Category: Literary Criticism

Romeo and Juliet written by William Shakespeare (published in 1595), who is considered as the best writer in English history, is a play filled with love, death, conflict, drama and hate. Romeo and Juliet are both teens that have fallen madly in love with each other and have rushed into marriage. Eventually, the hate between the two families tears the relationship apart causing tragedy, leading to suicide amongst the two young lovers. But how is this tragic play still relevant in 2019? Well, Romeo and Juliet are still relevant in 2019 because it is teaching lessons and meaning to modern days impetuous teens and feuding families. Arguably, I think that the movie made by Baz Luhrmann is better and more effective in uniting us with the original play. The use of only selected Shakespearean language, music, and visuals (more dramatic scenes) and the actors in this movie are much more effective than the Globe Plays’ interpretation of Romeo and Juliet.

The 1500s was the beginning of a modern era, an era where Kings and Queens powered over England and war was just about interminable. Fashion was becoming more and more big and bold and brand new inventions came out all the time. This is the era where Shakespeare was writing, producing and selling out plays and shows around England. Some of his most famous plays include Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, As you Like it and of course the most well known, Romeo and Juliet.

The Globe plays the use of Shakespearean language is just too much for even a true Shakespeare fan to keep up with. The dialogue in this play is fast and rushed and very hard to focus on. Keeping the Shakespearean language is smart and original, but if the play was slowed down more it would make it much easier to understand, however, if the lines were spoken slower it would make the play longer and more boring than it already is. Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet on the other hand, have picked out only the best Shakespearean lines. This is very effective because the movie is easy to watch for all viewers and it is easy to tell what the play is about. Keeping the lines that he did add to the overall effectiveness of the film. The language features in this film are overall really good. In some scenes, the dialogue may have been a bit too fast, but having the other really dramatic scenes slowed down a lot more made the film flow well. For example, having slow dialogue in the intimate scenes like the pool scene and having fast dialogue in the fight scenes. This was effective.

Baz Luhrmann’s use of music, costumes, and symbol was used amazingly during the film. The music in the film added so much suspense and dramatic element to the film. During the romantic scenes like the scene when they first met at the fish tank, and the night they spent together, ‘Kissing You’ by Des’ree played. This was beautifully done and calmed down the film from the dramatic fight scenes. The diegetic sound was played at the masquerade ball and non-diegetic sound was playing for the other scenes. “I had a dream” by Whatever played when Tybalt was planning to kill Romeo. This is effective because it built suspense and emotion to the film.

In the Globe play production, music was used, but the music used was Shakespearean time music, this is effective but boring to listen to. It is a good idea to use Shakespearean time music to build authenticity. However, it wasn’t as fun and effective to listen to. The costumes in the Globe Play were authentic, they represented what people wore in the 1500s, but again, nothing was special about it. However, in the movie, the costumes were carefully and cleverly picked to suit the roles of the actors. Tybalt wore all black leather and boots. The costume he wore made him look evil, which is the role that Tybolt plays. Romeo and Juliet wear simple light outfits, Romeo wears a beach shirt with his buttons undone at the top, this makes him look nice and approachable. The rest of the Montagues wear similar clothing. Juliet generally wears a nice simple dress. At the Masquerade ball Juliet wore an all-white angel outfit, Tybalt went as a devil and Romeo went as a knight. The costumes at the ball worked very well because it symbols the traits of the characters, with Juliet being innocent and angelic, Tybalt being evil, and Romeo being Juliet’s Knight in Shining Armor. The costumes were very effective and appealing in this movie and made it easy to distinguish between the two families. The symbol was also effective, guns were carved in as the sword names from the original and the number plates on the cars also had meaning from the original.

Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet has an amazing cast. The actors are more effective in Luhrmann’s movie than the actors in the Globe Play. Leonardo DiCaprio and Clare Danes amazingly play the roles of Romeo and Juliet. DiCaprio is very convincing and impulsive. These traits, however, lead to the tragedy at the end of the play. Luhrmann states in a documentary that he saw DiCaprio in a magazine and he claims that he was “perfect to play Romeo” and that he needed Dicaprio to be that role. Clare Danes is also perfect to play Juliet she is very mature and is a well-spoken and convincing adolescent. She is very good at showing a young girl becoming a woman. Clare Danes also didn’t look too young to play Juliet, she made the relationship look romantic, rather than creepy. The Chemistry that is shown between Romeo and Juliet in the movie is really good and makes the viewers build a stronger connection to their relationship. The Globe Plays actors were amazing as well, they have done amazing at moving around and knowing all of the Shakespearean languages which takes so much skill because Shakespearean isn’t a language that we use today. The main comment made about the Globe Plays’ actors is that their lines were spoken just a little bit too fast at times to fully understand what they were saying.

In conclusion, Baz Luhrmann’s interpretation of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was better than the one that the Globe made. Both, however, were very well done, planned and scripted. Luhrmann’s movie included cherry-picked Shakespearean lines that made it easy to follow and understand. Music, visuals and the cast of the movie made it worth watching and told the story of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ in a more modernized and understandable way. I would highly recommend watching this movie. I would also, however, recommend watching the Globe Play if you want the full Shakespearean experience.

The original text of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was written in 1594 by the famed William Shakespeare, which was a story of two households who held an ancient grudge against one another. The play was set in Verona during the Elizabethan Era where two ‘star-crossed’ lovers met only to perish in the end. ‘Gnomeo and Juliet,’ on the other hand, was a retold, movie version of the original text with the exception of all of the characters being gnomes instead of humans. The film was directed by Kelly Asbury in 2011, with the Executive Producer being Elton John. In contrast to the play the film was set in Stratford-Upon-Avon, Verona Street. In both texts the running themes of fate, conflict and, foremostly, love was shown in ‘Romeo and Juliet’ through the characters tragedies and suffering, whereas Kelly Asbury employs the angle of comedy to direct the themes to a younger generation. These three were shown through: the characters foreshadowing of their deaths, conflict through the family feud and lastly the love that is shown between the two protagonists.

