Category: Literary Criticism

In “Medea” author Euripides depicts how alienation can fuel rage. In title character Medea’s place, she is left by her husband, Jason, for another woman and is soon to be exiled from her home. Both alienation and fear are ingrained into the daily lives of women in a patriarchal society. Today’s society reflects that of Medea’s world in ancient Greece with most American households relying on a male leadership role. This puts women in a forcefully obedient position, living almost under their husband instead of with them. With sexism ingrained into the system that we live in, it is almost impossible for a woman to escape from this life once she is in it. Although the story takes place thousands of years ago, Medea reflects these issues that still survive in today’s society. The actions of Medea explain how alienation in this sense through sexism and isolation can leave a scarring mark on ones mental stability, causing them to act out in ways they feel justified to fill the void of pain that others have caused them, no matter how destructive the actions may be.

Medea was a woman who didn’t have much choice in her actions ever. She listened to the men around her and they used her. Jason, her husband used her for political gain and then dumped her the second he found a better option:

“I killed, and so gave you the safety of the light.

And I myself betrayed my father and my home,

And came with you to Pelias’ land of Iolcus.

And then, showing more willingness to help than wisdom,

I killed him, Pelias, with a most dreadful death

At his own daughters’ hands, and took away your fear.

This is how I behaved to you, you wretched man,

And you forsook me, took another bride to bed,

Though you had children; for, if that had not been,

You would have had an excuse for another wedding.” (p.54)

As seen in the text, Medea betrayed her entire family, evening murdering her own brother. Falling in love with Jason and doing whatever he wanted her to do was just the first part of turning her into the person she is now. Listening got Medea no-where, and instead of having a happy ending with the person she loved, she was instead threatened with exile. This betrayal showed Medea just how powerless she really was in the Greek society, if Jason didn’t want her to do something she couldn’t do it. This betrayal leads to a descent into madness for Medea, and soon she has only thoughts of revenge for the men in power who used her like an object. After his betrayal, Medea sees Jason for who he truly is:

“O coward in every way—that is what I call you,

With bitterest reproach for your lack of manliness,

You have come, you, my worst enemy, have come to me!

It is not an example of overconfidence

Or of boldness thus to look your friends in the face,

Friends you have injured—no, it is the worst of all

Human diseases, shamelessness. But you did well

To come, for I can speak ill of you and lighten

My heart, and you will suffer while you are listening.” (p. 52-53)

Here we see Medea already had plans to enact revenge. She gave up everything for a man who is now throwing her away.

In Medea’s madness she made choices that she didn’t want to make. This includes the killing of her own children as well as Glauce, the future bride of Jason. This woman had never done anything wrong to Medea besides also being a pawn for political power. She, as well as Medea’s children were harmed only because they would hurt Jason. Being treated like an object for so long had made Medea lose her humanity and instead of thinking of a rational solution that would have allowed for her and her children to continue to live in Greece, she instead let out years of pent up rage in a fowl plot that resulted in tragedy for everyone that was involved.

The “princes” and “kings” of the past are now replaced with “businessmen” and “CEO’s”. These men in power are able to leave their wives whenever they wish for other women. The women who are left behind in these break-ups or even divorces are often “exiled” in their own way from the rest of society. This might be in the form of isolation from her husband’s higher-class social circle, or in the aspect of losing all of her assets that she acquired throughout the marriage, the loss of which might result in homelessness for the woman or even death. Men have a much higher remarriage rate compared to women, with men having more than double the rate of remarriages than women. This helps paint the larger picture that men have the ability to just abandon a family and start another one, whilst women on the other hand are trapped out of fear of being unable to remarry later in life.

One of the biggest alienating factors for women is the stigma for men to be seen with older women. Relationships where the man is much older than their partner are nowhere near as rare as relationships where the woman is older than their partner. This thought process might convince a woman to stay in a toxic relationship out of fear that there might not be anybody else for them if they end it. This fear can grow to resentment until finally it is full blown hatred for their husband. Living in this state can lead to a warped perception of reality where they believe the only option they have left is to kill their spouse to escape.

The feeling of being trapped is almost always the result of alienation and fear. As a woman in a patriarchal society, you have no one that can help you get out of these situations where you have no control. Men look at you as an object that other men possess, just look at the term “trophy wife”, where the man’s wife serves the same purpose has a medal. She is only used to boost the man’s status compared to his peers. Women in this position are often put into mentally and sometimes even physically abusive relationships where the only way they can continue to live is to delve further into their social prison.

Patriarchal societies has forced women into a life filled with both alienation and fear. Every aspect of a woman’s adult life leads her to be reliant on her husband to stay successful. She is expected to have kids that further trap her into the relationship and if the husband so chooses, he can leave at any time and society wouldn’t look down on him. This forced women to take desperate measures as the walls of a toxic relationship closes around them.

Lord of the Flies is a historical yet fictional novel written by Nobel Prize award-winning author William Golding. It is a symbolic novel that was inspired by and influenced by Golding’s experiences as an active member of the Royal Navy during World War 2. The replica film directed by Harry Hook conveyed similar themes and key conceptions. Lord of the Flies is presented from the perspective of a group of British schoolboys being evacuated from their homes because of war, yet, they end up isolated on an island with no adult supervision having to fend for themselves.

