3AB Reactions, Equations and Stoichiometry Index plus a bit more, including absolute zero

Okay, well, I'm pretty sure I've already covered most of the stoichiometry stuff in my year 11 posts, but again, there's a little bit of new stuff to add. So first I'll put an index of everything that's carried over from last year and then add the new bits.

List of useful stoichiometry posts from Year 11:

• Formulae (naming ionic, metallic and covalent compounds, as well as some fixed names that you should know)
• Simple Chemistry Calculations (molar mass and percentage composition)
• Chemical Equations (how to write them, including balancing equations)
• Simple Calculations Involving Moles (mass to mole, mole to mole, mole to mass)
• Reactions and Equations part deux (standard reactions, ionic equations)
• Empirical Formulae and Limiting Reagents and Some Other Stuff (the "other stuff" consists of mass to volume and volume to moles calculations, as well as working out molecular formulae from empirical formulae and molar mass)

New stuff:

There's two main new things that you have to learn, and that is all the gas stuff and percentage purity.

The gas stuff

Back in 2AB, we calculated the moles of a gas at STP by using n = V/22.71. Well, you can still use that if the question says STP, but now we're going to find new questions that don't use STP.

Some geniuses used the facts that pressure is inversely proportional to volume, volume is directly proportional to temperature and pressure is inversely proportional to temperature to form the following VERY USEFUL equation:

PV = nRT

where P = pressure in kPa

V = volume in L

n = number of moles

R = 8.314 (a constant- it's on the data sheet)

and T = temperature in Kelvin

The nice thing about R is that it never changes, though some textbooks and websites might have slightly different values due to rounding (use your data sheet in the exam). Then you just need 3 of the other 4 things to work out what the 4th thing is.

If you don't already have the pressure, volume, or temperature in the units given above, then you'll have to convert. I won't talk about volume conversions because by now you'll probably feel like I'm taking you for an idiot if I do that, but I will briefly mention the conversion ratios for the other two.

I'll do temperature first, because that's easiest (well, unless you throw Fahrenheit in there, but I've never seen a question with Fahrenheit in it yet). Also, I get to cover another dot point which got put on its own under another heading, and I don't want to do a whole post for that one dot point.

I *think* that the way that zero degrees Kelvin got calculated was that someone found graphs of the average kinetic energy for different particles at different temperatures and extrapolated them all the way down to where the kinetic energy would theoretically be zero and the particles would theoretically stop moving. All of the graphs stopped at the same point, at a point estimated to be -273.15 degrees Celsius. Therefore, 0 degrees Kelvin = -273.15 degrees Celsius.

The great thing about the Kelvin scale is that it increases at the same rate as the Celsius scale. Therefore, to change from Celsius to Kelvin, just add 273.15 degrees, and vice versa.

Now for pressure! The bad news is that the pressure conversions don't appear to be on the data sheet, so if they do have a pressure conversion question then I might be stuffed because I don't remember them off the top of my head, but the good news is that in light of that, they might decide not to put one in.

From my textbook, 1 atm (atmosphere) = 101.3 kPa = 760 mmHg (millimetres of mercury- I think this measurement had something to do with some old system of measuring air pressure).

(I think that 101.3 kPa is atmospheric pressure, which is why it's 1 atmosphere.)

The PV = nRT equation is very useful for when you encounter gases in stoichiometry problems. Use and abuse it at will.

Percentage Yield

This is a bit different from percentage composition, but if you understand percentages in general, this isn't too hard to pick up. (Yes, percentage composition is still in the course. If you need a refresher, it's in my simple chemistry calculations post.)

When we calculate how much is going to be formed as a result of a reaction by using our amazing Stoichiometry skills, what we're calculating is the theoretical value. Unfortunately, life being life, some reactions form a smaller mass of products than the theoretical value, that is to say, their percentage yield is less than 100%.