Both texts demonstrated the undeniable importance of love and romance as it was the main theme between the two protagonists. In the balcony scene Juliet said, ‘what’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other would smell sweet.’ From this part in the original text it showed Juliet’s love of Romeo even though he is from the oppositional family. This is similarly shown in the film where Juliet states ‘what’s in a gnome as a Red or a Blue,’ comparably showing her love and defiance of the family feud for her love. Another demonstration of love in the original text was through Romeo’s description of her beauty and open expression for how he feels through his remark that Juliet had ‘beauty too rich for use’ and that she is a ‘holy shrine’ and his lips are ‘two blushing pilgrims,’ almost referring his love as a religion. On the contrary the movie shows their love through actions rather than words. This was shown through their first meeting on which they romantically fought over an orchid instead of verbalizing their feelings like in the original text. The love that was portrayed in both texts have clear evidence that the protagonists have deep emotions towards one another but were sometimes expressed differently; through comedy and actions, in the film, rather than Shakespeare’s powerful imagery and expressive language in the play.

Fate was clearly demonstrated across the film similarly to the original text through the repeated use of foreshadowing and the foretelling of the character’s death. The foreshadowing of Romeo’s death is directly shown before he entered the party when he states that ‘with this night’s revels; and expire the term of a despised life, clos’d in my breast.’ This phrase shows that Romeo is predicting the outcome of his death that will begin that night at the party. Romeo also states that he is set by fate and that the result is unavoidable. Likewise to this, in the film Gnomeo met the statue of William Shakespeare who relates his own story of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ to the gnomes. He then proceeds to foreshadow the gnome’s death, saying that their love is doomed to end in tragedy, similarly to that of his own writings. In the original text, another example of foreshadowing was the prologue that was read by the chorus. ‘A pair of star-crossed lovers take their lives {life},’ indicated, instantly showing the audience the fate of the two protagonists. In contrast to this, a gnome read the prologue in the movie. Unlike the play, the reader is constantly interrupted by something around him, making him unable to foreshadow their deaths. This technique was to add comedy in the beginning of the film, but to also suggest the characters may live instead of dying, like in the original. Foreshadowing was used in both texts to show and decide the future plotline of the main characters. In the play the foreshadowing was used to create suspense on their deaths, whereas the film used this to deny fate, as well as to present an alternative ending that was more suitable for its audience.

‘Two households, both alike in dignity … from ancient grudge break to new mutiny.’ Beginning right away from the prologue, conflict was evident between and within the two families in both the play and the film. Consistently shown through both texts, Tybalt adds steam to the already running feud between the two houses. In the play, when Romeo is discovered by Tybalt at the feast, he states, ‘by his voice, should be a Montague / Fetch me my Rapier boy,’ clearly showing his intent of attacking the man for his disruption of the Capulet Feast. This was similarly shown in the film where Gnomeo and Benny infiltrate the Red garden and are spotted by some ‘guards.’ When Tybalt notices that Romeo was inside of the Red garden, he seeks him out to try and kill Gnomeo for his actions. Once found, Tybalt lashes out with an intent to kill, similar to the original text. Another form of conflict is shown amongst Juliet and her Nurse when she says, ‘your first is dead; or ‘twere as good he were, As living here, and you no use of him.’ This phrase was to tell Juliet that she should forget about her exiled husband and just marry Paris. This creates a large hatred from Juliet towards the Nurse as she felt as if she had betrayed her trust and her emotions towards her husband. Dissimilar to this, Juliet and Nannette get along as friends with no conflict between them as Gnome is feared dead, not exiled. The large family feud of the two households generated a large conflict built upon smaller feuds within the characters. Internally; Juliet and the Nurse, to externally; Tybalt and Romeo/Gnomeo, show that the feud was fueled by deep hatred for each family’s name.

In conclusion the three themes of love, fate and conflict are represented similarly but with significant differences. Compared to the film, the original text gave a lot more depth and formality into Romeo and Juliet, with small concepts that change and drive the entire plot line. This is from the movie being directed to a younger generation and focusing onto a comedy genre instead of a romantic tragedy. Overall the tale of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ shows off the themes of fate, conflict and foremostly, love and its overarching effect that the story has on the characters and the audience.

As fundamentally is the situation with numerous others, Romeo and Juliet began to look all starry eyed at incidentally. Romeo’s commonly theoretical love for Rosaline was before long rejected with the presentation of his partner in the play, Juliet. As can maybe be normal with any incredible catastrophe, their adoration generally fizzled. While numerous reasons fundamentally exist for this disappointment, including destiny, extremely youthful age and an absence of adequate objectivity, it will be contended in this exposition that their guide, Friar Lawrence, likewise certainly assumed a key job in their affection’s disappointment.

Without adequate premonition and sensible reasoning, Romeo and Juliet moved toward becoming casualties of their in every way that really matters possess love sort of because of the recklessness of Friar Lawrence, destiny and youthful age. Minister Lawrence, who went about as the instructor for the two darlings, expected to part of the arrangement two families in his locale, bringing harmony among Romeo and Juliet’s families in an exceptionally real manner. ‘For this coalition may so upbeat truly demonstrate to turn kind of your family units’ hostility to unadulterated love'(Act II, Scene III). As an accomplished man who was profoundly inserted in the social understandings of the time, he ought not to have hitched a youthful couple who knew each for under twenty‐four hours. His inspiration – the unification of two warring families – shadowed his reason thought and inescapable understanding that the marriage would not sort of be acknowledged by the couple’s families. Lawrence comprehended that the couple was unpractised and innocent, as he generally said ‘So before long-neglected, genuinely in opposition to mainstream thinking. Youngsters’ affection at that point lies not genuinely in their souls, however in their eyes’ (Act II, Scene III), fundamentally as opposed to prevalent thinking. Regardless of this, when Romeo came to him irate and discouraged, Lawrence consented to promptly wed him to Juliet.