Lord of the Flies’ central concern is between two opposing impulses that are owned among all human beings. The driven instinct is to live by the rules, follow the inner compass, act peacefully, and hold value for the good of the community rather than one’s self. Or the urge to follow one’s emotions and to act rashly against them, to always opt towards violence for every conflict, to abuse one’s power, and do not think critically about choices that could potentially affect the future. All these factors are portrayed in the book and film through the behaviors of the characters. This can be expressed as civilization vs savagery, order vs chaos, law vs anarchy, and in the more extensive light good vs evil. This is all based on the audience’s thoughts and opinion, however, throughout the book, Golding does associate the instinct of rules and order with good and savagery and violence with evil. Whilst in the movie it was represented as more of a balanced way of thinking as the boys all reacted to the conditions thrown at them differently. Through the book and the film, the two prominent themes were depicted with Ralph being the one to lead the boys through methodical rules and well-organized routines. Whilst Jake led the boys to act upon their fear of the beast and for the satisfaction of their desires. Going beyond the limits of law and order, when reaching different levels of brutality, even though they were accustomed and taught to behave civilized back at home with authoritative adults such as parents and teachers. Golding portrays his thoughts through stereotypical and symbolic characters such as the short, unattractive overweight Piggy compared to Ralph and Jack’s charming and attractive appearance. This also shows how society is quick to judge people’s power and wisdom based on their physical appearance. At the beginning of the book and the film, it is clear that all the boys want to commence with civilization, possibly because they were taught to behave appropriately from before. They assign a leader, rules and everyone has a special job, much like the way our government and economy run. However, throughout the novel, Jack turns to the ‘evil’ side and his actions are purely out of wild impulse and result in destructive ways. This shows that the instincts of savagery were chosen more in this context than civilization.

Power and authority are other main components of Lord of the Flies, it highlights the difference between the weak-minded ones and the strong-willed ones. This theme explores a lot more than the power shown in the book and film, it symbolizes the stereotypes of our societies and how people are judged based entirely on their appearance. Throughout the book, there are many times where leadership is shown through many of the characters, however, in the film the main two leadership roles are given to Ralph and Jack. This is evident in the way, the boys respect them and listen to their ideas, it is also shown in the way they behave. This is all emphasized with the screenplay, varying from the change in music when the boys talk to the authoritative tone they held when speaking. However in the book, through descriptive and distinct word use, golding portrayed that the boys showed leadership in many areas. ‘I ought to be chief…because I’m chapter chorister and head boy. I can sing C sharp.’ Power is a complex concept and very hard to grasp yet with little schoolboys it can easily be manipulated and taken advantage of. Jack attempts to claim the role of the leader purely based on subjective requirements. However, due to Piggy’s critical vote for Ralph, Jack fails to be elected leader, but is sanctioned to maintain full power over his choir. While Jack does have basic leadership skills, he is surpassed by Ralph’s charm and passion to develop a set of civilized rules for the boys. This shows that Jack gains power and authority through cruel intentions, whilst Ralph seems genuine and wants a civilized and less vicious system running.

Whilst the book grasps the wild, the evil, and the cruel ways of the boys, in the end, they are schoolboys who have never had to face situations and conditions such as those. Their reaction to this just shows that if humans were ever to be put in a similar circumstance, would we go rogue? William Golding and Harry Hook both demonstrated that the boys had been led by their emotions and made difficult choices. Even though Ralph’s leadership had been negotiated many of the boys chose to follow Jacks’ policy and resulted in supporting his points and ideas.

The book conveys vital themes that are prominent in society/ it takes into consideration humanity, purity, morals, human nature, civilization, and power. The unique way the scenes have been captured along with the writers’ craft and descriptive language shows how Lord of the Flies questions the readers to ponder every situation and every conflict in the text. It grasps the attention of the audience through those techniques to help understand the tremendously complex theories that run through the book. From the disappeared innocence of the youth, the wild and destructive habits and the savagery conducted by a group of schoolboys truly gave readers and viewers an idea of difficult themes and conceptions.

Authority and chaos seem like polar opposites. When people think of absolute authority, they often picture Stalin’s firm grip, or big brothers’ ever-watching eye, keeping people in lockstep, people checking their own language in order to stay safe. Chaos seems incompatible with this extreme conformity; it doesn’t seem possible to “keep people in lockstep” without hindering the unpredictable and apparently unmasterable nature of chaos. In reading Lord of the Flies, however, we see a microcosm of society as a whole and, by extension, a microcosm of the relationship between chaos and authority. In this, we see that true authority can only arise from chaos, not by taking advantage of a power vacuum and installing order, but by directly living off it, both feeding each other into perpetuity.

It’s impossible to read Lord of the Flies without seeing it through its historical context, that of WWII. It’s well known that the purpose of this book is to show how every society is capable of what the Nazis did, by drawing parallels of Nazi practices in struggles that anyone could relate to if put in the situation of the kids. Because of this, while I can draw parallels from any regime, the US, the USSR, Britain, etc, I choose to look most closely at the parallels between the themes of this book and the Nazi regime, not just because the writer kept the regime in mind in his writing, but because the Nazi’s embody this in the most explicit fashion.

In a cursory reading of the book, most would see Ralph and Piggie as the good guys, from the famous quote “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called piggy.” The obvious reading of this quote is explaining the fall into chaos; man retreating into savagery. However, I want to read into this quote, I think, along with this meaning, the quote has a sarcastic message to it, a cynical message at the expense of Ralph and piggy. Ralph symbolizes civility and, in this case, is parallel to the Weimar Republic. When understanding this, you can see the sarcasm in this quote. Piggy, symbolizing intellectuals, never attempted to relate to the others, he never made a sincere attempt to clarify why he believes what he does and why the others are wrong. Superstition, as we’ll explore later, comes from a grain of truth. The kids fear the beast, not because there really is one, but because the unpredictable nature of the forest poses a real threat to the children, one that needs to be taken seriously. When piggy immediately shoots their concerns down, he does it in a fashion they couldn’t understand or relate to, pushing them further to Jack. Jack, however, synthesizes the fears of the kids in a way that is clear and understandable, allowing him to erode the order of Ralph, producing chaos. “The greatest ideas are the simplest”. The civility of Ralph and piggy is the fertile land that allows the chaos and authority of Jack to grow.

