Friday, January 31, 2020
Comparing and Contrasting Tragic Heroes †Oedipus and Prufrock Essay Example for Free
Comparing and Contrasting Tragic Heroes – Oedipus and Prufrock Essay Introduction: Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald (1896 –1940) the Irish American novelist and short story writer of the twentieth century said â€Å"Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy†(as quoted in memorablequotations.com). Indeed more often than not, great tragedies of yore were always centered round the deeds or the misdeeds of a hero (usually a man of noble birth) his misfortunes and the cursed nature of his life, fated to suffer and fall from glory. The concepts of heroes and heroism have themselves undergone vast changes from Sophocles’ (496-406 B. C) times. Consequently, the idea of hero-based tragedy indeed, even the basic traits of heroism has undergone transformation. As against the noble-born, valorous hero of Sophocles and Aristotle (in The Poetics of 30 B. C.), the common man who struggles to make a decent living, and fulfill ordinary aspirations such as wanting to be loved, given affection, loyalty, friendship etc, in a mundane, mechanized, and mad-after-money world (bereft of human values) his life has become the focus of the twentieth century tragedies. This essay, shall take two characters, Oedipus – the King (425 B.C), in the ancient drama of Sophocles, and J. Alfred Prufrock, in the twentieth century poet T.S. Eliot’s (1888 –1965) â€Å"Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock†(1915), and analyze their similarities and dissimilarities, with a brief definition of Tragic Hero as given by Sophocles, and the definition of a Tragic Hero in modern times. Definitions with illustrations of Tragic Heroes – Ancient and Twentieth Century: First, the idea of a tragic hero, in the ancient times shall be discussed.  Aristotle, who was a great Greek philosopher and thinker, stipulated a couple of traits as absolutely necessary for a tragic hero: he must be noble origin, or at least possess a noble spirit, and he must be the cause of his own suffering. Aristotle (384-322 B.C), quoting the character of Oedipus depicted by Sophocles, laid down certain rules that a tragic hero must possess: a leader who is filled with good and bad elements Oedipus was of noble birth and had many noble characters like wanting redeem his kingdom from the plague, but he also was too proud etc; he is ignorant of his imminent fall, though the audience have prior knowledge of it in case of Oedipus the audience had prior knowledge of his birth and identity, while he considers himself the son of Polybus, the king of Corinth; his inherent flaw or â€Å"hamart ia†is the cause of his fall – his belief that he can over come the prophecy that he will kill his father; suffers isolation because of this self-exile from Corinth; suffering is irreversible – the blinding he causes to himself later; undergoes punishment because of his own pride or â€Å"hubris†– Oedipus pursues the killer of King Laius, despite counsel against it; a misguided sense of heroism, wherein he is prepared to take on the guilt of the state or kingdom on himself – his belief that he can somehow overcome the prophecy of the oracle by leaving his parents; resulting in greater conflict with fate – Oedipus finally goes to Thebes and killed his own father, without knowing who the latter was, thereby fulfilling the oracle; a restoration of balance to the original state of social harmony through cleansing of pity and fear – Oedipus undertakes to go away in exile which was the punishment he had ordered for the killer of the previous king handing over the kingdom to Creon; which he called catharsis or tragic satisfaction (adapted from Allingham, 2002:1). Thus Oedipus exactly fits the role with of a tra gic hero, as laid down by Aristotle. Coming to modern tragic hero of the twentieth century, as mentioned earlier, has come a long way from the stipulations of the ancients for tragic-heroism. Daniel J. Boorstin (1914 –2004), an American writer, and the Librarian of Congress, talks of the heroes of the modern world as being â€Å"anonymous†and â€Å"the unsung hero: †¦ the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous, unpublicized jobs†(as in memorablequotations.com). A modern tragic hero may described as someone who does not hold any of the ancient lofty ideals, rather as an ordinary man who is disillusioned with the ruthless world around him and is not able to come to terms with it and suffers thereby with a feeling of helplessness, and is unable to realize his full potential because of this. Typically, he is subjected to moods, driven by extreme happiness or plunged into extreme sorrow, very sophisticated, filled with doubts, lives in the crowded cities yet suffers desperately from isolation, smart yet sensitive, and often disillusioned to such an extent that he feels life itself has lost all meaning or relevance to him. Eliot’s Prufrock, typically suffers all these qualities. For example, he is always filled with self-doubt, â€Å"a deep phobia of life, turning into what one could perhaps best describe as complete biological defeatism†(Mirsky, undated). He seems to be the very best representation of so many negative attributes, like procrastination, indecision, doubts, frustration that reflects the impotent helplessness of the modern, urban man. The first few lines in the poem are from Dante’s Inferno, which is used as a prelude, to show that Prufrock, the protagonist is already doomed and is voicing out his thoughts because he is so sure that no-one is hearing them. The poem describes the innermost feelings, extremely tortured with a wanting, to disclose his love to his chosen woman, but prevented from self-doubt, and fear, phobia, â€Å"Do I dare / Disturb the universe?