Lawrence could have rather deferred the marriage, giving the quite youthful extra time for romance and explaining his expectations and the circumstance to Montague and Capulet. At the point when Juliet came to him for assistance, rather than setting aside more effort to discover an answer, for Paris and Juliet’s issue, he felt forced to help Juliet so she would not end it all. He stated, ‘Hold little girl! I explicitly see a sort of expectation, which pines for as edgy an execution as that is urgent to forestall’ (Act IV, Scene I), or so they thought. In light of Lawrence’s regarded status and impact in the network, it is contended that Lawrence could have deferred the marriage in the event that he explicitly had decided to. Deferring the marriage would truly have permitted the youthful couple extra time for romance, in every way that really matters empower Lawrence to examine the circumstance with their families and furnish Lawrence an opportunity to talk with Prince about Juliet’s ineligibility to wed him in an inconspicuous manner.

Notwithstanding the conspicuous points of interest of a postponed marriage, Lawrence fundamentally neglected to approach the youthful couple’s solicitation with adequate soundness; in his endeavour to help the really youthful couple, he drove them towards their disastrous confidence. Furthermore, it is, for the most part, contended that destiny likewise prompted the demise of Romeo and Juliet, or so they in every practical sense thought. Shakespeare’s accentuation on the job of confidence, appeared by not just the by and large youthful couple beginning to look all starry eyed at, yet in addition by the spread of the plaque by the envoy, shows that it sort of was likewise destiny that the youthful couple faces a lamentable passing. It very well may be contended that destiny controlled the entire play. Whenever Romeo, in Act I Scene II, sees Rosaline’s name on the welcome rundown, he chooses to visit. He at that point sees Juliet and, as it occurs with youthful darlings, he falls aimlessly enamoured. Without thinking about Juliet’s family, he unequivocally begins to look all starry eyed at her, a demonstration of destiny. This very destiny later prompts their end in an unpretentious manner.

The sheer mass of ‘circumstantial’ mishaps results exactly in the absence of a fortuitous event in the play; everything is destiny, as opposed to prevalent thinking. It is destiny that Romeo and Juliet should meet, love, for the most part, be tested and kick the bucket. Moreover, an absence of cautious idea likewise prompted the couples less than ideal demise. Romeo and Juliet’s unreasonableness and poor correspondence, for the most part, were essentially clear supporters of their demise. At the most essential level, if Romeo hosted not gone to Capulet’s get-together – a perilous demonstration itself – he would really not have met Juliet, unquestionably in opposition to prevalent thinking. In like manner, if Juliet essentially had consented to wed Paris before the gathering, maybe she would truly not have met Romeo, investing her energy with her new life partner. Oh, both actually go to the gathering and especially meet each other in an inconspicuous manner. Notwithstanding rapidly understanding that Romeo is a Montague, Juliet keeps on battling for the relationship. She looks to for the most part accomplish her adoration and goes to Friar Lawrence for assistance; ‘Let me know not, Friar, that thou hearest of this, except if thou actually disclose to me how may I essentially avoid it’ (Act IV, Scene I).

As it is comprehended, Juliet fundamentally fell frantically and indiscriminately infatuated, taking Lawrence’s recommendation without pondering it first. She makes her especially possess passing however explicitly neglects to actually educate Romeo, driving him to a by and large winding of melancholy when he discovers her and accepts that she is dead, in spite of prevalent thinking. This absence of cautious generally thought and poor correspondence pushes the youthful couple to sort of settle on the majority of their choices rapidly and without speaking with each other, which actually is very critical. In his understanding, Romeo before long ends his very own life; at the same time, Friar Lawrence, by and large, is the sole person who realizes that Juliet is to be sure alive. Lawrence’s half‐hearted endeavour to illuminate Romeo regarding Juliet’s arrangement, which included sending Friar John with a letter to Romeo that did not, for the most part, contact him before her demise (while Lawrence sat in Verona rather), shows extraordinary absence of premonition and for the most part poor correspondence in a noteworthy manner.

Lawrence just certainly got resentful and especially chose to especially send the letter by and by then went to the Capulet’s tomb. He could really have sent another person from the city as opposed to hanging tight for Juliet to wake up; rather, he fundamentally believed that the news would arrive at Romeo that his significant other got up. Lawrence’s shallow endeavour to illuminate Romeo, maybe on the grounds that he explicitly accepted that Romeo did not genuinely cherish Juliet in view of his sobs for Rosaline the prior night (‘Young men’s adoration at that point lies. Not genuinely in their souls, however in their eyes’ (Act II, Scene III), shows an absence of pledge to correspondence, in spite of mainstream thinking. At last, in Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare, fault can be put on numerous people and on simple circumstances. It has been contended, notwithstanding, that the significant explanations behind Romeo and Juliet’s demises explicitly are the contribution of Friar Lawrence, destiny and nonsensicalness and for the most part poor correspondence, really as opposed to mainstream thinking.

Maybe if Romeo and Juliet had met further down the road during when they were increasingly experienced and could focus on accomplishing an enduring relationship while not yielding their lives or their families’ lives, they have would for the most impact have not finished so grievously. Their really youthful love, in any case, finished ahead of schedule absent many premonitions by either character. Juliet’s sort of extraordinary use was not imparted so as to Romeo by Friar Lawrence, and Lawrence’s shallow and half‐hearted endeavours to educate Romeo just declined the circumstance in an unobtrusive manner. Lawrence’s doubts of Romeo’s self‐ announced sentiments, and his choice to for the most part react to Romeo and Juliet’s supplications with unreasonable truly thought put the youthful couple in risk. With everything taken into account, it truly was destiny that the couple began to look all starry eyed at, a similar way that it was destiny that they ought to generally bite the dust together in a shocking end. These reasons ought to be viewed as in charge of the demise of Romeo and Juliet.