Piggie’s glasses represent objective truth, the monster represents fear or irrationality. In a cursory reading, you’d conclude that Piggie’s glasses are on the side of him and Ralph, after all, it is his glasses and Jack did smash it. I disagree, I think the glasses, like truth, don’t take sides, it depends on how it’s used. Both Jack and Piggy want control over the glasses, because of their capability to produce fire. Taking the glasses is both sides attempting to take control over the narrative, in that they’re attempting to assert their own interpretation over objective truth. Order is no more correct than chaos, in any objective sense. The seizure of the glasses symbolizes how opportunists would take advantage of the subjectivity of truth. When Jack breaks the glasses, it isn’t on purpose. This shows that Jack doesn’t aim to disregard the truth, but just to assert his own truth. The abandonment of truth, or the breaking of the glasses, isn’t the direct aim of irrationality, but an indirect byproduct. The best quote that ties up this idea of the subjectivity of truth is this, “If a face is different depending on the angle it’s lit, what is a face, what is anything.” For parallels to our world, the beast would symbolize the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. The root concerns of the German people that lead them to anti-Semitism are valid, in that the way that global finance is structured was by punishing innocent people. The beast, anti-Semitism, is the irrational interpretation of this objective truth. The liberals, while technically correct in that “international Jewry” was false, went about this by dismissing, not only the obvious falsehood but also dismissing the concerns that bred this falsity, which lead to their eventual downfall.

So how does this all relate to chaos and order? I know, up until now, it seems like I’ve gone off track, but bear with me, the subjectivity of truth is crucial in understanding the relationship of authority and chaos because it shows how the rhetoric of both feeds into each other. True chaos isn’t the absence of rulers, such equality would be impossible in a chaotic environment. True chaos is the rule of might, the subjugation of the weak by the strong. When looking at it from this angle, the chaos and authority of Jack and Hitler are obvious. Jack sold his brand of truth wrapped in a kind of primitive machoism, the idea that order is making them weak and hindering their potential strength. In this, when they abandon the order and resort to chaos, his view of strength and domination is fully realized. Jack, much like Hitler, preached the abandonment of order so their followers can take solace in a romantic authority, one where they both dominate and look up to a strong leader. This kind of authority that is born out of a wish to leave restriction, in reality, only strengthens it. But at no point did Jack, or Hitler for that matter, betray his devotion to chaos. This is my main point, authority isn’t taking advantage of a power vacuum to replace it with a new, more oppressive, order, authority is the power vacuum. Chaos isn’t betrayed by authority, they feed into each other. You can’t have the subjugation of the weak without the strength of authority, and without the lawlessness of chaos. They are both intrinsic to each other.

The dichotomy of chaos and order, of control and lawlessness, is ultimately a false one. Control, in its highest form, is found in lawlessness. The objective truth wasn’t on the side of either but was instead adopted by both sides. The subjective truth of Jack was a romanization of authority, as well as a condemnation of order. The subjectivity of truth is crucial in understanding the relationship of authority and chaos because it shows how the rhetoric of both feed into each other. They both lead to the same end result, tyranny.

The reason society is flawed is because people are flawed. Golding, who had served in World War II, is well aware of the flaw known as savagery within humans, which he used to base his book The Lord of the Flies. In the novel, Roger shows this with his vicious and sadistic personality, motivation to inflicting pain and inciting fear onto others, his conflicts that highlight his savage and cruel intentions, and his symbolization of the Id from a Psychoanalytical criticism.

In the Lord of the Flies, William Golding expresses how Roger has a sadistic and vicious personality. To illustrate this idea, on page 180-181 Golding writes, “Roger with a sense of delirious abandonment, leaned all his weight on the lever […] Then the monstrous red thing bounded across the neck […] The rock struck Piggy a glancing blow from chin to knee.’’ In this scene, Roger threw a rock down the cliff, and it rolled down, killing Piggy. The evidence highlights how Roger has begun to break out of his reserved image and show his true savage nature, because of his stay on the island; It indicates how inhumane Roger is. For instance, in the text, it states, “ He bent down, took up a double handful of lukewarm water, and rubbed the mess from his face. Freckles and sandy eyebrows appeared. Roger smiled, unwillingly. ‘You don’t half look a mess.’ ” (Golding 63). In other words, Jack put mud on his face and Roger smiled and expressed his liking towards it. Figuratively speaking, the facepaint works throughout the novel to shield whoever puts it on from their individuality and humanity, giving way for violence. By encouraging Jack, Roger demonstrates his blossoming desire to abandon civility for savagery. As one can see from his actions provided above; Roger’s personality began to show up the longer his stay on the island; it shows him lose his sense of humanity revealing his sadistic and vicious personality.

Roger is motivated by the pleasure he gains from inflicting pain and inciting fear onto others. To demonstrate this, on page 175 it states, “Roger took up a small stone and flung it between the twins, aiming to miss. They started and sam only just kept his footing. Some source of power began to pulse in Roger’s body” (Golding). In other words, Roger, trying to mess with the twins threw a rock in between them aiming to miss but felt a sense of power after. William Golding includes this statement to emphasize how sadistic Roger is; it showed the pleasure he gains from hurting others and seeing them in distress. Another illustration of this idea, where it states “Roger spoke. ‘If you’re fooling us’—-Immediately after this, there came a gasp, and a squeal of pain … The twin moaned faintly and then squealed again. ‘He meant he’d hide there?’ ‘ Yes —- yes—- oh—!’ Silver laughter scattered among the trees” (Golding 192). To summarize, Roger was interrogating Samneric about where Ralph was while inflicting pain on them. Samneric told them where he was and Roger and Jack laughed. As one can see, Roger enjoys inflicting pain on Samneric, due to his lack of care for how hurt Samneric are and how he laughs it off. Overall, the evidence suggests Roger’s pleasure from hurting others and making them scared of him due to his sadistic personality.

