Bits & Bytes

A project for English teachers & learners No. 7 of 2011

Contact Dr T. < ktankard@telkomsa.net > http://www.knowledge4africa.com

Literature Reflecting Morality

A major problem with love stories in English literature is that they are based upon a morality that is sometimes difficult to understand in the modern age. Perfect examples of this can be found in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Marguerite Poland's Shades. What was wrong with Frances Farborough (Shades) having had sex with Victor Drake? What was so wrong with Lydia Bennet (Pride and Prejudice) living with Mr Wickham? The answer is simple: morality is determined by the age in which people lived. We may not conclude that, since sleeping around is OK today (as many people appear to believe) therefore it was also all right back then. No, no, no! Morality of the age is what determines what was right and wrong, not our own morality. The morality behind Shades and Pride and Prejudice is fairly similar and so one can kill two birds with one stone here. One notices very marked differences in moral outlook from the Elizabethan Age, as reflected in Shakespeare's plays, and the 19th century morality of the Victorian Age. It is very definitely Victorian Morality which is reflected in Shades but it is also early Victorian Morality reflected in Pride and Prejudice, even though the novel was written a couple of decades before the birth of Queen Victoria. What happened between the Elizabethan and the Victorian Age to change the outlook of society? Essentially this: Shakespeare lived during what was termed the Renaissance when there were primarily two groups of people, each with their own morality: the Aristocracy and the urban bourgeoisie. We know nothing of the morality of the country and urban labourers because they couldn't write and therefore couldn't reflect their own ideas. For the Aristocracy in Shakespeare's time, marriage was very much a political thing: an aristocrat married a particular woman not because he loved her but because of the political clout that this would bring him. Marriages were therefore often arranged affairs between one father and another for the children, sometimes organised while the children were still very young, even in their cots. Because marriage was not a thing based on love, it more often than not hinged on convenience. Husbands maintained a facade of faithfulness but, because the man and woman often lived in separate quarters, mistresses could come and go without the wife knowing, and sometimes without her interest because it kept the husband away from her. The wife devoted herself to the rearing of his children because this kept her future and that of her children secure. Continued on page 3
Bits & Bytes is copyrighted. No part of it may be reproduced for reasons of profit or for any other reason except for genuine educational purposes, e.g. a teacher reproducing it for the learners in a classroom.

Poster for the 1995 BBC production

Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet

Joanne started work and got her first pay cheque at the end of her first month. Fantastic. She felt rich. She carefully managed that money and she got to the end of the next month with R200 to spare. Then she repeated that pattern, and each month she got to the end of the month with R200 to spare. What will happen when Joanne gets an increase? Will she have more money to spare at the end of the month or will her expenses rise? If so, will they rise at the same rate as her increases or at a different rate which could be faster or slower? One day Joanne did get a salary increase she took home an extra R1,000 per month. She felt a little richer. The next month she spent a little more and at the end of that month she had . . . R200 left over. Joanne has a mental financial boundary that is set at R200 per month. If she had more she would spend it, if she had less she would feel stressed. So somehow this mental boundary in her subconscious mind gets her to spend until she has R200 left at the end of the month. Whats your boundary set at? Do you even have a number? Some peoples boundary is set at zero. Others will find that if an overdraft facility is available, then the overdraft limit becomes the boundary. If they get another credit card, then that additional facility becomes the new boundary. Whether weve thought about it or not, most of us will have some or other boundary where we will stop spending. Of course, the thoughtless boundary gets a lot of people into trouble. Very often simply becoming aware of the thing helps to overcome the problem that the thing creates. Think about it!
Paul Leonard CFP presents MONEY TALK on Algoa FM. He is an executive director of Consolidated Financial Planning, based in the Eastern Cape.
<http://w w w .consolidated.co.za/applications/transcriptsarchive.aspx>

Emma was deeply involved in an essay. It was Geography but some of the concepts were difficult. And there were all sorts of definitions to understand. She took out as many books as she could find and she painstakingly sorted out the definitions. Eventually she composed her essay. She felt good. She knew she had come to grips with the problems. Her Professor thought so as well and he gave her a good mark. She was justifiably proud of herself. And then something unfortunate happened. Having noted her Professor's comments, she put her essay into a file and then completely forgot about it. Swot week came but still she forgot that essay. It was only when she was in the exam room that she remembered it and what a panic she was in! As her luck would have it, she cast her eyes over the exam paper and there it was: the very question which should have been hers for the taking! But do you know something? Emma answered that question without having studied it indeed, without having looked at her essay for more than eight months. And it all came back to her! Why? Because, by putting in so much work for that essay, Emma had managed to put that knowledge into her long-term memory. It was still there for her taking. And take it she did. Perhaps she would have been given a slightly higher mark if she had remembered to revise it but what the hell! She knew it anyway. And she will probably continue to know it years later, whereas those who rote-learn for an exam will probably forget what they learned just a few days later. Work that involves you with great passion always goes into long-term memory.