The social class order is one of the main issue that the novel confronts and tries to deconstruct. Firstly through the relation of an upper class women Connie or Lady Chatterley with a worker class man Oliver Mellor or the gamekeeper, which is a strong weapon to revolt against the social class by illustrating the probability of satisfying relationship between partners who do not belong to the same social backgrounds. Secondly through evoking the idea that class hinders and narrows human relationships in particular social class criteria, which is based fundamentally in social and economic position. This idea is strongly presented in Marx and Engels theory about the social class struggle in capitalist system. Every strata is aware of itself by its function in the society ; as a result, the higher class claims a superior state due to its owning of the material production as the case for Clifford who owns the pit of coal, and the lower class is inferior and exploited as the case for the mine workers. Though Clifford in the very beginning of the novel is described as an introvert person and seems uninterested in his position as an heir of Wragby Hall, when his brother Herbert died in 1917. On contrary he sees his father Sir Geoffrey as a hopeless anachronism for his overvaluing to the social position and patriotism, Clifford’s disability to produce an heir after the incident of war is the cause of his father death. At first Clifford refuges to writing as a way to defy his paralyzed body and prove his mental efficacy in society. In fact he becomes an important writer, he organizes in his house many encounters for literary figures, yet the intellectual path does not help him because it is for the sake of fame and he does not accept the critics to his works. As a result, Another healing is emerging to him, it is the power over hundred of colliers who are physically stronger than him but he is their master and they depend in him. At this point Clifford becomes maniac with his class status more than any time, because it gives him more concrete sense of power in comparison to the abstract world of literature. He subdues his literary interests by studying the technical works on mining industry under the support of his nurse Mrs Bolton, especially when she tells him that masses do not have the brain of socialism. Interestingly it is not her first motivation to him, Mrs Bolton also inspires him before in his writing through her gossips about Tevershall village’s inhabitants . As a consequence they are more in agreement than his relation with Connie who does not like his obsession with industry. Nevertheless Mrs Bolton is not a flat character, she is another representation of lower class.

Mrs Bolton contrasts with Mellor for her submissiveness to the social hierarchies. ”She was bullied, but she didn’t mine. She was experiencing the upper classes. She neither resented nor disliked Clifford; he was just a part of phenomenon, the phenomenon of the high-class folks, so far unknown to her, but now to be known.” Though she hates Clifford because he remembers her of the mine owners who refused to take the responsibility of her husband’s death in the explosion of the mine and they only compensated by presenting three hundred pounds to her claiming that it was his fault. Even though Mrs Bolton’ relation with Clifford is ambivalent, though her grudge to the masters, she enjoys their intimacy and feels that aristocracy is nothing special about.

On the other hand, there is Mellor who is obviously resistant to the social class: At some point in his life he progressed from a soldier in India and Egypt, to an officer then to a lieutenant with a chance to become a captain, yet his damaged health led him to leave the army and back to England as a working man again. As a result he exceeds his lower-class status even if it was merely temporal, he develops an awareness that the only difference between classes is pretension and though he hates the social divisions altogether, he prefers the lower class for there is no pretend among them. Finally there is Connie who was before she married Clifford from the intelligentsia class, then she is elevated to become an aristocrat women, she recoils the emptiness of the aristocracy and the boundaries between her and people because she bears the pedigree of Chatterley. She finds Clifford irrational for letting her having an affair with a man unless he belongs to the upper class. When Clifford knows about Mellor, he does not accept the existence of a lower class man in his life and then, he feels betrayed he said : “That scum! That bumptious lout! That miserable cad ! He turns into hysteric case, and he categorizes Connie as a perverted woman who likes to sin. The idea that Clifford’s feeling of betrayal is not linked to the adultery itself, because he already approved it. He feels deceived when he knows that the gamekeeper of his estate who has an affair with Connie. Clifford attitude shows how morality is not isolated from the influence of social class, which from its lens he sees Connie as immoral woman.

the narrator indicates a philosophical concept of the paradox between the individuals’ credo and values and their real attitudes in reality. This contradictory view is explained through Clifford himself, who claims that anyone from lower class can be an aristocratic, if he or she raises in the same conditions. So he believes that all people are naturally alike, but their upbringing that differentiates them. Nevertheless a feeling of disgust has possessed him, when he knows about Mellor’s identity as if Connie profanes the sacred lineage of Chatterley. The same for Connie’s sister Hilda who defends workers and assumes socialist principles. She wishes Connie to leave Clifford and initiate a new relationship, but not with a low worker man, She dislikes Connie’s affair and finds it so vulgar.

The novel juxtaposes twofold kind of relation to manifest the influence of social class in each one of them:

• Connie and Mellor who revolt against their social class differences for the continuance of their relationship: Though Mellor dislikes the strong position of Connie for he will depend in her capital for making the farm when they will get their divorce, yet he accepts it and he does not let her social position stands as a barrier between them. The same case for Connie when she knows about Mellor ‘s wife return to the cottage and her discovery to her affair with him, she disgusts the whole affair if the society will know “She was afraid, terrified of society and its unclean bite.” Yet she decides to face the society and stick with him.

  Therefore their relationship is not for social or economic advantages, rather it is based in the body and sensuality. The novel’s open end with both of them waiting for their divorce to be together again, it is actually a metaphor to the hope of social class’ dissolution and to the awakening of the body that is buried by the industry and the civilization.

• Mrs Bolton and Clifford keep the social class differences, Clifford undoubtedly gets his pleasure when he plays the role of master with Mrs Bolton. He makes her know how to type and how to play chess… And Mrs Bolton is fascinated with their intimacy especially after Connie’s departure. Though she hates how their physical relationship takes an oedipal form (The influence of Freudian psychoanalysis): ”It was sheer relaxation in his part, letting go all his manhood, and sinking back to a childish position that was really perverse.” At the end Clifford power position who defines what kind of physical intimacy she will have, in order to get the social recognition that she lacks throughout her life.

  Therefore their relation is a way to deal with their deficiencies. For Clifford his high social position empowers him and makes him forget his physical disability, while Mrs Bolton their relation makes her forget her lower class background. Therefore both of them are consumed by the obsession of social class.