†(Eliot, lines 44-45), because he only knew too well the out come of such expression â€Å"That is not what I meant at all†(Eliot, line 97). The vivid description of the places, possibly his dwelling place, reflects the sordid state in which the typical twentieth century man lived, and the isolation he felt â€Å"of lonely men in shirt-sleeves†(Eliot, line 73). Eliot’s Prufrock, ultimately fails even to begin his proposal to his lady love, because he could not muster the courage to do it, with a premonition of failure overcoming him and, grows old, suffering life-long loneliness. In a sense this defeatism, is his flaw that proves to be the cause of his woes. He claims that he is not â€Å"Prince Hamlet†(Eliot, line 111), referring to the Shakespearean tragic hero, implying his lack of royal lineage, but the irony is that he is, in fact exactly like Hamlet, who by postponing his decision avenge his father’s death, by killing kill Claudius, leads to the death of many others, and finally his own. All this prove that, he does conform to the image of a twentieth century tragic-hero. Comparing and Contrasting, the two tragic heroes: One similarity between the two characters that strikes a literature student immediately is that, both Oedipus and Prufrock, actually are depicted as surviving long into old age, despite all their sadness and failures and disillusionment. Almost as if to chew cud, ruminate all that had gone by and to die a slow painful death of their miserable actions; misguided in Oedipus’ case, â€Å"Woe, woe, and woe again! / How through my soul there darts the sting of pain, / The memory of my crimes†(Sophocles, lines 1372-74) and inactions in the case of Prufrock, â€Å"I grow old†(Eliot, line 120). Both, ultimately realize their folly, or flaw, but are helpless to reverse the situation. In Prufrock’s case, he is entirely the cause of his own suffering, but still is impotent to change the situation. Both despise themselves for their helplessness. Thus, their sufferings seem amplified and add to the brooding quality of their tragic lives. Both are isolated and are despised by the world, in their thinking. Prufrock states that he doesn’t think that the mermaids will sing to him; Oedipus begs to be led away hurriedly, being the most polluted of all, and â€Å"Of all men most accursed†(Sophocles, line1396). Though the two characters share the above stated common traits and both are tragic heroes, there are quite a few dissimilarities too. The first difference is the form of portrayal of the tragic heroes. Oedipus is the hero of the dramatic form, and hence his character is more clear and open to study, presenting a fuller picture of all his characteristic traits and complex behavior. Prufrock, on the other hand is neither a king, nor of noble thinking, and he is the tragic hero in a poem. Implicitly, the shortage of space in a poem puts limitations on extensive character portrayal of the hero. Thus, the student is able to study only a portion of the character’s life-span of Prufrock, in contrast to the full life history of Oedipus. The other most striking contrast is that Oedipus is an ancient tragic hero – actively upholding the principles of high idealism, altruism, justice, and valor while being beleaguered by feelings of jealousy, treachery, disloyalty, dishonor, greed, lust for power etc, the modern, tragic-hero is more of an anti-hero, and impotent. In the sense, he is so defeated by the power of the dull, uninspiring world around him, that he prefers to rather remain inactive, than to actively try to change his situation and be defeated. It is almost as if the uselessness of the attempts of the ancient tragic heroes have been embedded in the collective psyche of the modern tragic hero, and hence, he is already aware of the outcome, he doesn’t even want to attempt. Oedipus not being aware of his true identity, led him to wrongly believe that Polybus was his father, and thereafter his vow never to return to Corinth. But still he, as the mark of a true hero took an action of self-exile which ultimately led to fructify the designs of fate. Nevertheless, he was action-oriented and defeated. Whereas, the modern tragic hero in Prufrock, is so much a pessimist, that he remains defeated with inaction – by sheer preference. In fact, it is said that T.S. Eliot was reflecting on the dismal conditions of the world surrounding him, and this poem partially paved the way for his other later works like The Wasteland (1922). The differing time-periods of the two characters have resulted in the portrayal of the different societies in which these two heroes lived. For example, the people