British Women Writers in different periods of time

The English Renaissance

    The English Renaissance began in the later part of the fifteenth century and lasted until the 1660s. Among the most famous women writers of this period is Aphra Behn, who is seen as the first professional woman writer in English. She wrote a number of plays that dealt with topics such as racism and slavery. A good example is Oroonoko published in 1688. Aphra Behn's works include also the plays The Amourous Prince, The Town Fop, The Dutch Lover and her only tragedy, Abdelazer.

The neoclassical period

    Among the well-known women in Bristish literature during the neoclassical period, from 1660 to the end of the eighteenth century, is Anne Finch. She wrote poetry and tried to express all that she saw and experienced. Two other women are recognized for their contribution to neoclassical British literature: Mary Astell and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Mary Astell was a philosopher and a feminist writer. She is best known now for her theories on the education of women.

The Romantic period

    Jane Austen is one of the most famous women writers that worked during the Romantic period (1798-1832). Her works include several novels, most of which focus on marriage as a way for young women to secure social standing and economic security. Her most famous novels are Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and Emma. Another famous woman writer from the English Romanticism is Mary Shelley. She is the author of Frankenstein, History of Six Weeks Tour and The Last Man.

The Victorian period

    The Victorian period, between the 1830s and 1900, was the time when the Bronte sisters, George Eliot and Elizabeth Gaskell lived and wrote. Charlotte Bronte, Emily Bronte and Anne Bronte produced many British literary classics. Charlotte's novels include Jane Eyre, Shirley, Villette and The Professor. Mary Anne Evans adopted the male pen name George as she wanted to set herself apart from the feminine genre of cookbooks and domestic moral tales. Her most famous novel is The Mill on the Floss published in 1860.

    When it's five o'clock, people leave their office. The length of the workday,for many workers,is defined by time. They leave when the clock tells them they're done.

    These days, the time is everywhere: not just on clocks or watches,but on cell-phones and computers.That may be a bad thing,particularly at work.New research shows on that clock-based work schedules hinder morale and creativity.

    Clock-timers organize their day by blocks of minutes and hours.For example: a meeting from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., research from 10 a.m.to noon,etc.On the other hand,task-timers have a list of things they want to accomplish.They work down the list,each task starts when the previous task is completed.It is said that all of us employ a mix of both these types of planning.

    What,then,are the effects of thinking about time in these different ways? Does one make us more productive? Better at the tasks at hand? Happier? In experiments conducted by Tamar Avnet and Anne-Laure Sellier,they had participints organize different activities-from project planning,holiday shopping,to yoga-by time or to-do list to measure how they performed under "clock time" vs "task time".They found clock timers to be more efficient but less happy because they felt little control over their lives.Task timers are happier and more creative,but less productive. They tend to enjoy the moment when something good is happening,and seize opportunities that come up.

    The researchers argue that task-based organizing tends to be undervalued and under-supported in the business culture.Smart companies,they believe,will try to bake more task-based planning into their strategies.

    This might be a small change to the way we view work and the office,but the researchers argue that it challenges a widespread characteristic of the economy: work organized by clock time.While most people will still probably need,and be,to some extent,clock-timers,task-based timing should be used when performing a job that requires more creativity.It'll make those tasks easier,and the task-doers will be happier.

    The Mokoko tribe (部落) lived on the wrong side of the island of two faces. The two sides, separated by a great cliff (悬崖), were like night and day. The good side was watered by rivers and was filled with trees and abundant food, while on the wrong side there was hardly any water or plants, and wild beasts crowded together. The Mokoko had the misfortune of having always lived there, with no way to cross to the other side. Their life was hard and they lived in permanent terror of the beasts.

    Along the edge of the cliff separating the two sides, a skinny but strong tree grew, with which they could build two poles. There was no doubt that the tribe would choose the great chief and doctor to use the poles. But when the two of them were given their chance to make the jump, they didn't dare to. They thought that the pole could break or it would not be long enough. They put so much energy into these thoughts that they gave in.

    But into that tribe were born Nam and Ariki, a pair of young hearts. One day, they decided to take up the poles. Nobody stopped them, but everyone did try to discourage them, trying to present how dangerous the jumping was, using a thousand explanations.

    "And what if what they say is true?" wondered the young Naru.

    "Don't worry. I am a bit scared too, but it doesn't look so difficult," replied Ariki, ever determined.

    "But if it goes wrong, it will be a terrible end," continued Naru, undecided.

    "Perhaps the jump will go badly. But staying forever on this side of the island surely won't work out well either."

    "You're right. Let's do it tomorrow."

    And on the next day, Naru and Ariki jumped to the good side of the island. When taking up the poles, while feeling their desire, the fear hardly allowed them to breathe. And while flying through the air, helpless and without support, they felt that something must have gone wrong and death awaited them. But when they landed on the other side, they thought the jump really hadn't been so bad after all.

    Unlike modern animal scientists, dinosaur scientists cannot sit on a hillside and use telescopes to watch dinosaurs in order to know how they lived and whether they were good parents. Instead, they have to search hard for information from dinosaurs' fossils(恐龙化石) because dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

    It's very difficult for the scientists to reach an agreement because different results can be got from the same fossils. Many fossils of the same kind of dinosaurs have been dug out from one place. They might have formed when an entire group of dinosaurs got stuck(陷入)all at once. Or they might have been the result of dinosaurs getting stuck one after another over a course of a few centuries. Thus we can say that dinosaurs might have in the first case lived in big groups and in the second lived alone.

    Though there are two different results, dinosaur scientists now generally agree that at least some kinds of dinosaurs lived in big groups. “That's pretty much settled at this point.” Says Paul Sereno. A kind of dinosaurs called Sauropods left behind tracks in the western United States that appear to run north and south, suggesting that they even moved long distances together.

    As to whether dinosaurs cared for their young, dinosaur scientists have turned to the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, birds and crocodiles for possible models. Birds give a lot of care to their young, while crocodiles just help their young to the water. The discovered fossils of dinosaurs sitting on their eggs and staying with their young suggest the parents were taking care of their babies, but we still cannot say that all dinosaurs did the same.

    There is still a long way to go before the above questions could be answered. Dinosaur scientists will have to find more proof to reach an agreement.

    Here's an idea whose time has come: A flu shot that doesn't require an actual shot.

    For the first time, researchers have tested a flu vaccine patch (疫苗贴) in a human clinical experiment and found that it delivered as much protection as a traditional injection with a needle. Doctors and public health experts have high hopes that it will increase the number of people who get immunized (免疫的) against the flu.

    Seasonal flu is responsible for up to half a million deaths around the world each year according to the World Health Organization. A team led by Georgia Tech engineer Mark Prausnitz has come up with an alternative method that uses “microneedles”. These tiny needles are so small that 100 of them, arranged in order on a patch, can fit under your thumb (拇指). Yet they're big enough to hold vaccine for three types of flu.

    None of the study volunteers had serious side effects. The groups that got patches had mild skin reactions that were not seen in the regular needle group, while the volunteers in the regular needle group were more likely to experience pain. Overall, 70 percent of the volunteers who got vaccine patches said they'd rather use them again than get a traditional flu shot. The study authors declared it a success on all fronts.

    The biggest beneficiaries could be people in low- and middle-income countries, where flu vaccines are hard to come by. Reducing pain is nice, but other benefits—the patch costs less, is easier to transport, doesn't require refrigeration, can be self-administered and doesn't cause waste of needles—are even better.

    "Microneedle Patches have the potential to become ideal candidates for vaccination programs," wrote Katja Hoschler and Maria Zambon of Public Health England.