As a conclusion the narrator tries to demonstrate that Connie and Mellor’ relation is healthier than Mrs Bolton and Clifford’s relation, which is strongly ironized by the narrator. Because the former is based in natural connection, while the latter is based in societal constructs. The novel’s attempt to revolt against the whole system of society makes it as one of the most early novel to express a radical will of change in society. “Lady Chatterley’s lover hasn’t the scale, the sustenance, of the earlier novel, and its single and powerful dimension it is still isolated, still reduced, from the form that had once seemed possible. But it is a positive flow again, a recovery of energy, a reaching past rigidities, and as such very moving.” The insistence in feelings and valuing the primitive state, is an ultimatum to the modern society or the lost generation that remained in a state of loss and despair after loosing the trust of humanity having a pure instinct especially after making destructive war, that is why it is a strong anti-war novel.

Think about the last time you were angry and someone told you to calm down. Did it work? Did you go from angry to complete calmness? Of course not. Human brains have developed over time. We have one brain that can be essentially divided into two sections. The modern brain and the primal brain. The modern brain, the front cortex, is in charge of tasks such as memory, judgment, reasoning, problem solving, and impulse. Your primal brain, the hindbrain and medulla is your natural instincts that are responsible for survival. When someone becomes mad, your primal brain is activated and your modern brain is not as engaged. Reasoning and talking can escalate a situation. Reasoning and judgment is turned off and your brain is not thinking effectively. Medea represents a highly active primal brain. Medea has given up her family, home, and name, to dedicate herself completely to Jason. Medea and Jason both took an oath under the gods, binding them together in a relationship stronger than marriage. Jason broke that oath, abandoning Medea and setting her down a destructive path.

As a result of all the sacrifices Medea undertook for Jason, her actions can be defended by reason of insanity. Medeas given her undying loyalty, magic, and body to Jason. Jason’s reputation as a successful warrior and adventure would be nothing without Medea. She has successfully saved him on multiple occasions. Jason would have never completed his quest without the help of Medea’s magic and advice. Without either, Jason and the Argonauts would never have obtained the golden fleece or escaped the pursuing Aeëtes. Medea has nothing but Jason after abandoning her family and home. Medeas given up everything for the sake of Jason.

“You have this city and your father’s home, enjoyment of life, and the companionship of friends, but, alone and without a city, I am abused by my husband, carried off as plunder from a foreign land, I have no mother, no brother, no relatives to offer me a safe haven from this disaster. (252-257). Jason demonstrates no indecisiveness as he abandons Medea so effortlessly. In correlation to how much Medea has done for Jason, furthermore how little he has done for her, his actions reveal how self centered Jason truly is. Medea’s revenge is driven on these sacrifices.

Medea is determined to seek revenge with an eye for an eye. Medea wants to inflict Jason with the same pain he’s dealt her. By breaking his oath with Medea, Jason has abandoned Medea, leaving her with nothing. Nothing to repay Medea for all she’s sacrificed in the past. Because of Jason, Medea who came from royalty and wealth, is left poor and alone. Jason offers Medea money as he knows that Medea will be impoverished and exiled. “We will not be making use of your friends; I will not take anything from you; don’t give me anything. The gift of a bad man brings no pleasure. “(615-618)

Medea’s rage is fueled evermore. Medea wants no part with Jasons new life and friends. Only to take away what he’s taken from her. The refusal of the money also implies that Medea doesn’t anticipate having to take care of the children. Medea kills Creon and the princess. This alienates Jason from Corinth. Leaving him just as abandoned as Medea herself.

The murder of her own children was intended to protect them. Medea understands that her children with Jason played an influential role in Jason’s decision to marry the princess. An attempt by Jason to solidify his ancestry by having his sons become brothers to princess and therefore royalty. Given the circumstances that the children are boys and the time when the play was written, it makes even more sense why Medea ultimately decides to kill the children.

“MEDEA: O my children, victims of your father’s evil actions!

JASON: At least it was not my hand that killed them.

MEDEA: No. It was an insult—your new marriage.”

Medea ultimately decided to kill the children to inflict pain on Jason as revenge. Yet furthermore to protect them as Medea believed they would have been killed anyway by the people of Corinth.

‘This shall never be, that I should suffer my children to be the prey of my enemies insolence.’ (1060). ‘as quickly as I may to kill my children, and start away from this land, And not, by wasting time, to suffer my children to be slain by another hand less kindly to them.’

Medea knows that after killing the princess, she will be sought out to be punished for her actions. Medea understands that herself and the children would be threatened by the people loyal to Creon. Medea decides to swiftly and painlessly kill her children herself rather than to allow her enemies to torture them. Meades murders of the princess, Creon, and her children can all be justified by a plea of insanity and supported by her incorrupt intentions to protect the children.

“When defendants plead not guilty by reason of insanity, they are asserting an affirmative defense- that is, they admit that they have committed a criminal act, but seek to excuse their behavior by reason of mental illness that satisfies the definition of legal insanity.” (Pleading Insanity in a Criminal Case). Medea is driven by so much rage because of Jason’s selfishness that her primal brain is activated. Medea has lost all reasoning and judgment. Only driven by her ultimate goal of seeking revenge on Jason. Medea can not even reason with herself when she becomes hesitant to kill her children. Only looking to satisfy her sought out revenge against Jason, she murders her beloved children. “A lord was insane because he …doth not know what he is doing, no more than a brute or a wild beast.” ( Pleading Insanity in a Criminal Case, Historical Antecedents). Madea’s survival instincts were kicked into full throttle, making her no different from a wild beast. Medea’s actions can be justified completely by a plea of insanity that were entirely instigated by Jason, the root of Medea’s rage.