In Lord of the Flies, William Golding uses Roger’s conflicts to highlight his savage and cruel intents. To demonstrate this, on page 135, it says “Roger ran round the round the heap, prodding with his spear whenever pig flesh appeared ….. Roger found a lodgement for his point and began to push till he was leaning with his whole weight. The spear moved forward inch by inch and the terrified squealing become a high pitched scream” (Golding). Basically, Roger was trying to get to a place where he could kill the pig and wherever the pig was, so was his spear. He found a lodgement began to kill the pig. The evidence highlights how savage Roger is, due to his way of trying to find an opening of any to kill the pig. It illustrates his full intent of violence and how he craves for it. In addition, the author writes, “Silence and pause; but in the silence a curious air-noise, close by Ralph’s head. He gave it half his attention– and there it was again; a faint “Zup!” someone was throwing stones: Roger was dropping them, his one hand still on the lever.” (Golding 180). To summarize, the boys were arguing and someone was dropping rocks on them and it turns out to be Roger. The quotes reveal Roger’s cruel intents because of his lack of care for others as he throws the rocks down on them. As one can see, the actions of Roger help drive his conflict that Golding uses to highlight his savage, cruel intent.

In The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, Roger symbolizes the Id from a Psychoanalytical criticism. For instance, on page 182, “The yelling ceased, and Samneric lay looking up in quiet terror. Roger advanced upon them as one wielding a nameless authority.” (Golding 182). Basically, Samneric were looking terrified as Roger charged at them. The quote conveys how Roger follows his impulse of thirst for violence. He charges at Samneric with just his intent on what he needs to satisfy for himself and not about Samneric getting hurt. As another example of this idea, on page 180, “Silence and pause; but in the silence a curious air-noise, close by Ralph’s head. He gave it half his attention– and there it was again; a faint “Zup!” someone was throwing stones: Roger was dropping them, his one hand still on the lever” (Golding). In summary, the boys were arguing and someone was dropping rocks on the boys and it turns out to be Roger. The author includes this fact to emphasize how Roger truly represents the Id. Roger uses this opportunity to satisfy his Id desires, thinking thoughts what about himself, with no care whatsoever about the people down below. In summary from the evidence provided above, Roger uses opportunities in the novel, driven by primitive impulses to satisfy the desire to hurt people, bringing out his Id personality.

All in all, the evidence provided shows how Roger has a vicious and sadistic personality, while being motivated by inflicting pain and inciting fear onto others, with conflicts that highlight his savage and cruel intentions, and makes him symbolize the Id from a Psychoanalytical criticism. With all the evidence provided, they all connected, making an even stronger case. The stronger case was, even though Roger was the most horrific character in the novel, he had savagery in him like everyone else, which made him do what he did. what’s to say everyone else can’t do the same?

“To Kill A Mockingbird” is a novel was written by Harper Lee, through the narrative of Jean Louise who everyone usually calls her is Scout. She lives in a small city named Maycomb with her family, that are older brother Jem and father Atticus. Her story describes the conflict between white and black people, specifically Tom Robinson who was accused of rape the white girl. Whereas, “The Lamp at Noon” is a short story by Sinclair Ross, that narrates about a family with a farmer Paul and his wife Ellen. They have a conflict with each other about staying or moving to another place because of a dust storm happening there. Actually, both of them has a connection to the U.S.’s society during the Great Depression. There are many important themes between these two works, especially similarities and differences related to gender discrimination, empathy, and sacrifice.

To begin, “The Lamp at Noon” and “To Kill A Mockingbird” have a common them is gender discrimination. For example, in “To Kill A Mockingbird”, Scout has some actions like hanging out with boys and fighting which represents she is a tomboy. And in once time Finch family reunited on Christmas, Aunt Alexandra who is Atticus’s sister has a special view about Scout’s appearance and behaviour and she tries to make her be a lady. “Aunt Alexandra was fanatical on the subject of my attire.[…] Aunt Alexandra’s vision of my deportment involved playing with small stoves, tea sets and wearing the Add-A-Pearl necklace she gave me when I was born […]” (Lee 92) by Scout. And another one is when Jem asks Atticus why people do not like himself, Atticus and Miss Maudie sit on juries. Atticus said “There are lots of reasons. For one thing, Miss Maudie can’t serve on a jury because she’s a woman” (Lee 253). Similarly, in “The Lamp at Noon”, Ross shows that Paul discriminates with Ellen when she wants to move to the town where her father is living. But Paul disagreed and said “You’re a farmer’s wife now. It doesn’t matter what you used to be, or you were brought up […]” (Ross 67). He wants to show her that her whereabouts will be nowhere else but on the farm, because she chose to be a farmer’s wife. Anh her responsibility is take care of family and always with him in good times as well as in bad times. In both works, the women are always discriminated with the men in the old society.

Furthermore, another theme of these two works is empathy. Instance, in Lee’s work, Atticus is a typical for this one who is considered an empathy person. He always put himself into their problem, then he makes his opinion on them. And he also teaches his children with the same way. After the first day Scout came home from school and she did not want to go to school because of her teacher, Miss Caroline. And Atticus explains to her that “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view” (Lee 33). Moreover, Paul and Ellen are not able to empathy with each other in front of bad situation that is the dust storm. Until they lost their baby, their relationship being worse and all things happened because Paul did not listen to his wife who warmed him. “Think of me and him. It’s not fair. We have our lives, too, to live.” (Ross 66) by Ellen. Overall, empathy is necessary for all relationship in people society.

Finally, the last important theme is the sacrifice that also a key of the problem in these two works. With Lee’s work, Boo Radley saved Jem and Scout were attacked from Bob Ewell, although he has stayed inside his house to hide himself, and he did not want to contact outside. Actually, his action shows his sacrifice to the children of Finch house which he has never done before. Atticus’s thanks to Boo Radley after what he did for his children “Thank you for children” (Lee 318). On the other hand, the sacrifice of their kid make them empathy with each other “You said tonight we’d see the storm go down. So still now, and a red sky-it means tomorrow will be fine” (Ross 72) ‘red sky’ here is represent for their son’s sacrifice that also a beautiful picture in Ross’s work.

In conclusion, “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “The Lamp at Noon” has many similarities and differences about 3 themes above.