If you're given the reactants and the percentage yield of the reaction and you're asked to find out what mass of one of the products is produced, you need to do two things:

1. Work out the theoretical yield of the product in question using everything else that you've learned in stoichiometry. Remember to watch for limiting reagents and other tricks that they might throw at you (but at the same time be wary of questions that provide too much information).
2. Multiply the theoretical yield of the product by the percentage yield (e.g. if the percentage yield is 91%, multiply the theoretical yield by 0.91).

(You could probably do the two steps in the reverse order as well, i.e. you could probably multiply the amount of reactant by the percentage yield and then work out the yield of products.)

If you're given the products and the percentage yield of the reaction and you're asked to find out what mass of one or more the reactants is required, you need to follow the steps below:

1. Work out how much product you were "theoretically" meant to have by first dividing by the percentage and then multiplying by 100 (e.g. if the percentage yield is 91%, divide the mass by 91 and then multiply by 100. Or you could divide by 0.91. It's the same thing really, since 0.91 = 91/100 and when you're dividing by 91/100, you're actually multiplying by 100/91.) 
2. Calculate the amount of reactants from there.

Alternatively, you could calculate the amount of reactant using the amount of product that was actually yielded, and then divide by 91 and multiply by 100.

A bit more on solutions

The Solutions part of this course outline is pretty similar to the stuff we did in Year 11, so you can visit my old post on solutions for a refresher.

There are a couple of things that I didn't explicitly mention there, however, so I will mention them here.

Concentration Calculations

Concentration of substances is represented using a variety of measurements, such as moles per litre, grams per litre, parts per million etc. Here's how to calculate the concentration:

mol/L: Divide number of moles by number of litres. (Makes perfect sense when you consider that a forward slash is also considered to be a divide sign on some computers/calculators.)
g/L: Divide number of grams by number of litres.
ppm (parts per million): Divide number of milligrams of solute by the number of kilograms of solvent.
Percentage composition by mass: See my post on simple chemistry calculations.

Concentration of ions in solution for strong electrolytes

This is easy. Since strong electrolytes completely ionise, the concentration of the ions in solution is the same as the concentration of the strong electrolyte.

Calculation of concentration and volume in dilution and addition of solutions

For this we use a nifty formula: C₁V₁ = C₂V₂, where C₁ = concentration of initial solution, V₁ = volume of initial solution, C₂ = concentration of final solution and V₂ = volume of final solution.

This works because the number of moles of the solute isn't changing when you dilute a solution: it's only the concentration that is. You see, the good ol' concentration formula C = n/V can be rearranged to n = CV. Now, C and V might be different for the initial solution and the final solution, but n is the same.

Intermolecular Bonding

Okay, now I'm not going to completely adhere to the dot point guide. That's because some of the dot points here are to do with molecular shape, which involves drawing diagrams, which I really can't be bothered doing right now. So I'm just going to do intermolecular bonding because I can kind of get away with doing that without making diagrams.

Previously, I've talked about 3 kinds of strong bonding: ionic bonding, metallic bonding, and covalent bonding, and in the covalent bonding post, I wrote "there are other random types like hydrogen bonds, but they're not important for now." Well, hydrogen bonds are now important, and so are other "random types" of bonds like dispersion and dipole-dipole bonds.

I said that I wasn't going to completely adhere to the dot points, but I didn't mean that I wouldn't use them at all. I'm still going to do all the dot-points that are relevant to intermolecular bonds.

Explain polar and non-polar covalent bonds in terms of the electronegativity of the atoms involved in the bond formation

Wow, that sounds so high-brow and sciencey. Not to worry though. Or maybe you should, because my explanation for this is probably going to be a little shoddy? I don't know.