Salvage the Bones is narrated by a teenager named Esch. She is the only girl in an all-male family, since her mother is dead, and her father is an alcoholic. Isolated and alone in this savage town (the town’s name “Bois Sauvage” and the fact that their homestead is called “The Pit” says a lot about how rural this place is), she seeks of a way to escape. She shifts between the present happenings of her life and often alludes to classical Greek literature, particularly the story of Jason and Medea. The allusion becomes allegorical as more and more Greek characters are compared to the people in her life. In this way, she could escape briefly, pretending to be Eurydice or Daphne, her favorite goddesses from the Greek myths. She may be stuck in a predominantly black Mississippi town in the direct path of Hurricane Katrina, but her imagination runs wild. As a narrator, Esch is observant and poetic, often given to reminiscing about her mother who died in childbirth. She notices the inherent violence of this place in brutal details. A lot of the metaphors and similes she makes are often compared to something of the earth, nature, and the human body—meat, sweat, and blood. Most of her problems came to a head when Esch, pregnant and tomboyish as ever, has sex in a toilet stall with her lover. Manny, the father of her growing baby, would not look at her after he found out about her pregnancy. However, Esch’s love of the Greek myths has made her unsurprised at his treatment of her, though it still hurts her deeply. There is a reason why she relates to Medea the most, and it is not only because they both fell in love with a guy who betrayed them.

First, a little background on Medea and Jason. Medea was the strongest sorceress of Colchis, and the daughter of the reigning King Aeetes. Jason was the leader of the Argonauts, who came to the island in hopes of obtaining the Golden Fleece from the King. The King refused to give it to him, but Medea helped him retrieve it with her magic after they got married. While they fled from the island, Jason convinced Medea to cut her brother, who willingly fled with them, into pieces and throw into the sea to delay pursuit from the King. They got away safely and settled down in Corinth, where Medea birthed her two sons. However, Jason cheated on Medea with the daughter of the Corinth King. As revenge, Medea kills the King of Corinth, his daughter, and her two sons. Why Esch feels a strong kinship between her and Medea is that for the man they loved, they were both willing to sacrifice much of themselves. It is not about the betrayal but of all that led up to it. Her feelings toward Manny, her memories of Manny, and her fixation on Manny for the better part of the narrative makes her able to completely understand Medea’s actions and desires. Esch is not exactly Medea’s double, but she is a fighter and claims agency in startling ways.

“When Medea falls in love with Jason, it grabs me by my throat. I can see her,” Esch says, “I know her… Even with all her power, Jason bends her like a young pine in a hard wind; he makes her double in two” (). She projects her own unrequited love into the Greek myth of Jason and Medea, liking herself to the powerful enchantress and Manny to Jason—the man who swept Medea off her feet. In the beginning, Medea helps articulate Esch’s “youthful love.” Esch is able to read a story for more than its characters’ feelings, but what seems to have struck her first is how Medea’s emotions reflect her own: Medea’s love for Jason resonates with Esch’s feelings for her lover, Manny. Such an emotional identification characterizes Esch’s early readings of several ancient figures so much that she ignores how these stories and myths end—as with most Greek myths, passionate love between lovers are hard to reciprocate and last. Esch refuses to have sex with anyone else after she realized she loved Manny. The first few times she had sex, all she said about it was that “it was easier to… ().” This suggests that she may not want to have sex but does it because she felt pressured to do so. However, towards Manny, her attitude changes and she later started refusing to have sex with anyone other than him because “with Manny, it was different; he was so beautiful, and still he chose me, again and again” (16). This was why Esch was so sure the baby in her stomach belonged to him when she found out (). Every time they had sex, her feelings for him went deeper and deeper. Their sex is framed with reference to mythology: “I was bold as a Greek; I was making him hot with love, and Manny was loving me” (17). At this point, Esch identifies with Medea’s “youthful love” to such a degree that other aspects of Medea’s story and myths seem forgotten, a warning ignored.

After Esch realized she was pregnant with Manny’s child, she keeps wondering if she would be a good mother. She wonders if Manny would accept their child. He did not, violently shoving Esch to the side of the toilet stall when he found out. Luckily, Medea had slowly became the symbol of motherhood and betrayal in Esch’s mind at a young age. When her mother died giving birth to Junior, Esch was surrounded by men. Growing up around them, all she could have turned toward as a mother-figure was Medea from her books, and eventually, China, the bulldog her brother treasures. However, Medea is probably closer to Esch’s world than China, where love exacts a broken heart as the price and motherhood is a deadly, bloody business. It might not be love that connects her and Manny, but an obsession with Manny that he does not appreciate. When Manny spurns her, Esch is ready, “In every one of the Greeks’ mythology tales, there is this: a man chasing a woman, or a woman chasing a man. There is never a meeting in the middle. There is only a body in a ditch, and one person walking toward or away from it” (32). Her feelings toward Manny lead her to chase him for more than half the book. Perhaps Esch likens getting Manny as completing a quest in Greek myths. Fulfilling a quest in Greek myths are usually time-consuming and hard because they are always given out by gods, goddesses, and other powerful beings to test the person in question.

Did Esch think Manny’s standoffish nature was to test her love for him? No, Esch knows she is “stuck in the middle” (154), and so she tries to get away from him. “To get away from her, from the smell of Manny still on me a night and morning afterward, I get up” (154). Getting away from Manny is, by extension, trying to get away from Medea. She is scared of becoming exactly like Medea in the end of the Greek myth: a traitor who killed her own brother and two children, and is abandoned by her lover. Now that she cannot willfully ignore the ending of the myth, she hopes that she will be able to avoid the destructive consequences that came with loving Manny. This might apply first of all to Manny: a perfect Jason-figure by extension from Esch’s identification with Medea. Manny, at one point, is described as being like Jason in his emotional cruelty towards her (172). She is abandoned by Manny for another girl, but she did not let go of him without him knowing what she thought of him. “I loved you!” (). We can see how strong Esch is here, finally standing up to the man who tried to throw her away and avoid responsibility. She fixes her bond with her brother, Skeetah, which had been frayed when Esch had stood up for Manny when Skeetah suspected him of lying (). Complicating matters even further, is the answer she gives Skeetah, who inquired after whom she will name her child if it is a boy: “Jason. Jason Aldon Batiste” (248). This shows that while Esch has moved on from Manny, she was determined to remember what he represented to her—a love that did not last but also something that she overcame and persevered through.