of the land of Thebes have been represented as the Chorus, and they are actively involved in the happenings of the state, the king and the welfare of the state, showing a healthy environment; whereas, the desolate depiction of the twentieth century environment, in Eliot’s poem is more dismal, and uninspiring. It seems the society as a common force had died out, or at least not visible. Conclusion: The tragic heroes Oedipus and Prufrock belong to totally different ages; consequently, present entirely different set of traits and ideals by which they are depicted. While both the heroes have some aspects common to all tragedies, they also display very contrasting traits which make their study, all the more interesting. However, both are symbols of negative impact that afflict the state, ancient and the twentieth century.                                                    List of readings and works cited The sources on which this essay is based on are: Eliot, T.S. (1888–1965).†The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock†in Prufrock and Other Observations.  1917. On line edition Published May 1996 by Bartleby.com  Web address http://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html Accessed on June 12, 2006. Sophocles. Oedipus the King, translated by E. H. Plumptre. Vol. VIII, Part 5. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001.            Website address http://www.bartleby.com/8/5/2.html and  http://www.bartleby.com/8/5/3.html Accessed on June 12, 2006. Other works cited and readings that have helped in gaining a better understanding towards writing this essay are: Allingham, V, Philip. 2002. â€Å"Aristotelian Tragedy and the Novels of Thomas Hardy†in The Victorian Web. Website:http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/hardy/pva187.html Accessed on June 12, 2006. McCoy, Kathleen., Harlan, Judith. (1992). ENGLISH LITERATURE FROM 1785 (New            York: HarperCollins, 1992: 265-66) Web site address:            http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/english/English151W-03/prufrock.htm            Accessed on June 12, 2006. memorablequotations.com (2005). â€Å"Memorable Quotations: Heroes†website address http://www.memorablequotations.com/heroquotes.htm Accessed on June 12, 2006. Mirsky, D.S. Undated.  â€Å"T. S. Eliot and The End of Bourgeois Poetry†trans. by Gunnar Jauch, Annelie Hultà ©n, and Arwin van Arum. Website address http://members.chello.nl/~a.vanarum8/EliotProject/Essays/Mirsky.htm Accessed on June 12, 2006.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Why is Dracula such a great horror story? Essay -- English Literature
Why is Dracula such a great horror story? In my opinion 'Dracula' is a great horror story because it is highly entertaining in its idea of vampirism, its atmospheric descriptions, powerful characterisation and the horrific death of Lucy. The novel is also interesting because of the religious perspectives, such as the use of garlic, holy water and the crucifix as weapons against evil. Jonathan Harker's journey to Count Dracula's home is described in great detail. The atmosphere not only adds to the dangerous ride to Dracula's Castle, but also comes alive as we're reading it. The atmosphere surrounding Harker is incredibly frightening but the detail and descriptions used are so astounding that we can feel the 'strange chills'. I felt like I was sitting beside Jonathan Harker. I 'shared' his 'fear'. Harker is travelling in a Caleche, a small, open, horse drawn carriage which is obviously dangerous. It adds suspense to the story, which makes the reader automatically think something terrible is going to occur. The 'long, agonized wailing' of the dogs seem to go on forever. As the journey takes longer it becomes more fearsome. Harker feels 'lonely'. Harker's driver is a strange, mysterious character, with his 'gleaming smile' as he steers the Caleche without revealing his face to Harker, or talking much. At this point the reader is thrilled and excited, feeling like a character in the story. The historical detail of the journey is also what makes this novel brilliant. Harker is very uncomfortable, 'caught my arm in a grip of steel.' I didn't realise how dangerous and uncomfortable the Caleches were back a hundred years ago until I read Harker's account of his journey. As the 'horses began to strain' and... ...hough to find out what people used to believe in. Stoker has used imaginative and gruesome details, which interested me a lot. I think this novel is wonderful mainly because of Lucy's death and how her fiancà © killed her. It shows how much Arthur loved Lucy. He killed her vampire form and bought back Lucy's soul so it could go to heaven. This dreadful part of the story is brilliant. I found it heartbreaking but I was amazed at Arthur's strong character. I think the novel was fascinating but it dragged and became boring in places. The journey to Transylvania, for example, was very well described and extremely spooky. However, this section could be shortened to maintain tension. I also think some of the character's diary entries could have been more focused on moving the story forward rather than offering lots of information, which we didn't really need.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Five Teachings Of Jesus