Now, you know how electrons are shared between atoms in a covalent bond? (If not, revisit my post on covalent bonding.) Well, here's the catch: from what I understand, they aren't always shared equally. They're shared equally enough so that both atoms get to have a stable full outer shell configuration, but sometimes those pesky electrons decide that they like one atom more than another. That's due to electronegativity differences: the more electronegative element attracts the electrons more and therefore the electrons spend more time near that atom than the other atom. This results in a polar covalent bond, where one atom is more positively charged than the other. How "positive" or "negative" each end is depends on the difference in electronegativities between the two atoms (the periodic table on my phone- yes, I'm so nerdy that I have a periodic table on my phone- gives information on the electronegativities of atoms of each element). When there's a super big difference in electronegativities, the electrons spend pretty much all their time around the negative end, which results in an ionic bond. (My Chem teacher was saying how it's like one atom is "stealing" electrons from the other, which is like "extreme sharing." Pretty damn good joke, if you ask me.)

Non-polar covalent bonds occur when both atoms on either side of the bond are of the same element because then there's absolutely zero difference between the electronegativities of each atom.

Use the relationship between molecule shape and bond polarity to predict and explain the polarity of a molecule

I'll explain this better later, after I've discussed molecule shape, but basically, if the atoms on one side of the molecule tend to be on the "negative" side of polar covalent bonds and the atoms on the other side tend to be on the "positive" side of polar covalent bonds, then the molecule is probably polar. If there's no general trend like this, then the molecule is probably non-polar. Yeah, I really need a diagram to explain this properly.

Explain the differences between intermolecular and intramolecular forces.

This is easy (unless there's more to it than I'm aware of). Intermolecular forces are forces between molecules. Intramolecular forces are forces between the atoms that make up the molecules. In covalent molecular substances, the intramolecular covalent bonds are strong while the intermolecular Van der Waals forces tend to be weaker.

Describe and explain the origin and relative strength of dispersion forces, dipole-dipole attractions, hydrogen bonds and ion-dipole interactions for molecules of a similar size.

Dipole-dipole attractions are seen only in polar molecules. This is because one side of a polar molecule is more positively charged while the other side is more negatively charged. The more positively-charged side of one molecule can attract the more negatively-charged side of another molecule. Dipole-dipole forces get stronger as the difference in electronegativity between atoms within the molecule increases (because that would cause the ends to be "more positive" and "more negative").

Hydrogen bonds are kind of like dipole-dipole attractions, but with a catch: they only exist when there's an O-H, N-H or F-H bond somewhere in the molecule. Hydrogen bonds are much stronger than dipole-dipole attractions (though still not as strong as ionic, covalent or metallic bonds).

Dispersion forces are seen in all kinds of molecules. In a covalent bond, the electrons do not always remain in the space between the two atoms. Instead, the electrons move around (though with a net movement of zero). Therefore, there are times when there are temporarily more electrons on one side of the bond (and the molecule) than the other. This causes a temporary "positive" dipole and a temporary "negative" dipole. Oppositely-charged temporary dipoles of different molecules can attract each other, much like in dipole-dipole forces, but in the case of dispersion forces, these attractions are not as strong since the dipoles are only temporary. Dispersion forces get stronger as the number of electrons in a molecule increase.

Ion-dipole interactions occur when soluble ionic solids are dissolved in aqueous solution, particularly when said solution is polar. The positive ions of the solid can be attracted by the negative dipole of the molecules in the solution, and vice versa. This causes the ionic solid to dissolve. Complex ions (not really sure how to explain these) are formed by such ion-dipole interactions between ion(s) and whatever other molecules make up the complex ion.

Explain the relationships between physical properties including melting and boiling point, and the types of intermolecular forces present in substances with molecules of similar size.

Melting and boiling involves the breaking of intermolecular bonds between molecules, so stronger bonds result in more heat energy required which in turn results in higher melting and boiling points, and vice versa. Of the types of intermolecular bonds discussed above (except I'm not going to talk about ion-dipole for now since that type of bond doesn't occur between molecules of a covalent molecular substance), hydrogen bonding is the strongest. Dipole-dipole is stronger than dispersion if the molecules are small and don't have that many electrons, but in bigger molecules it might be the other way around. In fact, often it will be the dispersion forces that have a greater effect on melting and boiling points rather than dipole-dipole forces.