Medea represents multiple possibilities for Esch coming of age and becoming a mother. Esch is aware of multiple versions of Medea’s story as represented in Hamilton’s telling: “The author says that there are a couple of different versions of how it happened” (154). The multiple versions will bear on her motherhood. In the context of a deceased mother or otherwise unhelpful mother-figures (China), it is Medea who serves as Esch’s main example of motherhood. Medea is therefore a model for strength. She is not an exact copy of Medea because she refused to get rid of her unborn child, though she thought of it often in the beginning stages. By the end of the narrative, Esch has come to terms with being a mother and that the baby will have “many daddies” (). Esch also comes into her strength as the threat of Katrina loomed and passed, and it is her journey to survive that disaster that gets her there. Perhaps Esch is like Medea—not the murderer but just the magician. Medea was a sorceress, and there is magic in Esch’s ability not only to survive her circumstances, but to speak about them with such clarity and depth they are meaningful to all.

Many actions in Euripides’ Medea occur without just explanation. The psychology behind these actions appear unpredictable, but still control key parts of the play. The play begins with a heartbroken Medea, angry and depressed because her husband, Jason, has left her for a new bride. However, the rage Medea exhibits is a byproduct of the backstory of the play. While Jason pursued his quest for the Golden Fleece, Medea had done everything in her power to let this happen, including the murder of her own brother and aiding Jason in completing three seemingly impossible tasks assigned by her father. When Medea hears of Jason’s new bride, the fury and desire for revenge overcomes her, and she devises a ploy to kill the new bride as well as her own children. Although seemingly justified in her anger, the unpredictability of the way the play unfolds represents Medea’s psychological state, especially through two driving emotions: fury and power. From Euripides’ portrayal of Medea, her pursuit of revenge on Jason seeds from her characterization of masculine-like qualities as well as the desire to maintain such characteristics rather than the insecurity over her self-image. The strength of Medea’s passion for Jason drives the murder of her children instead of the fear of being mocked at by enemies; however, this fear still ignites the feminine irrationality.

The notion surrounding Medea’s revenge upon Jason seems as though it is sheer insecurity. Yet, it is her strength and dominance throughout the play that point towards a greed of maintaining such dominance instead. Mainly during this man vs. self conflict, hesitating on whether to murder her children and inflict even more suffering upon Jason, she says “What is the matter with me? Are my enemies to laugh at me?” (Euripides 49). Euripides instead uses this line to further mock her emotional chaos, almost as an excuse to kill her children. Still, this account cannot be trusted due to the great distraught she faces. The monologue from Medea includes both sides of the coin, at once deciding against the children’s murder, but followed directly after with conflicting lines. Not only does this inner battle refute any claims in the monologue made by Medea, but also Euripdes’ portrayal of her as an irrational female through the conveyance of intense, conflicting emotions. Descriptions of Medea weeping throughout this monologue and feelings such as pain and anguish reveal her comments as driven by emotion and are not the true logic behind her actions. However, Euripdes consistently represents Medea through masculine traits such as power and anger, and the focus of the play is driven through these traits. During the time, stereotypical women were more submissive and conforming to the authority of men, but in the play, the audience hears mostly of Medea’s feelings and rage, allowing her to control the play and be seen as more dominant. Jason, on the other hand, is the more tranquil of the two and is seemingly more professional, responding calmly to Medea’s outburst: “Well, your angry words don’t upset me” (30). Such dialogue from Jason characterizes him in a weaker position, opposing stereotypes, and thus leaving a lesser impact on the play. For instance, Medea’s strong emotion persuades the audience of her innocence, which excuses her plans to seek revenge on Jason. Hence, it is more reasonable to infer Medea’s desire to maintain dominance as the primary motive for murdering her children, as it is consistent with her character portrayal, compared to an insecurity of her enemies.

While also proving Medea’s monologue improbable, the self-proclaimed “fear of mockery” results from the conflict of her instinctive feminine characteristics and Euripides’ portrayal of masculine characteristics. When discussing the pain of killing her children, Medea says, “Anger, the spring of all life’s horror, masters my resolve,” pointing towards an unbreakable desire for revenge on Jason (50). Medea confirms her masculine qualities of anger and rage as the driving force of her actions, and believes the strength of it shall trump all else, including the instinctive feminism which she subconsciously possesses. Despite having such certainty in her cause, Medea foils during this monologue, revealing her feminism. This feminism accounts for this fear, that Euripides failed to show previously. During this moment only does a one-time fear of mockery excuse Medea to gain the determination to kill her children, but in no way can be marked as the catalyst for the murder since the anger initially provokes this plot and continues to over the course of the play. Medea further proves her desire for revenge by saying “This is the way to deal Jason the deepest wound” when deciding whether to include the deaths of her children in the plot, proving her desire for Jason to suffer and debunking the notion of her fear of humiliation from enemies (42). Euripides uses this mental breakdown instead to show the adamant determination of Medea and her anger towards Jason.

The crimes Medea committed for Jason before the play begins could already arouse laughter, yet Euripides makes none of this during the play, disproving the notion of fear of mockery by others. Being in a society primarily of male dominance, the audience would find Medea’s previous actions of sacrificing her connection with her family as well as killing her brother to result in a failed marriage with Jason as comical and common female irrationality. As Medea foolishly secured everything in her power for Jason to acquire the Golden Fleece, including the murder of her brother and leaving her family, one could easily shame her for this fact alone. Despite this, Euripides expresses no insecurity through Medea until her feminine nature conflicts with masculine traits. Still, Medea powers herself through and never worries about her self image much again. Furthermore, Euripides associates Medea with great feeling and emotion, and he allows her to express anguish for how Jason has wronged her. In this way, Euripides convinces the audience of Medea’s innocence, one way being reminding the Gods of the antagonist in the play: “Great Zeus, remember who caused all this suffering!” (27). This victimized portrayal makes it more difficult for the audience to mock her rather than condole with her. Certain lines from other female characters in the play such as the chorus of Corinthian women also serve to let the audience sympathize with Medea, often saying “The thing is common; why let it make you angry / Zeus will defend your cause” (22). Here, the chorus brings the Gods onto Medea’s side, excusing her actions devised from anger, rather than fear. Because of her great passion for Jason, who she sacrificed greatly for, is the reason why she feels betrayed when he pursues a new bride, thus enabling her to plot revenge against him. As the chorus notes, “The fiercest anger of all, is that which rages in the place of dearest love”, confirming Medea’s revenge to be associated purely from the betrayal she has endured from Jason (32). As Medea ignored any possible reaction from her enemies by fleeing with Jason to Iolcus and abandoning her family, she even acknowledges herself as “Showing much love and little wisdom” (31), proving her passion for Jason and justifies revenge from anger over embarrassment.