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 2

Literature Reflecting Morality continued . . . The wealthy urban merchant class in Shakespeare's day, on the other hand, relished the idea of sexual bawdiness and unfaithfulness in their stories. Just how much this reflected their manner of living, however, is not known. A big change was brought about with John Calvin's reformation. Calvin preached a doctrine of Predestination, i.e. people were predestined to heaven or to hell and could do nothing to bring about either. The useful thing about such a doctrine was that it allowed merchants to be predestined to heaven no matter how wealthy they were, whereas the Catholic Church had preached that it was difficult for a wealthy person to get into heaven. There was, however, a catch to the Calvinist doctrine: if a person was wealthy, his wealth was a blessing from God. But what God has given, God may also take away. The Calvinists therefore became paranoid about not committing sin, and the easiest sin to commit was of the sexual kind. What eventually became known as Victorian Morality therefore slowly entered the picture: do not commit sexual sin because that was the way to religious and economic ruin. By Jane Austen's day, this morality had taken hold of the merchant class and had trickled up into the lower echelons of landed gentry, people like Mr Bennet. Sexual taboos had therefore taken control of society, such as did not exist in Shakespeare's day. No sex before marriage! And certainly no sex outside of marriage! But in order to enforce this morality amongst the hormone-driven young people, they had to be kept away from the temptation of the other sex. One finds in Pride and Prejudice, therefore, carefully orchestrated dating rituals centred on dancing but where they were protected from the dangers of physical contact. Young men and women, boys and girls, would meet on the dance floor. There they would show themselves off, pirouette to music, ritually touch hands. While this was happening, they would survey the field for desirable marital partners and they would slowly make their plans and reveal their intentions. The dance routines were all drawn out and stately, and the couples would be on the dance floor for lengthy periods at a time. To prevent the couples getting too close, however, the dance would combine many couples young and old all moving around each other, keeping each other apart until the dance routine brought the partners together again for another short burst. There would be about ten such dance rituals in an evening and possible dating signs would be given throughout. For example, a man would signal his preference for a chosen woman by asking for her hand in the first dance of the evening. In the ball which Mr Bingley attended at the start of Pride and Prejudice, he selected Charlotte Lucas as his first partner, something which would have caused hope to flutter in Charlotte's breast but chagrin in Mrs Bennet's because she had hoped her daughter Jane would be Mr Bingley's first choice. However, a contradictory signal was then immediately broadcast: Mr Bingley asked Jane to dance with him, not once but twice. A definite preference there enough at least to send Mrs Bennet into a tizz, and people immediately began to count the possible days to a wedding even though the couple had only just met at the dance.

Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet

The opposite was true for the unfortunate Elizabeth Bennet. When at the ball at Netherfield Park, she was hoping to be asked for the first dance by Mr Wickham for whom she was forming a secret crush but instead she was asked by the odious Mr Collins whom she disliked intensely. What would Mr Wickham have thought had he been there and presumably believed that Elizabeth and Mr Collins were being "promised" for each other? Other things also happened at the dances, something not mentioned in Pride and Prejudice. Sometimes the evening would degenerate into a game of musical chairs: everyone dances and, when the music stops, all would wildly scramble for a chair to sit on, there being one less chair than the people dancing. This too carried a wildly