Apply an understanding of intermolecular interactions to explain the trends in melting and boiling points of hydrides of groups 15, 16 and 17 accounting for the anomalous behaviour of ammonia, water and HF.

Yay, now I can provide an example for my previous point! Let's use the group 15 hydrides as an example. In group 15 the first four hydrides are ammonia, PH₃, AsH₃ and SbH_{3. Ammonia has the highest boiling point, then} PH<sub>3 has the lowest boiling point. After that, the boiling points gradually increase.

Ammonia has the highest boiling point because it contains hydrogen bonds between molecules due to the N-H bonds within ammonia molecules. The other three do not contain hydrogen bonds so their boiling points are not as high, but as the size of the molecules and their numbers of electrons increases, their dispersion forces also become stronger and their boiling points gradually get higher.

Similar trends are observed in groups 16 and 17.

Explain and describe the interaction between solute and solvent particles in a solution.</sub>

When a solute dissolves in a solvent, the bonds between solute particles and the bonds between solvent particles break. Then, new bonds are formed between solute and solvent particles.

Now, of course, breaking bonds requires energy, so in order to make up for that, the amount of energy that is released when bonds are reformed must be close to the amount of energy that was required in the first place. Therefore, dissolving generally only happens when the strength of the bonds within solute and solvent are reasonably similar.

Use the nature of the interactions, including the formation of ion-dipole and hydrogen bonds to explain water's ability to dissolve ionic, polar and non-polar solutes.

Now I have an excuse to provide an example for my last point!

Water contains hydrogen bonds. If you want to dissolve something non-polar in water that only has dispersion forces between molecules (since non-polar covalent molecular substances can't contain dipole-dipole or hydrogen bonds), we have a problem. You see, hydrogen bonds between water molecules would have to be broken (as well as dispersion forces between the non-polar molecules), but when bonds form between the non-polar substance and water, only dispersion forces would technically be formed as the non-polar substance wouldn't be able to bond to the water using dipole-dipole and/or hydrogen bonds. Therefore, a lot of energy would technically be required while very little would be released: a rather selfish reaction, which is why it generally doesn't happen.

The dipole-dipole bonds in polar substances are closer to the strength of hydrogen bonds, so polar substances are generally able to dissolve in water.

Finally, many ionic substances can dissolve as a result of ion-dipole reactions, which I mentioned earlier but I'll say it again. And, because I'm really lazy, I'm just going to copy-paste it from above, so you can skip over this paragraph if you've already read it.

Ion-dipole interactions occur when soluble ionic solids are dissolved in aqueous solution, particularly when said solution is polar. The positive ions of the solid can be attracted by the negative dipole of the molecules in the solution, and vice versa. This causes the ionic solid to dissolve. Complex ions (not really sure how to explain these) are formed by such ion-dipole interactions between ion(s) and whatever other molecules make up the complex ion.

Describe the variation of gas solubility in aqueous solution with temperature

Okay, this is a bit that I'm going to have to revise because I don't really remember. I know that gas solubility tends to decrease with temperature, and I think that is because the added temperature would just cause the gas to evaporate out of the solution. I don't know for sure though, so I guess I'll have to look at my textbook again.

And, of course, this topic seems to be pretty damn elusive in my textbook, so I guess I'll probably have to Google it or search a bit harder. I'll do that later. (Yeah, I am pretty lazy.)

Atomic Structure and Periodic Table, take 2

Time for a post on Chem now... again I'm going to work off the good ol' dot points under the first heading, or rather the dot-points under the first subheading ("Atomic structure and Periodic Table" is under the heading "Atomic structure and bonding").

Back on topic: if you need to review the basics of atomic structure, go to my post on Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table (oh my, it has the word "the" in it as opposed to the subheading written here on my course outline! Okay, I'll stop being stupid now).

Explain the structure of the atom in terms of protons, neutrons and electrons.

See my first post on Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table.

Write the electron configuration using the shell model for the first 20 elements.

Also see my first post on Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table.