Romeo and Juliet are the main protagonists of William Shakespeare’s romantic tragedy. Romeo, a descendant of Lord and Lady Montague, falls in love and secretly marries a young girl called Juliet, a descendant of Lord and Lady Capulet, whom of which happen to be the rival family.

Romeo is a well-respected young man in Verona. At the start of the play Romeo is portrayed as a romantic, he feels he is as good as dead without Rosaline’s love; “I live dead” (Act1, Scene 1, 215) he tells Benvolio who is Romeo’s cousin and friend. Romeo implies to Benvolio that he loves Rosaline and could love no other. “One fairer than my love? The all-seeing sun, never saw her match since first the world begun”. (Act 1, Scene 2)

Romeo sees Juliet and instantly falls in love, this shows Romeo’s immaturity as a lover in two ways, first he is able to instantly switch from Rosaline, which he swore he was in love with, to Juliet, who he doesn’t know. Secondly, it could be suggested that Romeo bases his love on physical qualities. He instantly forgets about Rosaline, and falls in love with Juliet, on first sight.

However, this is the opposite with Juliet as her character changes drastically. She begins to talk in sentences with hidden meanings. “I’ll look to like, if looking liking move”. (Act 1, Scene 3) Throughout the play, she is forever maturing, becoming a strong-minded, loyal and a capable woman every man’s wish.

The couple’s relationship started when they first met at the Capulets Annual Ball and it became love at first sight. Romeo says “Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight! For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.” (Act 1, Scene 5) This illustrates Romeo’s understanding of love as physical attraction, Juliet also does the same. “My ears have yet not drunk a hundred words of thy tongue’s uttering, yet I know the sound.”(Act 2, Scene 2) This demonstrates to the reader that, these two know absolutely nothing about each other, they are from opposing families, yet they believe they are in love.

Although they both believe they have found true love, Juliet doesn’t allow love to blind her as she is still able to point out, and criticize Romeo’s actions and decisions. In Act Two Scene 2 where the famous balcony scene takes place, Juliet says to Romeo “It is too rash, too unadvis’d, too sudden.” (Act 1 Scene 4) Whereas Romeo is completely blinded by love. For example, the deep feelings force him to sneak onto the grounds of a sworn enemy risking his life just to catch a glimpse of her. Juliet states this to Romeo by saying “The place death, considering who thou art… if any kinsmen find thee here.” (Act 1 Scene 5)

Juliet’s reaction to this dreadful event was “My husband lives, that Tybalt would have slain; And Tybalt’s dead, that would have slain my husband. All this is comfort.”(Act 3, Scene 2)Juliet demonstrates loyalty towards Romeo as he has just killed her cousin, however, Juliet defends her husband, she even praises him, using metaphors that present his honour, someone who is above shame, even though Romeo has killed a man. Juliet is upholding her vows of true love, here once again Juliet is able to remain strong and confident in this Scene. Juliet’s loyalty for Romeo gets tested once again once her father forces her to marry Paris, but for the first time in her life, she speaks back to her parents causing a huge fight.

Even at her worst time when she felt most isolated, after the nurse turns her back on Juliet telling her to forget about Romeo as he is gone, she still tried her best to be with him no matter what the cost. “Romeo is banish’d, and all the world nothing That he dares ne’er come back to challenge you;”(Act 3, Scene 2) So she told the nurse that she would go to see Friar Lawrence, the man who wedded the couple, to make confession because she has caused her parents pain by disappointing them, but she was actually going to see him so they could hatch a plan so the “star crossed-lovers” (prologue) could be together.

In conclusion, I feel Juliet shows more courage than Romeo does. Romeo killed himself with a painless poison, which wasn’t hard to do as he simply drinks it, however, there is something sad and heroically self-sacrificing about Romeo’s suicide. The reader is made to suffer by knowing that his suicide is completely unnecessary; Juliet is about to wake up.

Juliet woke from her ‘unnatural death’ to find her husband dead, she doesn’t kill herself out of feminine weakness, but out of true love, the intense desire to be with Romeo forever. Though Juliet initially tried to kiss some poison off Romeo’s lips, which didn’t work because there was an insufficient amount, she drew his dagger and pierced it in herself.

Juliet’s choice of death was an instant choice, a decision which proves her love and desire to be with Romeo regardless of the consequences required strength and determination. Again, this demonstrates to the reader the stronger character of the two. Juliet was the one who matured, the one that made the sacrifices for their future. While the outcome of William Shakespeare’s play does not offer values as ideal, it proves the need for intensity and sacrifice to change people’s attitudes.

In her eponymous play, Medea, in the name of revenge for Jason’s betrayal, kills her own children. I will argue that Medea’s actions are, in fact, logically justified because they are rational when viewed on a cosmic scale. First, Jason’s severest and highest offense is his violation of his oath to the gods, and therefore the best form of justice for this is on a divine level in return. Medea carried this out after deliberating in a “divine” manner, which is unencumbered by human emotion and is evidenced by her lineage of gods and rulers, and this allowed her to give Jason the most objective retribution possible. I will cement my argument by positing that the gods’ inaction against Medea’s deeds throughout the play and their giving help to her after she commits the murders constitutes obvious support for her; because they are enforcers of justice, they seem to believe that the double infanticide is appropriate retribution for Jason’s betrayal. However, to work my way to this point, I will need to start with why Jason deserved divine punishment in the first place.