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 3

sexual overtone because often the resulting scrum would lead to a woman landing up on a man's lap or vice versa. Mmmm . . . the fun of dating in those days! Did the couples, once they had singled out the other for possible marriage, then get a chance to meet alone? Yes, indeed. Those of you who have read Pride and Prejudice will know that, soon after Mr Bingley had asked for Jane's hand in marriage, Mrs Bennet made it a point that they be encouraged to be alone. Elizabeth and Mr Darcy became involved in that plot because Mrs Bennet was convinced that Elizabeth disliked Mr Darcy so intensely that she would be safe alone with him. She therefore encouraged the two to go out on rambles so as to get Mr Darcy away from his friend and allow the betrothed couple to be alone. What did they do when they were alone? Often they would find a secluded bower and there they might snatch a little sex. Yes, they did. And this too was regarded as important so that they could discover their sexual compatibility before the marriage took place. It was also regarded as important for the groom-to-be to discover that his prospective wife could indeed fall pregnant and so safeguard his inheritance. Indeed, it was often after the bride had discovered she was pregnant that the marriage itself would be organised. This fact is proved by a rather quaint superstition that the bride-to-be should never attend church during the three Sundays on which the banns of her marriage were read out because it was believed that the child in her womb might be born both deaf and blind if it were to hear the banns of its mother's marriage being read. Of course, morning sickness too would have played a part in keeping her away from church just before the wedding. For Jane, it would now be safe to fall pregnant because Mr Bingley's promises of marriage had been made public, and a man's word was the law. On the other hand, if she failed to fall pregnant, it would also be safe for the engagement to be called off for any concocted reason. If this were to happen, however, the woman was allowed to keep any presents she had been given.

Mr Wickham and Lydia Bennet in the 1995 BBC production

Sometimes, in the smaller hamlets where the customary games and dances could not be held, couples would tend to drift together and it would ultimately also end in a sexual tryst before anyone knew of the relationship that was forming. The woman, however, would ensure that a close female friend was always there as a chaperone lest the man attempted to shirk his responsibilities upon discovering she was pregnant. "I heard his promises," the friend would declare. That was enough to force his hand. If you've seen the 1995 BBC mini-series of Pride and Prejudice, you will have noticed that Elizabeth Bennet was always within hearing when Jane and Mr Bingley were together, usually sewing but with her back turned to them. She was there to be the witness to any promises which Mr Bingley might make, lest Jane fall pregnant before he had spoken to her father. There was also a tradition of secret engagements. A man would quietly offer the woman of his choice a blue garter which, if she accepted, would signify their engagement. She would wear the garter hidden on her thigh and only at the wedding would the groom publicly remove it to the gasp of everyone, for now they knew the engagement had been going on right before their eyes. The traditional garter is still used in western marriages although there are few today who remember why. In the plot of Pride and Prejudice, other things of a moral nature also raised their heads. Mr Darcy was the only true aristocrat amongst them but, in true aristocratic fashion, he had been promised the hand of Lady Catherine De Bourgh's daughter, his cousin, in marriage. Later in the plot, Lady Catherine would attempt to use that fact to prevent Elizabeth's becoming engaged to her nephew. Elizabeth, however, was not to fall for that one. Although she was herself the daughter of lower gentry, such arranged marriages were nevertheless not a part of her world. That was for people like Mr Darcy. Maybe more on this topic later . . .

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 4

Pride and Prejudice: Some questions to test you! (try to do them even if you haven't read the book)
Mr Bingley was good looking and gentlem anlike; he had a pleasant countenance, and easy, unaffected m anners. His sisters were fine wom en, with an air of decided fashion. His brother-in-law, Mr Hurst, m erely looked the gentlem an; but his friend Mr Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsom e features, noble m ien; and the report which was in general circulation within five m inutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a-year. The gentlem en pronounced him to be a fine figure of a m an, the ladies declared he was m uch handsom er than Mr Bingley, and he was looked at with great adm iration for about half the evening, till his m anners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his com pany, and above being pleased; and not all his large estate in Derbyshire could then save him from having a m ost forbidding, disagreeable countenance, and being unworthy to be com pared with his friend. Mr Bingley had soon m ade him self acquainted with all the principal people in the room ; he was lively and unreserved, danced every dance, was angry that the ball closed so early, and talked of giving one him self at Netherfield. Such am iable qualities m ust speak for them selves. W hat a contrast between him and his friend! Mr Darcy danced only once with Mrs Hurst and once with Miss Bingley, declined being introduced to any other lady, and spent the rest of the evening in walking about the room , speaking occasionally to one of his own party. His character was decided. He was the proudest, m ost disagreeable m an in the world, and every body hoped that he would never com e there again. Am ongst the m ost violent against him was Mrs Bennet, whose dislike of his general behaviour was sharpened into particular resentm ent by his having slighted one of her daughters.

1.

The novel was published in 1813 but, when Jane Austen first started writing it in 1796, she named it First Impressions. What are the first impressions of: Mr Charles Bingley? (4) Mr Fitzwilliam Darcy? (4) Mr Bingley's two sisters? (4)

2.

