedy-tree-growth-lies-in-air-pollution-auburn-university-study/#ixzz2CUmi2CXk

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/answer-to-speedy-tree-growth-lies-in-air-pollution-auburn-university-study/#ixzz2CUmi2CXk

Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University study shows

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/answer-to-speedy-tree-growth-lies-in-air-pollution-auburn-university-study/#ixzz2CUmi2CXk

Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University study shows

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/answer-to-speedy-tree-growth-lies-in-air-pollution-auburn-university-study/#ixzz2CUmi2CXk

Individual Reading. "The Hunt for Red October"

Individual Reading. "The Hunt for Red October" Parts 1-5

Rendering №9

     The article published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times" on October 30 is headlined "Did Global Warming Contribute to Hurricane Sandy's Devastation?". The article carries a lot of comment on whether the bizarre storm called Sandy was a product, in whole or in part, of human-induced climate change or not. It's an open secret that climate scientists are just not in a good position to answer this question yet. 

     Speaking of this situation it is interesting to note that several scientists said that  surface temperatures in the western Atlantic Ocean were remarkably high just ahead of the storm — in places, about five degrees Fahrenheit higher than normal for this time of year. In fact, part of the ocean was warmer than it would normally be in September, when accumulated summer heat tends to peak. However, it is necessary to point out that other scientists are looking at this year’s historic loss of sea ice in the Arctic as a potential contributor to the track of Sandy, and possibly to the severity of the storm. In this case it is necessary to point out that Dr. Francis, a Rutgers University climate scientist, noted that an atmospheric blocking pattern over Greenland — possibly linked, in her view, to the loss of sea ice in the nearby Arctic Ocean — had helped force the storm to make a left turn into the United States mainland.

     Nevertheless, there are also signs that  by the end Sandy was also pulling energy from a second source: the sharp differences in atmospheric temperature and pressure that normally drive winter storms. Analyzing this situation it is necessary to emphasize that Kerry A. Emanuel, a leading climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that little analysis had been done of whether this type of storm might become more frequent or intense as the earth warms in the coming century. There is every reason to believe that though the number of Atlantic hurricanes will stay the same or even decrease with global warming, but the intensity of the storms that do occur is likely to increase.

     There is every reason to believe that the ocean rise is a  direct consequence of global warming. Warm water expands, just as warm air does, and the warming of the ocean is one factor behind the rise. Another is that land ice the world over is starting to melt as the climate grows warmer, dumping extra water into the ocean. It's an open secret that the ocean rose about eight inches in the last century. The rate appears to have accelerated recently, to about a foot per century, and some scientists think it will accelerate further, so that the rise between now and the end of the century could exceed three feet.So, there are indications that the problem will be exacerbated in places where land is also sinking, such as the mid-Atlantic region of the United States and southern Louisiana.

      All in all, the author of the article doesn't express his own opinion - he just plainly describes the fact and opinions of different scientists. But, I suppose, that he agrees with Kerry A. Emanuel, because he concludes the article with his words that the likely effect is that coastal flooding on a scale that once happened only once or twice per century — the scale of Sandy, in other words — will become much more commonplace within the coming decades. So, there is a reason for the USA to build their houses as far back from the beach and as high up as they do, according to Dr. Emanuel words, because sea-level rise is putting their built structures closer to the water line, in effect.

     As for me,  I think that Sandy (as well as the Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods of 2010) is somehow connected with global warming, The environment changed greatly in the last century which led to the increase of different hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunami. And as far as I know, all these climate changes are results of global warming. And the global warming, in its turn, is the result of scientific and technological progress. So, everything has a connection and now we pay the price for the increased human activity. It's hard for me to predict the course of events in future, but I know that if we do not want another "Ice Age" we should stop destroyng the planet (which is also our home by the way).