When Jason broke his divine oath to Medea by leaving her and his children, he not only wronged her, but he wronged the gods as well. The latter offense was objectively much more serious because it concerned the rulers of the universe, and therefore simple human justice in retaliation would not do. In the beginning of the play, the Chorus establish the gravity of a divine oath, saying that Jason broke a “promise sealed with his right hand (the greatest pledge there is)” and that because of this, Medea entreats the gods to recognize the extent of his betrayal (Medea 25-29). Both Medea and the Chorus, which represent the women of Corinth, obviously know this as a severe transgression. Jason obviously knew this as well, because when Medea confronts him about his actions, she says, “What puzzles me is whether you believe those gods (the ones who heard you swear) no longer are in power, or that the old commandments have been changed? You realize full well that you broke your oath” (Medea 499-503). This knowing snub against the gods most likely angered them and put a divine target on his back as someone who needed to learn his place. Medea seems to agree, as although she talks about her personal issues with him in addition to this, she places a heavier emphasis on his violation of the oath, which suggests that she views this as his greatest crime. This is also supported by the Nurse’s observation that Medea prays to Themis, a goddess who enforces order, and Zeus, who enforces oaths (Medea 170-171). The prioritization of these specific gods as opposed to possible others (for example, a god of love, rage, or other human emotions) is indicative of her “divine” and big-picture thinking.

Like a god and a ruler, Medea deliberates over her situation objectively, and she decides to mete out appropriate cosmic justice for Jason, even at great personal cost and in violation of human taboo. In the beginning of the play, while Medea grieves about Jason’s betrayal, the Nurse remarks that “rulers are fierce in their temperament […] They’re harsh, and they’re stubborn” (Medea 124-127). Medea is descended from such a ruler: a noble father. She is a princess herself. Her genealogy also includes a godly grandfather: Helios, the god of the sun (Medea 414-415). Both of these ancestors and their distinct thought process could have given Medea a “genetic” predisposition for objective, logical thinking—thinking that from the Nurse’s human perspective seems harsh. The Chorus feel this way as well, and they tell Medea multiple times that although they agree that Jason was unjust and deserves justice (Medea 596-598, 258-273, and 1255-1259), they are horrified at the methods she chooses for that justice. They even beg her to spare her children, saying, “since I want to help you, and since I support the laws of mankind, I ask you not to do this” (Medea 835-836). This choice of language directly implies that Medea is breaking human laws by murdering her children and therefore also implies that Medea’s form of retribution is inhuman since she looks past those laws. An additional difference in thinking is that the Chorus emphasizes Medea’s misfortunes rather than the oath-breaking that Medea is fixated on (Medea 258-273). They are much more focused on the human aspect of Jason’s betrayal—his abandonment of his wife and children—than Medea is. Medea knows this, and is also aware of their horror, but still refuses to change her course (Medea 837-838). With her elevated, unemotional thinking, she does not consider taboos (infanticide and murder, in this case) or the loss of human life the way that humans (like the Nurse and the Chorus) do. In the context of her decision, Medea’s sons were predominantly a way that Jason’s legacy could live on. She wants to destroy this legacy as well as hurt him by destroying his “beloved” children. Although they are her beloved children too, her divine logic allows her to overcome human emotions such as grief and trepidation, at least for the necessary moments, in order to commit the murders. At one point she hesitates, thinking of the future pain she will cause for herself, but then thinks of the punishment that must be administered to Jason and goes through with the murders. She even calls herself weak for letting emotion briefly cloud her judgement (Medea 1043-1075), and this further supports the facts that she prizes objective thinking and attempts to think unemotionally. Medea was partly influenced by human emotions (such as rage at Jason) in her decision to murder her children, yes, but the fact that she was ultimately able to push past her emotional hesitation and even thought that being swayed by emotions is weak shows that she does not let emotions govern her thinking. Therefore, most of the thought process for this instance of revenge is logical on a big-picture scale.

Medea uses her cosmic-level logic to act on the behalf of the gods, who implicitly and openly support her enforcement of order. They are obviously aware of what she is doing, as she appeals to “Zeus, and Zeus’ Justice, and the light of Helios” so that she can be victorious in her pursuit of justice (Medea 785-789). Yet, even though they are aware of her plans, they take no action against her. This inaction, despite the fact that most humans in the world of the play view infanticide as wrong, and despite the fact that different characters such as the Chorus and Jason plead with the gods at the end of the play (Medea 1276-1291 and 1459-1461), shows the gods’ implicit support for the double murder. It appears that not only are they aware of Medea’s intent and are passive regarding it throughout the story, but they also outright help her with her plotting, as Medea confesses this to the Tutor before she kills her children (Medea 1034-1035). The final, most revealing evidence of their support happens at the end of the book, when Medea rises above her house in a flying chariot, holding the bodies of her children. She explains to an enraged Jason that she is protected by the chariot because it is her father’s (Medea 1363-1367). This is tangible evidence for the gods’ support—if they did not approve of the murders, they would not allow her to escape punishment, much less actually help her with a chariot and protection afterward. They must believe that it is an appropriate form of justice for Jason’s crime, because their primary motivation is justice. This is evidenced by the Chorus’ final statement and ending lines in the book: that “Zeus on Olympus enforces all things” and that the gods contrive events that they want to happen (Medea 1464). This means that it was Zeus’ will for Medea to kill her children, and that her intention of retribution for Jason was also Zeus’ will, because she gets away with the murders without punishment.

In essence, despite the horror of the Chorus, Jason, and even perhaps the audience, Medea was logically justified in killing her children because their murders make sense from a cosmic viewpoint. Jason betrayed Medea by breaking a divine oath, and since this most serious transgression was divine, he deserved a divine form of punishment. Medea metes this out for him, thinking about his punishment from a god’s perspective. This type of thinking is devoid of human bias or taboos, and although Medea’s retribution was brutal, it was objectively fair. She wanted to destroy Jason’s future legacy and hurt him by taking away the children that he claimed to love. Despite the fact that it is possible that her motivations were emotional, Medea carried out this justice regardless of great personal cost, suggesting a greater motive than simply herself; the gods’ inaction and outright support also suggests that this is true. Therefore, Medea acts on their behalf in order to punish Jason and show him his place. The broader implications of these conclusions regarding punishment are thought-provoking: is our own system of justice and punishment fair? Or do our emotions limit us—is true punishment or retribution devoid of human bias? If there was no bias in our justice system, would this objective motivation behind the punishment override the methods we would use to punish?