Mr Bingley had soon made himself acquainted with all the principal people in the room; he was lively and unreserved, danced every dance, was angry that the ball closed so early, and talked of giving one himself at Netherfield. Such amiable qualities must speak for themselves. Is Jane Austen making a genuine summing up of Mr Bingley's character or is this merely tongue-incheek, where the author asks the reader to reach other different conclusions? (4)

3.

What a contrast between him and his friend! Mr Darcy gives the immediate impression of his being proud and disagreeable, with the result that nobody likes him. What is it that gives this impression? (4) Is Mr Darcy really a snob? (4)

4.

Amongst the most violent against him was Mrs Bennet, whose dislike of his general behaviour was sharpened into particular resentment by his having slighted one of her daughters. What had Mr Darcy done to set Mrs Bennet and Elizabeth so hopelessly against him? (2) Did Mr Darcy deserve such criticism? (4)

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 5

1.

Mr Bingley: He was seen to be good looking, pleasing and with easy m anners, doing all the right things. Of course, his im m ense wealth would also have been looked upon favourably. Mr Darcy: He was at first viewed as m ore handsom e than Mr Bingley, and one whose even greater wealth would be adm ired. Very soon, however, he was seen as both arrogant and rude. The two sisters: They were considered to be good looking, well educated and pleasing in their m anners and etiquette. It would be only Elizabeth who spotted a m ajor flaw in their character because they believed them selves to be m uch superior to the other people in the local com m unity.

2.

Does one detect a degree of sarcasm in Jane Austen's sum m ing up of Mr Bingley's character? Although he was handsom e and appeared to do the right things, he was nevertheless rather shallow, was very predictable and lacked drive. For instance, despite his wealth and desire to buy a property so as to settle down am ongst the landed gentry, he nevertheless kept procrastinating and would possibly procrastinate for ever. He needed a wom an behind him to give him direction. (a) W hile Mr Bingley did all the right things at the ball, Mr Darcy gave the appearance of disliking the society in the room because he didn't dance with anyone other than the two wom en (Mr Bingley's sisters) whom he knew already. (b) It is quite possible that Mr Darcy is actually very shy and struggles to m ix with total strangers. At this ball he only dances with Mr Bingley's sisters because he knows them well. At the next ball, on the other hand, he is quite happy to dance with Elizabeth whom he has by then had tim e to observe. It is also possible although this is not m entioned that Mr Darcy was som ewhat angry at having to attend this ball in the first place, understandable for som eone who doesn't m ix well and who does not enjoy dancing. Such anger would have resulted in his glowering looks that evening, as well as his apparent rudeness.

3.

4.

(a) Mr Darcy had slighted Elizabeth by rejecting a suggestion from Mr Bingley that he should dance with her. Indeed, his rejection of the idea was done very rudely indeed. (b) Perhaps not. Mr Darcy was discussing this with Mr Bingley in a private conversation. He was not to know that Elizabeth Bennet could overhear what he said. She should not have known that he was saying rude things about her. In any case, one is inclined to exaggerate for the sake of m aking one's point when one thinks one is speaking privately. Indeed, if he had known that Elizabeth would overhear him , it is hardly likely that he would have said what he did.

People keep asking whether there is any way of having relevant parts of Knowledge4Africa's interactive worksheets on CD so that they no longer have to revisit the website but can work directly from their com puter. Not only this but we also receive requests from both teachers and learners to explain how to appreciate and to analyse poetry and/or literature. W e are now offering both: interactive poetry CDs as well as a ten week course in which we explain the nitty gritty of poetry and literature appreciation, som ething that is absolutely critical for anybody wishing to continue to study English at university level. This course is not found on Knowledge4Africa. The cost of these CDs (with 10 week course) is R100 each plus R33 for postage and packaging. Buying a single CD will therefore cost R133, two CDs = R240, etc. (Those who have already bought a CD will be included in this course.) W e are m aking two poetry CDs available for the m om ent: o English prim ary language poetry for 2011; o English first additional language poetry for 2011. To obtain either of these (plus the 10 week introductory course into poetry), sim ply deposit the correct am ount in our Knowledge4Africa account and then send m e by em ail your nam e and postal address. Please m ake sure your nam e appears on your deposit slip. Our banking details are as follows: 1st National Bank Branch: 250 109 Beacon Bay Account: Knowledge4Africa 6228 0745 369 For those interested, we are also prepared to supply our interactive worksheets on W illiam Shakespeare's Macbeth, Marguerite Poland's Shades and W illiam Golding's Lord of the Flies at R100 each (plus postage + packaging).