Explain trends in first ionisation energy, atomic radius and electronegativity across periods and down groups (for main group elements) in the Periodic Table.

Yay! Something new!

I'm going to start with atomic radius, because I think it's the easiest to explain, and then I can explain the other two from there.

When you go down groups, atomic radius generally increases. This is because you're adding more shells and therefore the atom is getting bigger. Also, when you go up groups, atomic radius generally decreases.

When you go across periods (from left to right), atomic radius generally decreases. This is because the number of shells remains consistent across a period, but the number of protons increases, making the nucleus "more positive" and therefore pulls the electrons in the shells closer to it (if that made any sense). Therefore, the radius decreases. Again, the inverse is true: as you move left across a period, atomic radius generally increases.

I'm saying "generally" because occasionally you get some retarded element that doesn't want to follow the rules exactly. All these things are trends only. Sort of like how there might be a fashion trend where a lot of people are dressing according to that fashion trend but then there'd be someone like me who doesn't give a damn about it.

Now for electronegativity! Electronegativity is an atom's ability to attract electrons and, in doing so, become more electronegative. Now, since it's the positively-charged protons in the nucleus that are doing most of the attracting (opposites attract, remember?) electronegativity is largely based on two things: how many protons are in the nucleus, and how many shells of electrons are surrounding that nucleus (remember, likes repel, so the more shielding shells there are, the harder it is for an atom to attract an electron). Therefore, electronegativity decreases as you go down groups as there are more "shielding" shells of electrons, and increases as you go across periods since there are more protons for the same number of "shielding" shells. (The inverse is also true.)

Now, what is this "first ionisation energy" thing you might ask? (I've started like 3 sentences with the word "now" in the past few minutes... argh.) Well, "first ionisation energy" is the energy required to remove one electron from an atom. As electronegativity of an atom increases, the electrons are held more tightly to the atom and thus require more energy to remove, and vice versa. Thus trends in first ionisation energy are the same as trends in electronegativity: first ionisation energy increases as you go right across a period, or up a group.

Explain the trend in successive ionisation energies

Apart from first ionisation energy, there's also second ionisation energy, third ionisation energy, and so on, as you take more and more electrons away from an atom. Second ionisation energy is higher than the first, third is higher than the second, and so on. This is because it is harder to take an electron away from an atom which is turning into a more and more positive ion.

Ionisation energy jumps significantly when you've finished taking away all the electrons from one shell and have to start on the next. This is because this next shell is closer to the nucleus and therefore is bound more strongly by the protons in the nucleus of the atom. Analysing ionisation energy numbers, therefore, allows you to get a pretty good idea of how many electrons are in the outer shell. For example, if there's a big difference between the 3rd and 4th ionisation energies, you can assume that there's 3 electrons in the outer shell, and that the big jump is due to the 4th electron having to be taken from the shell second furthest from the nucleus.

Describe and explain the relationship between the number of valence electrons and an element's bonding capacity, position on Periodic Table and physical and chemical properties.

I've explained everything apart from position on Periodic Table back at my first post on Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table.

Position on Periodic Table is pretty simple though. Elements are arranged according to the number of electrons that they have. They are then arranged into periods according to how many shells they have, and groups according to how many valence electrons they have (1 valence electron- group 1, 2 valence electrons- group 2, 3 valence electrons- group 13, 4- group 14, 5- group 15 until 8- groups 18). Then there are the transition metals in the middle which I can't be bothered explaining, but they're also listed in order of number of protons.

Some more bits and pieces on Polar Coordinates and Complex Numbers

It feels like it's been a while since I last posted about maths, apart from copy-pasting something from my other blog. This post is actually a continuation of that other post, called Complex Numbers and Polar Coordinates. I've covered pretty much all of the basics there (apart from the fact that that post is in sore need of pictures), but there's still some stuff I have yet to cover.