The Odyssey is a poem written in ancient Greece by poet, Homer. In this poem, we are captivated by the series of obstacles that happen during the main character’s lengthy and dangerous journey home. We are introduced to Odysseus who is the King of Ithaca as he prepares to lead his army as a general in the Trojan War. The war in Troy proves to be a long and difficult one. However, it is brought to an end. Odysseus and his men arrive on an island which is was homed by the Cyclops Polyphemus who is blinded by Odysseus after the Cyclops eats some of his men. Having made the Cyclops go blind Odysseus mimics Polyphemus after he tells him he is the son of Poseidon. This causes Poseidon’s wrath to grow who then curses Odysseus by making it so that he never reaches Ithaca, his home. The journey home to take back his throne as the king of Ithaca.

The purpose of why The Odyssey was written was to preserve everything that he faced during his journey so it can be told to younger generations afterward. This isn’t the first time Homer does this, and he has done this with his other poem “The Iliad.” In ancient times poems were written down, they were only being told orally, and this could’ve been or began to be the problem down the storytelling lane because someone could have easily misheard the information and then go on and tell the story wrong to younger generations. So the purpose why homer decided to write the Odyssey was to merely show what Odysseus went through during the journey and to preserve its roots.

In The Odyssey there are many main themes to choose from but, the one that stands out the most is loyalty. Even though Odysseus was not loyal to his wife Penelope, many characters were loyal to him. For example, his wife Penelope still decides to wait for her husband Odysseus even after many people had told her that her husband Odysseus was dead considering that he had not returned for many years. In the poem, it says “Every day she would weave at the great loom and every night she would unweave by torchlight.” (Homer 2.113.114) This sets the example of loyalty because while Odysseus was gone there were many suitors in Odysseus’ house in Ithaca trying to marry his wife because her husband was suspected of being dead. Penelope did not believe that her husband was dead. And she also didn’t want to marry any of the suitors until she knew that her husband was really dead and to stall the suitors she will weave a shroud for Odysseus’ father and until she finishes weaving that nobody can marry her. She would weave the shroud during the day and untie it at night so she can hold the suitors back for a while until her husband returned. Also, this is a brilliant and brave move because many people tried to discourage her from believing that her husband was dead and had many men at her feet trying to marry her, but she was able to keep them waiting so she could wait for her husband to return home. Penelope wasn’t only a strong character, but she was also loyal to Odysseus after many years of being gone.

Furthermore not only was his wife loyal but so was his nurse Eurycleia. She was not only loyal to Telemachus Odysseus, their son by keeping his secrets from his mother but also to Odysseus after many years she still kept her loyalty for him. When Odysseus goes into his house disguised as a visitor Penelope offers him to stay, and he accepts. Eurycleia then comes over and starts to wash his feet as she does she lifts Odysseus leg and recognizes him by the scar on his leg. Odysseus came forward and confessed that it is him but commands her to keep it a secret because he wants to get to know the suitors before he kills them and Eurycleia says “you know what I’m made of. You know I won’t break. I’ll be as steady as solid stone or iron.”(Homer 19.540.541) and this part is crucial because in the poem that she was the lady that helps raise Odysseus and after many years of not seeing him she was also very loyal to him compared to the other women who did not keep their loyalty for Odysseus while he was gone.

In the poem, The Odyssey Odysseus is seen facing many challenges while making his way back home. He was held captive by a Cyclops for many years, and after escaping he gets into trouble with the Greek god Poseidon and all Poseidon wants is for Odysseus to suffer for what he did the to the Cyclops but, he doesn’t give up and is determined to make it back home. When Odysseus is speaking to his men he says “Come on, men this isn’t the first we’ve run into trouble. This can’t be worse than… well, look back at this” (Homer 12.216.221) this shows that Odysseus stayed loyal to going home and was still determined despite all the obstacles he had to face to get there. This reminded me of my high school career even though I didn’t fight in the war or fight Cyclops I still had the obstacle of my own that I needed to face to get to where I am today. The obstacles were not as violent as Odysseus’, but mine consisted of academic and social obstacles. However, this doesn’t mean that just because someone is determined to do something they aren’t going to get discouraged While Odysseus is trying to get back he gets stuck in calypsos island, and Athena speaks to her father and says “Zeus, my father…to kill his son” (Homer 5.9.22) Athena is shown begging for the gods to help get Odysseus back home. Athena is shown throughout the book helping Odysseus. This can be related to my life because I also had a teacher like Athena because she would go the extra mile to help with my problems as well.

Romeo and Juliet, one of Shakespeare’s timeless masterpiece which illuminate the complexities of human emotions and character that continuously engages many audiences on the subject of love and the tragic fates of a star-crossed lover; whose death ultimately reconciles their family fuels. The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet explores the concept of tragic love and fate, hence, impinged Romeo and Juliet by their choices and action which reveals their characteristic and the consequences. Throughout the play, Shakespeare’s depicted Juliet as a much stronger character than Romeo through her personality and actions displayed. Uniquely, Shakespeare created Juliet as an exceptional character that does not befit the typical expectation of woman in the Elizabethan era.

Juliet exceeded the social expectation of a woman in the Elizabethan Era. From birth, woman are taught to be inferior and be wed to whoever their parent chose because of how little power woman has. In the beginning, Juliet was a naïve and thought little about love; as an obedient child, she obeys her mother’s wish to gaze at Paris and fall for Paris which Juliet replies ‘no more deep will I endart mine eye than your consent’ (1.3-44) display her disinterest in love. Upon fate, she met Romeo and fell in love at first sight – even after discovering he is her family’s enemy – she thought to herself ‘Deny thy father and refuse thy name. Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, and I’ll no longer be a Capulet’ (2.2-80) implying Juliet’s fear that their love will be impossible due their family’s hostility toward each other. Daringly, she demanded Romeo that ‘If that thy bent of love is honorable, thy propose marriage’ (2.2-88); Juliet controlled her own agency. Daughters are usually subordinate in the patriarchal society and commonly used in arrange marriage for high social status; For Juliet however, she defied this social structure by showing disinterest in Paris – a suitor with high status – to the point she disobeyed her father saying, ‘Proud can I never be of what I hate’ as well as being a woman and proposed to a man, all of this is considered extreme for a Juliet to enact showing how strong and impetuous of a character she is. Shakespeare characterized Juliet to control her own agency and violated the example of a woman in Elizabethan era, perhaps, Shakespeare’s ideal of a woman is beyond his time, to be strong and control one’s destiny.