The five of the teachi8ngs of Jesus are the following: Be Merciful (Luke 6:36, Matthew 5:7, Forgiveness (Luke6: 37), Seek Goodness (Luke 6:45), Respect Others (Luke 14:11), and Be Kind (Luke 6:31). Be Merciful (Luke 6:31). â€Å"Be merciful just as your father is merciful.†(Matthew 5:7): â€Å"Happy are those who are merciful to others; God will be merciful to them.†The passage s teaches us mainly about being merciful to our enemy and God will be merciful toward us. Forgiveness of kind especially toward our enemy. We should not harm others even if they done bad things against us. We should show compassion towards others because if we don’t people might not show compassion towards us. The passage told us that Jesus is merciful even towards his enemies. Perfect example of this is forgiving Jusus’ enemy when he was put on the cross. Jesus even prayed for them to not punish them. Forgiveness (Luke 6:37): â€Å" Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others, and God will not condemn you; forgive others and God will forgive you.†The passage teaches us that we should forgive others and we will be forgiven. We should treat others, as we want to be treated. Jesus never judged or condemned others no matter what they did to him. Seek Goodness (Luke 6:45): â€Å"a good person brings good out of the treasure of good things in his heart; a bad person brings bad out of his treasure of bad things. For mouth speaks what the heart is full of.†The passage teaches us mainly about looking for the good in all, not for evil. We should look for positive thought in all, not for negative thoughts. Jesus always seeks goodness in all of us. Respect Others (Luke 14:11): â€Å"For everyone who makes himself great will be humbled, and everyone who humbles himself will be great.†The passage teaches us mainly about helping others if they need help. The people who you help will be thankful to you. Jesus became humble because he earned it by helping people who need help, even his enemy. Be Kind (Luke 6:31): â€Å"Do for others just what you want them to do for you.†The passage is mainly about respecting others especially he elders. Respect others, as you want to be respected. Jesus is respectful toward his family, elders, and enemy.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Max Weber s Theory Of Social Stratification - 1836 Words
Introduction The growing inequalities in our society and individual’s motivation to work can be explained through different theoretical perspectives. This essay seeks to examine two theories, the functionalist perspective of social stratification and Max Weber’s perspective of rationalisation and life chances. The functionalist theory, in particular the discussions of different rewards system in our society and moral evaluations are applied in this paper, to explain people’s drives to work. Weber’s theory of social stratification, that of rationalisation and life chances is examined. In the first section of the paper, the differences and similarities of these theories’ understanding of people’s motivation to work are discussed. This will†¦show more content†¦247). For example, the rewards are higher for profession such as data analysts, as it demands further education and training to gain the appropriate technical knowledge compared to jobs that do not require this knowledge, such as bricklayers. These incentives of rewards provide an explanation for people’s decision to pursue higher education and engage in rigorous training for particular jobs in the contemporary’s society. Weber’s rationalisation analysis While the functionalist perspective explains the involvement of certain individuals to work in higher ranked job positions, the analysis of rationalisation contended by Weber may provide a more general explanation to people’s motivation to work. According to Weber, work under the capitalist society has resulted in the separation of people from the means of production, which lead to workers’ realisation of economic rationality (Wright 2002, p. 837). This economic rationality may result in people’s motivation to work as they calculate their economic gains through the position of being employed, regardless of the type of work. The decision to work is associated with individuals’ rationale, as people do so in order to provide means of income and fund their way of living. Additionally, the motivation of work according to Weber lies in the self-interest of economic advantage (Wright 2002, p. 840), which can be achieved thr ough theShow MoreRelatedMax Weber s Theories About Status And Social Stratification1343 Words  | 6 Pagesthe social context of its’ origination, this paper will consider baseball in the context of Max Weber’s theories about status and social stratification. Although his theories are seemingly similar to Karl Marx, their theories are essentially different. Marx primarily believes that economics and class are distinguishing factors of society; whereas, Weber believes that status and social stratification are the distinguishing factors of society. When applying a sociological perspective of Max WeberRead MoreMarx, Max Weber And Emile Durkheim948 Words  | 