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 6

Try your hand at this comprehension:

THE STATE OF THE UNION

"W hat does modern marriage look like and does it come with benefits for women?"
1 Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but between polygam y and sam e-sex civil unions, the institution of m arriage is undergoing another extrem e m akeover, if not a com plete face-lift, tum m y tuck and blood transfusion. No need to panic though the patient, the experts reassure us, will survive the latest transition. W hat will em erge over tim e m ight outwardly resem ble what we have all com e to accept as m arriage. But the internal workings will hopefully reflect a m ore accom m odating and flexible dynam ic than the one offered to previous generations who had few alternative m odels or exam ples to live by. Look, there will always be colonies of denialists. Those raised on a diet of glossy bridal supplem ents, fairy tales and religious dogm a will be unable to give up the fantasy that m arriage is either a) som e divinely ordained pre-requisite for procreation or b) about finding a "soulm ate", "love", "rom ance" and buying an expensive "eternity ring. There are, of course, also m illions of individuals (like you, dear reader, we'd like to assum e) who have em braced equality and who try to have real and m eaningful relationships with their wives, husbands or partners. But we have to face the reality that the overarching m arriage m eta-narrative [changed-narrative] is still stuck som ewhere between Genesis and The Bold and the Beautiful. Local actor, com edian and m agician Stuart Taylor has com e up with a quietly revolutionary show about m en, wom en and m arriage. There is a lovely m om ent when Stuart explains how he stops his young son from having a play date with a little girl whose parents treat her like a precious princess. It is this style of parenting, reckons Stuart, that contributes to much of the hostility, m isunderstanding and conflict later in life when the princess grows up and expects that she has m arried a prince and not a m ere m ortal. "I don't want m y poor son to have to live up to that expectation," he tells the audience. So, for m arriage to survive, it is vital to sweep away all m yths, legends and fantasies that so warp what it is really all about. And while m odern m arriage m ight still be about reproduction (although the high num ber of single-m other headed households in this country proves otherwise) and property, research has found that it no longer provides wom en with that m any benefits. Gilbert points out that in the US, m arried m en live longer than single m en, accum ulate m ore wealth and are far less likely to die a violent death. They're also m uch happier and evidence shows that they suffer less from alcoholism , drug addiction and depression than single m en. In contrast, m arried wom en are m ore depressed, less successful and less healthy than single wom en. They're m ore likely to die a violent death (at the hands of their husbands). This is what is term ed the "Marriage Benefit Im balance". Viewed from one perspective, this could be good news. If m en understand the benefits of m arriage they'll be m ore likely to change what they need to change to convince wom en that there's som ething beneficial in it for us as well. And as for polygam y and sam e-sex unions? W ell, a bit of difference always spices things up, doesn't it? Marianne Tham m , Fair Lady, May 2010

2 3

8 9

10

11

12

13

14

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 7

Refer to paragraph 1 W hat is "polygam y"? In what way does polygam y perhaps apply to m odern m arriages? (4) W hy does the author use the expression "if not a com plete face-lift, tum m y tuck and blood transfusion"? (4)

Refer to paragraph 3 The author states that m arriage m ay in tim e "outwardly resem ble what we have all com e to accept as m arriage". W hat does she m ean by this? (2) W hat are the characteristics which are critical for som ething to be called "m arriage"? (2)

Refer to paragraph 4 "Look, there will always be colonies of denialists." W hat in the context of this paragraph is a "denialist"? (2) Explain clearly but in your own words two exam ples of "denialists" m entioned by the author. (2) W hat language device has the author used when she sarcastically suggests that m arriage is "about finding a 'soulm ate', 'love', 'rom ance' and buying an expensive 'eternity ring' "? Explain your answer. (4)

Refer to paragraph 5 The author says that there are "m illions of individuals (like you, dear reader, we'd like to assum e)". W hat does one call these words placed between brackets? W hat is the author's purpose in using this language device? (2) W hat does the author m ean when she says that the average understanding of m arriage "is still stuck som ewhere between Genesis and The Bold and the Beautiful"? (2)

Refer to paragraph 10 Marriage, according to the usual wedding ritual, is prim arily about "reproduction". The author, however, appears to question that purpose. Is she right to do so? Base your answer on this paragraph. (2)

Refer to paragraph 11 W hy should it be m ore dangerous for m en to rem ain single than for them to m arry? (2)