First off, I need to tell you how to find the distance between two points when they are given in polar form, where polar form is given by (distance from origin, angle from positive x-axis). Here's a diagram:

In the above diagram, point A has the polar coordinates (r1, theta1) (yes, I know that those should be subscripts but I can't be bothered opening Word right now just to type in some subscripts and then copy-paste to Blogspot as you can't type them directly into Blogspot) and point B has the polar coordinates (r2, theta2).

The line from the origin to point A is of length r1. The line from the origin to point B is of length r2. Finally, the angle between the two lines is given by theta1 - theta2: the difference between the two angles. Now you have enough information to work out the length of AB using the cosine rule!

AB = sqrt( (r1)^2 + (r2)^2 + 2(r1)(r2)cos(theta1 - theta2))

(One day Blogspot will be able to type in not only subscripts, but square roots signs and the Greek alphabet as well... one day... or maybe I should just install a Greek keyboard on my computer?! Now that's an idea! Why did I not think of that before? Meh, can't be bothered looking for a good one right now... and I can't be bothered trying every one in the pre-installed list to see if any of them actually work...)

By the way, it doesn't matter whether you have theta1 - theta2 or theta2- theta1. The result is the same. This is because theta1 - theta2 is equal to -(theta 2 - theta1), and cos(x) = cos (-x).

Now, as for the graphs of polar equations... well, I've already written about them before in my very brief review of chapters 1-6, but I might as well just copy-paste the info here into a dedicated Polar Coordinates post.


If you have theta = (angle), then the graph is basically a line in the direction of the angle. (i.e. if the equation is theta = pi/4, then you have a line continuing at pi/4 radians, or 45 degrees, as measured anticlockwise from the positive x-axis). If it says anywhere that r doesn't have to be greater than theta, then the line extends in both directions.

If you have r = (constant), then the graph is a circle with a radius equal to the constant.

You can also get inequalities for these as well. Remember, if it's a greater than/ less than sign without the equals bit underneath, you need to draw a dotted line, not a solid line.

Oh yeah, and there are the spirals too, in the form r = k(theta), where k is a constant, r is the magnitude and theta is the angle. Normally you see these in those questions where it asks you to write the equation for the graph. Normally it helps to use the values of r at (pi/2) and/or pi to help you determine k, and, therefore, the equation.

As for complex numbers in polar form, and how to multiply and divide them, I've already written about that in my aforementioned post about Complex Numbers and Polar Coordinates.

That leaves graphing regions in the complex plane. This is pretty simple and is kind of related to the graphs of polar equations.

If you have |z| = k, where k is a constant, the graph is basically a circle with the centre as the origin and radius k. z is any number with a modulus equal to k.

If you have |z - w| = k as your equation, where w is a complex number (normally given in the form a + bi) and k is a constant, then the graph is a circle with centre w and radius k. Be careful: sometimes they'll give an equation in the form |z + w| = k. If you get this, make sure to rearrange the equation to |z - (-w)| = k, otherwise you'll end up with the centre in the wrong place.

Finally you have the annoying ones which are in the form |z - w| = |z - p|, where w and p are both complex numbers. To do these, mark points w and p on the Argand diagram. Then draw a dotted line between w and p. Finally, draw a continuous solid line that bisects the dotted line (bisecting line = a line that crosses another line in its centre and runs perpendicular to that line). Every point on the solid line should then be equidistant (i.e. of equal distance) from w and p.

And that's pretty much it for those two chapters. It kind of helps that I covered loads of stuff before...

T. S. Eliot- The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock- Marxism, Feminism and So On

Pretty sure there's a term for all of these things, but I don't know whether it's "reading practices" or something totally different. But here's some brief info anyway, half of which is leeched off my classmates' powerpoints.

Information

Marxist criticism: Marxism is a way of seeing the world through economic terms. For example, Marxists see history as a series of class struggles between whatever the upper and lower classes of the period happen to be, whether they be slaves and masters or workers and capitalists. Marxists believe that systems of production of goods exist until they are no longer sufficient and are replaced by a new system. They are often critical of capitalism as they believe that, while the idea that capitalists have to produce what people want to maintain profits might mean that resources are distributed well, it can also go the other way, because it could mean that capitalists are then producing more for people who can afford it to the detriment of those who cannot, as well as to the detriment of the environment. There's a whole bunch of other ideas that are related to Marxism, which you can read about at http://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/Marx.html.