Juliet’s personality is more mature compare to Romeo’s character. Romeo is often seen as passionate about love and exaggerate his feelings through poetic phases and his action tend to be driven by emotion, he can be seen as hasty and impatience. Contrast to Romeo, Juliet isn’t naïve and foolish like others her age – she is mature beyond her age, even in moments of great emotional intensity. Evidenced by how before meeting Juliet, Romeo was heartbroken by Rosaline because of rejection which he described as ‘O heavy lightness… Feather of lead, bright smoke cold fire, sick heath’ (1.1-20) yet after meeting Juliet, his emotion shifted, and he detailed Juliet as ‘Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear’ (1.5-62); Romeo becomes reckless and trespass into Capulet’s house disregarding how dangerous it is showing how immature and impractical Romeo can be. Juliet, however, is aware of the foolhardiness of their love, and she admitted that this relationship is “Too rash, too unadvised, and too sudden” (2.2-86). Shakespeare’s characterized Juliet to be more realistic as opposed of Romeo impassioned personality to not only balance each other but also present his ideal of a woman – decisive and intelligence.

Some argue that Romeo is the Tragic Hero in Romeo and Juliet for being gentle, disinterest in violence between his family fuel and shows loyalty to his friends as well as being a sensitive person with flaws such as overly expressive which made him likable to the audience; however, Juliet is the person who deserves the title of being a tragic hero more. Romeo’s fatal flaws is his impetuosity, he does not think of his action thoroughly which result in his own death. Juliet is worthy to be appraised as a tragic hero; she is strong-willed, Juliet is willing to go far to be with Romeo, she preserves her love and chastity to Romeo ‘without fear or doubt, to live an unstained wife’ (4.1-214) but in the end she still decides to die without regret to be with Romeo. Juliet’s tragic flaws is her loyalty to Romeo, she is willing to sacrifice her life to be with him. Shakespeare purpose of creating tragic hero to earn the audience’s sympathy as well as their fatal flaws which led to their death; like Juliet, her only flaws is her loyalty to Romeo.

From a youth whom is inexperienced on the subject of love bloomed into a mature and witty woman doomed by her tragic fates. Juliet not only exceed the Elizabethan expectation but also becomes a tragic hero. Surpassed Romeo, she is indeed a much stronger character than just a 14 year old girl. Juliet is undoubtedly an extraordinary character intended by Shakespeare to showcase his ideal inner strength of a woman beyond his time.

William Shakespeare performed his last play over 400 years ago, but he is still outrageously famous! Even in the 21st century his plays, plots and characters are still relevant to this day. Just as they were when they were first released, for high school English students, Shakespearean works are mandatory to read and one or two courses are required for university students who want to study writing or literature.

Shakespeare is one of the most famous people ever known he was a literature mastermind he created so many phrases and sayings, some of which but not limited to, “Wild goose chase!”, “Seen better days”, “Good riddance” and “Off with his head!” people say these lines all the time and don’t even know that they are quoting William Shakespeare through one of his many great plays. This just shows how much he has influenced the modern world yet people are arguing if Shakespeare is redundant or relevant.

Some people believe that Shakespeare never intended for his plays to entice fear into a teenagers heart sitting behind a desk in 5th period writing an essay, but to put money in his pocket to provide himself with life’s necessities and to entertain a mainly illiterate audience. It is also argued that Shakespeare’s work was never meant to be analyzed hours on end in a classroom but to be viewed from a seat in a theatre because scripts are never meant to be read but to be heard/seen, although this may be true, a play or a movie is only what it is because of the script, without a script there isn’t a play. Better yet it seems anywhere you look in English literature be it a movie, play or even general conversation there he is William Shakespeare.

“O Romeo O Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo”, this is one of the most famous quotes of all time everyone in their lifetime has at least heard of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet or even seen one of its many adaptations. In school as of now, I am studying the play of Romeo and Juliet and comparing it to a recent adaptation created by the extremely talented Baz Luhrmann starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Clair Danes as Romeo and Juliet. A play that was written in 1594 being adapted into a 1996 movie with the two houses being rival gangs, modernised their swords to guns and horses were replaced with cars which all created a terrific movie. This just shows that Shakspeare’s writing has aged like fine wine, it may not be the original but its taste has definitely improved. William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet set the standard for romantic books and plays, it inspired people to go great lengths for love and to show that true love is worth dying for. Love will always be relevant no matter what people say, there will always be someone who will do anything for the other half, who would even die for them and there is always be something a person can learn from love it doesn’t matter if it was today or centuries ago.

So have people stopped falling madly in love, have people stopped trying to enact revenge and are world leaders still scheming and lying their way to the top? Was that a “yes” I heard, then I just explained to you effectively how and why Shakspearean works are still relevant to this day. He explores these undying, unchanging emotions and desires through his plays which create a timeless masterpiece that will be relevant for hundreds of years to come. William Shakespeare created over a THOUSAND words, some we use every day “Rant”, “Gloomy”, “Lower”, “Gossip” and “Bet” Shakespeare has influenced the English language in so many ways and if he hadn’t, our day to day conversations would be a lot duller.

Today in our modern era we are evolving and changing every day, how society sees the world, people’s opinion, infrastructure but what will always remain the same is people core emotions and desires whether it is, revenge, love, anger e.t.c This is the reason why Shakspearean works should be studied and experienced by students as there is always something it can teach them, this applies to the next generation and the next and the next. Shakespeare is relevant today and he always will be.