Refer to paragraphs 11 & 12 W hy should m en be happier if they are m arried than wom en would be? (4)

Refer to paragraph 13 The author concludes her article, "Viewed from one perspective, this could be good news." W hat reason does she give for this conclusion? (2)

Refer to paragraph 14 Does the author accept the idea of polygam y and sam e sex m arriages? Give reasons for your answer. (2)

GENERAL QUESTIONS: 10 11 12 W hy has the author used the title "THE STATE OF THE UNION"? (2) The author asks in the subtitle: "does it com e with benefits for wom en?" W hat is her answer? (2) W hat style of writing best describes this article? Give a reason for your answer. A. Slang B. Form al English C. Colloquial English D. Jargon

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 8

Polygam y m eans having m ore than one wife. In the old days, when divorce was not allowed, polygam y was frowned upon. In the m odern world, however, a m an is allowed to have m ore than one wife but not at the sam e tim e: he has to get divorced first. One could nevertheless argue that this is still polygam y. The author's use the expression "if not a com plete face-lift, tum m y tuck and blood transfusion" is an attem pt at hum our, using the sam e term s which wom en use when they attem pt to m ake them selves m ore beautiful. In this case, she refers to the attem pt to m ake m arriage m ore attractive, m ake it bodily m ore substantive and giving it m ore life.

W hen the author states that m arriage m ay in tim e "outwardly resem ble what we have all com e to accept as m arriage", she is referring to the fact that m any of the things we com m only accept in m arriage no longer exist. Nevertheless, in tim e, she says, the new characteristics of m arriage will still m ake the m odern m arriage look sim ilar to what we have always accepted. The characteristics which are critical to som ething being called "m arriage" would include such things as a partnership and sharing. Things like sex and reproduction are no longer the characteristics of m arriage because in the m odern day these things happen outside of m arriage. It is also no longer necessary for the partners to be of the opposite sex or for them to be sim ply a couple.

A "denialist" in this context is som eone who denies that the purpose and function of m arriage has changed. Two such denialists: (a) som eone who believes im plicitly in the rom antic side of m arriage; (b) som eone who believes in the religious side of m arriage. Marriage is "about finding a 'soulm ate', 'love', 'rom ance' and buying an expensive 'eternity ring' ": This is an exam ple of Bathos or Anti-clim ax. The author has supposedly been explaining the rom antic side of m arriage, building up towards a Clim ax ('soulm ate', 'love', 'rom ance') and then ends up on a totally m undane note: buying an expensive 'eternity ring'.

The text inside brackets is called PARENTHESIS. The author is adding a com m ent which is not im portant to the rest of what she is saying. Marriage, the author says, "is still stuck som ewhere between Genesis and The Bold and the Beautiful". Genesis (part of the Bible) represents the religious m eaning of m arriage. The Bold and the Beautiful, on the other hand, represents the rom antic view of m arriage.

In the old days, falling pregnant was largely confined to m arriage. Today this is not so. W om en no longer see it as necessary to be m arried to be pregnant and to have a fam ily. Single m en run the risk of injury and death in a num ber of ways: getting drunk at parties, being involved in fights, risking death through drunken driving, etc. Once m arried, m en becom e contented at hom e with their wives looking after them , feeding them well, waiting on them hand and foot. W om en, on the other hand, are often treated as servants by their husbands. They lose all their independence and becom e overworked, having to hold down a day job as well as another job at hom e. Many wives are abused by their husbands and som e are killed because of this abuse. The author believes that, if m en understand the benefits of m arriage, they m ight then also treat their wives better so that their wives too m ight becom e m ore contented at hom e. The author doesn't actually tell us. She m erely says, "W ell, a bit of difference always spices things up, doesn't it?" This, however, is a "tongue-in-cheek" conclusion given for its hum ourous value.

GENERAL QUESTIONS: 10 The term "State of the Union" usually has a political m eaning: The State President gives an annual "State of the Union" address to Parliam ent. In this case, however, the author is referring to the state of the m arital union. The author hesitates to say "yes" because research in Am erica is beginning to show that m arried wom en are worse off, less productive and m ore depressed than single wom en. C. Colloquial English. The passage, although gram m atically correct and without either slang or jargon, is nevertheless not an exam ple of form al English because it em ploys a racy style, som etim es using ordinary everyday expressions, e.g. "Look, there will always be colonies of denialists."

11

12

Bits & Bytes

No. 7 of 2011 p. 9