Psychoanalytic criticism: This is mainly to do with Freud's ideas about how the mind works. Freud believed that the mind could be divided up into the id, the ego and the superego. Now, I'm not sure what the ego did, but what I do remember is that the id is basically the unconscious desires and the superego is the mind's means of regulating these desires. A significant number of these desires, according to Freud, have something or other to do with repressed sexuality. I mean, he even divides our life into the oral, anal, phallic and genitals stages. If you don't believe me, go look up the case about Freud and Dora.

New Historicist criticism: I think this is mainly to do with how attitudes at the time influenced a text, as opposed to just looking at context which is where the concrete events themselves influence the text? I'm not entirely sure, and I'm probably completely wrong here. Maybe you can just put down the stuff that I wrote on my Context page after all.

There's other ways of reading, like Feminist criticism, but I've been procrastinating all day and it's now 9pm so I'd better hurry up and get this over with. (I swear I started writing the first article at about 9am this morning... shows how much I procrastinate.)

Reading Prufrock Through These Lenses

Marxist Criticism: My powerpoint was "Prufrock can be read as an exploration of the Marxist idea that the relentless pursuit of profits in a capitalist society advantages the upper classes while disadvantaging lower classes and the environment through poetic devices such as imagery, similes and intertextuality." On my first slide, I wrote about the representations of the advantaged upper classes. There are consistent references to upper-class goods and lifestyle, such as the "taking of a toast and tea," "tea and cakes and ices" and "porcelain." There are also references to the aesthetic qualities present in upper-class life, such as "arms that are braceleted" and people who "prepare a face" to meet each other. Also, the word "time" is used constantly, giving the sense that the upper classes have plenty of leisure time to spare- and who doesn't like leisure time? There's "time for you and time for me," before they even get to have some delicious upper-class tea! What more could you want? Oh, and there's also that saying that "time is money" as well, which only serves to make the upper-classes look even wealthier. Brilliant.

The disadvantaged lower classes are shown through the imagery in the poem as well as through the juxtaposition between the upper- and lower-classes. "Cheap hotels" and "sawdust restaurants" give the impression of poverty and dirtiness, the aural imagery of "the muttering retreats of restless nights" make the city seem unpleasant and unsafe (see my post on Context) and the visual/ kinesthetic imagery of the yellow cat/smoke makes the streets seem forbidding and almost poisonous due to the way that it has been described as "yellow fog" and "yellow smoke" rubbing itself against window panes. I mean, you have poisonous gases rubbing themselves up against your house, for goodness' sake. Isn't that a bit too close for comfort? The "lonely men in shirt sleeves" mentioned later in the poem can be read as a representation of disconnected workers in capitalist society. All of this is juxtaposed against the "tea and cakes and ices" and porcelain of the upper-classes, a stark contrast which is accentuated by the constant swapping between the two scenarios.

The damaged environment is shown through kinaesthetic imagery, similes and visual imagery. In the kinaesthetic imagery category, we have "let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys," "the yellow fog that rubs its back" and "the yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle." The pollution's EVERYWHERE, rubbing against us and everything, and that ain't pretty. And then there's my favourite simile, "when the evening is spread out against the sky like a patient etherised upon a table." Etherisation is an old anaesthetisation technique in which the patient cannot move but still has his or her mental faculties intact. Comparing the sky to an etherised patient makes it seem as though we have made nature helpless. Finally, the visual imagery of "where wind blows the water white and black" possibly shows the effects of pollution: why is the water black? Is it because of the pollution from the factories?

Freudian criticism: Finding stuff to say about this one is fun because it means you get to look for innuendos. On the other hand, it might not be fun for the same reason.