4 PagesIn assessment of sociological theory it is imperative to our understanding of social theory that we analyze the ideologies of some prominent theorists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim. Karl Marx’s philosophical ideals on society and class division are impactful in shaping our understanding of society. Inequality and social division is at the heart of Marx’s theory of society. Marx’s theorized that society is the history of class struggles. To him the fundamentally factor determiningRead MoreMax Weber s Theory Of Power897 Words  | 4 PagesBACKGROUND OF MAX WEBER Max Weber was German sociologist, who an intellectual who†¦ CONCEPT OF POWER The concept of power is not something that can be easily defined, as there have been recent outpourings of case studies on community power. Sociological researchers have consistently discovered that power is highly centralized, while political science scholars have also regularly concluded that in their communities, power is widely diffused (P. Bachrach and M. Baratz, 1962, pg. 947). Bachrach andRead MoreSocial Stratification in Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Max Webers Class, Status and Party474 Words  | 2 PagesSocial Stratification in Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Max Webers Class, Status and Party Social stratification is the ranking of members of society in a way that some of its members are regarded as superior and others as inferior. This theory is certainly debated in present time and was debated as far back as 1776 when Karl Marx presented his theory in his Manifesto of the Communist Party. In the 1880s, Max Weber combatted that document in his ownRead MoreMarxist Theory And Social Class1238 Words  | 5 Pagessocieties, there is a social division due to stratification and classes. Strydom (2005) defines social class as group of individuals that share similarities like power and prestige. Saunders (2001) states that stratification is the presence of distinct social groups which are ranked. Therefore, the major difference is that stratification shows diversity while social classes defines an inequality. In Marxist theories, society is divided between two classes, and social stratification is the conflict betweenRead MoreKarl Marx And Max Weber1174 Words  | 5 Pagessociology has always focused on examining the many factors that compose society and the myriad of ways in which it functions. Karl Marx along with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber were the pioneers that are credited as being the founders of classical sociology. They were the first ones to thoroughly examine the complexities of society and create theo ries for them. The theoretical frameworks and research methodologies created by these sociologists were products of the enlightenment and are still studied and widelyRead MoreContemporary Theory: Stratification Essay examples1245 Words  | 5 PagesA major concern of modern-day theory would be the impacts of stratification within society. Social stratification is defined as the â€Å"hierarchical or vertical division of society according to rank, caste, or class†(Dictionary.com 2014). Social stratification can be operationally defined â€Å"as the systematically unequal distribution of power, wealth, and status (Bowles 2013; Kerbo 2000). Stratification sets up that all known societies past and present â€Å"distribute its scarce and demanded goods and servicesRead MoreIncome Inequality : The Perspectives Of Marx And Weber Essay1505 Words  | 7 Pagesand Weber In the United States, income inequality is drawing more and more attention from the media, sociologists, politicians, and everyday citizens like us since the economic difference during the past decades became more pronounced than before. Karl Marx and Max Weber both discussed their ideas of social inequality and addressed the relationship between inequality and social structure as an important theme in their work. This paper compares and contrasts the approaches of Marx and Weber to theRead MoreSocial Reproduction Theory And The American Education System1224 Words  | 5 Pages Social reproduction theory is important and relevant to society because it challenges an institution that we have been socialized to honor and protect. In America, we believe that we have equal opportunities to succeed by educating ourselves in the school system. However, our social class and identity dictate how much access we have to those very opportunities that can lead to success. By examining this th eory of social reproduction, we can further understand the roles that culture and social classRead MoreSocial Statification Summary995 Words  | 4 Pagesï » ¿Social Stratification Summary Social stratification is the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their relative power, property, and prestige. It applies to both nations and to people within a nation, society, or other group. Social stratification affects all of one s life chances from the access to material processions to their position in society to their life expectancy. Although they may differ as to which system of social stratification they employ, all societies stratify
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)