At the moment I'm just looking at two of my classmates' powerpoints. One of them has split up her analysis into symbols of desire, symbols of repression and symbols of impotence. Another group has split up their analysis into representations of the id (which I guess could correspond to "desire" in the other powerpoint), the superego (which I guess could correspond to "repression" and "impotence" in the other powerpoint) and where the two come to a head in what they term "the battle."

I remember hearing somewhere that you can copy 10% of someone else's work without it being deemed plagiarism, so that's pretty much what I'm going to do. (Actually the real reason why I'm being brief here is not because I care about plagiarism but because I'm too lazy to write a lot.) So here goes:

Okay. Symbols of desire: "Do I dare to eat a peach?" His wanting to symbolises desire, but his questioning about it symbolises his restraint (superego). The mermaids are a reference to the sirens in Homer's Odyssey. Look it up because I'm too lazy to explain. (Okay, I might write it in some other time, but not now.) Arms- symbolises his desire for women. Once in class we were talking about how referring to people as "arms" is an example of synechdoche, in which a part represents the whole (guess I could have talked about that in my "fragmentation" part of my post on Context). Wow, that was a random point that doesn't really fit here. Anyway, perfume is another symbol of temptation and desire.

Symbols of repression: "Oh, do not ask, 'What is it?'"- never says his overwhelming question because something is stopping him. Damn. Then there's the "preparing a face" to almost construct a false identity and the prudent and respectful characteristics of the "attendant lord" which this classmate of mine reckons is Prufrock's excuse for not showing strong emotion.

Symbols of impotence: The mermaids- "I do not think that they will sing to me." Not knowing whether he will "have the strength to force the moment to it crisis." References to growing old symbolise his physical and sexual impotence. Then there's "restless nights in one-night cheap hotels," which I guess symbolises impotence if you associate "one-night cheap hotels" with that kind of behaviour because if you do then "restless nights" sort of symbolises an inability to do that kind of thing.

Okay, that's enough from me. I'm tired and I can't be bothered doing anything else. Good night to you all.

T. S. Eliot- The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock- Imagery

This is my second post about this oh-so-annoying-to-analyse-for-Lit poem. My first post is on context: http://year11misadventures.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/ts-eliot-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock.html.

Imagery: Information

I'm not really sure what the correct definition for "imagery" is but I guess it's just words that build up really strong mental images of stuff. There are different kinds of imagery that appeal to (not sure if that's the right word) different senses. Some images may not fit neatly into one category, but into multiple categories.

Visual imagery: Imagery related to sight.
Olfactory imagery: Imagery related to smell.
Kinesthetic imagery: Imagery related to movement.
Tactile imagery: Imagery related to touch.
Aural imagery: Imagery related to sound.
Gustatory imagery: Imagery related to taste.

There's probably other types but those are the categories that I know of.

Imagery in Prufrock

I'll do visual imagery last because much more imagery fits into that category than any other category.

Kinesthetic imagery: There's the yellow smoke/fog that "[rubs] its back," that "[curls] about the house" and "slides along the street." There's also a bit where Prufrock says that he is "pinned and wriggling on the wall."

Aural imagery: There's the "muttering retreats," the "music from a farther room," and the singing mermaids.

Visual imagery: The "yellow smoke" and "yellow fog," the overall image/metaphor/whatever of the cat or whatever domestic animal that is in that stanza, "lift and drop a question on your plate," Prufrock's description of himself, "arms that are braceleted and white and bare," "water white and black" and so on.

Now, where do we go with this imagery? Well, imagery's one of those generic conventions that you can use to help back up your statements in an essay. Also, you might have a question asking how imagery achieves desired effects, and then you can ramble on about the imagery above. If you don't know what to say, just pick an image and make stuff up. Okay, maybe you shouldn't do that if you want good marks. If you're really stuck though, it's better than writing nothing at all. You'd probably get something for at least writing down what type of imagery you're referring to, though I'm not sure because I'm not the one marking these things.