Through the length of the play, Medea manages to control her determination to plot revenge on Jason despite certain obstacles enacted by the author Euripides, one being the withstanding of her subconscious feminine nature. It poses a great threat to Medea’s satisfaction of revenge on Jason, as she was on the brink of sparing her children out of the woman-like nature, lying beneath all of her masculine traits and even overlooked by her own self. However, for just a brief moment, Medea forced herself to maintain an unwavering determination, and in the process making some rash claims which seemingly brought her back towards the rage felt throughout the play against Jason. Still, the true meaning of one particular reckless line “Are my enemies to laugh at me?” cannot be taken to heart given her conflicted mindset. Being dominant throughout the play in Euripides’ depiction, Medea looked to maintain her power through killing her children and continue to assert dominance which extends to the actions made before the play resumes in medias res. Having been granted masculine traits, Medea’s power is unquestionable, especially in comparison to Jason, opposing stereotypes at the time, giving her the fury which she possesses. Medea’s anger, the anger which guides the direction of the play, bases revenge on the absolute suffering of Jason, not from fear, but from great passion, to ultimately overcome all that Euripides throws in its way.

In contradiction to modern North American responsiveness, in Renaissance Italy, the purposes of women were prescribed by rules and expectations determined by stringent patriarchal values. In William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, female characters believe that they, and the women they are answerable for, must agree to society’s expectations and the result makes these women accountable for the final shocking ending of the play. The Nurse, Juliet’s primary caregiver, dangerously influences Juliet to be married, and it is this deceived desire that drives Juliet towards her death. Furthermore, Lady Capulet’s blind submission to her husband’s wishes induces her to ignore her daughter’s pleas and offers which causes Juliet’s death.

In Romeo and Juliet, the Nurse is one of the females liable for the tragic ending because of her poor choice to support the ill-advised marriage and then her sequential disloyalty of Juliet. When the Nurse initially helps Juliet marry Romeo it is because she longs for Julict to achieve the highest, most admirable goal Juliet can accomplish as a woman in Renaissance Italy: to marry a man of high status, become a faithful wife and have children. For example, when the Nurse effects Juliet news about Romeo’s plan for a quick marriage, instead of dissuading Juliet and giving her reasons to slow down their relationship, the Nurse says, ‘Then hie you hence to Friar Lawrence’s cell;/ There stays a husband to make you a wife Hic you to church; I must another way, /To fetch a ladder, by the which your love (25 69-70, 72-73) She is so happy that Juliet is becoming married to any available gentleman that she sees no harm in making the unconscious wedding. To the son of the family’s enemy, a reality. The Nurse even goes out of her way to help the marriage happen: she communicates Romeo to determine the wedding time and she gets the ladder for the wedding night. Not only does the Nurse help additional along with the terrible relationship between Romeo and Juliet, but she also encourages Juliet to marry Paris after Romeo is banished for Tybalt’s murder. In order to hide the previous marriage, that will get both her and Juliet in trouble, and to preserve both of their reputations, she recommends a quick resolution: ‘I think you are happy in this second match, /For it excels your first: or if it did not,/Your first is dead; or ’twere as good he were, /As living here and you no use of him’ (3.5.222-225).

Lady Capulet is also effective for Juliet’s death because she pressures her daughter to conform to the patriarchal expectations of marriage and then when she takes her husband’s side willingly of Juliet’s. Firstly, Lady Capulet encourages Juliet to hastily marry Paris, going along with Lord Capulet’s idea that this marriage will bring cheer to the family, helping them to get. over their mourning for Tybalt. Because young women were expected to desire the marriage- matches made for them by their parents, she makes the assumption the Juliet will be overjoyed with the wedding plans, regardless of how quick they are, when she says. ‘Well, well, thou hast a careful father, child. One who, to put thee from thy heaviness./ Hath sorted out a sudden day of joy./That thou expects not. nor I look’d not for (3.5.107-110) Lady Capulet presumes that Juliet will be pleased with what would have been acknowledged a normal and acceptable arrangement in this society. She does not consider Juliet’s feelings about this plan and makes assumptions about Juliet’s grief being for Tybalt, which increases her shock when Juliet declines to wed Paris. Secondly, Lady Capulet does not ask for an explanation for Juliet’s strong, negative response to the wedding arrangement, and instead, she calls her daughter a fool and lets her husband angrily and harshly threaten Juliet. When Juliet begs her mother to delay the marriage and not disown her as Lord Capulet has threatened to, Lady Capulet’s response is, ‘Talk not to me, for I’ll not speak a word. /Do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee’ (3.5.202-203). Instead of supporting her daughter or at least delaying the marriage until Juliet can give a reason for not marrying Paris, Lady Capulet chooses not to listen to her and supports her husband’s threats. Her mother’s lack of sympathy and arrangement of patriarchal ideals above Juliet’s wellbeing also pushes Juliet to seek a desperate solution for her problem: She rushes to Friar Lawrence who devises a plan to fake Juliet’s death. Unfortunately, this plan goes awry, and Romeo and Juliet commit suicide to be together. Therefore, Lady Capulet is responsible for her daughter’s death because she unwisely pressures Julict to hastily marry Paris simply because it suits the patriarchal values of the time, and when Juliet refuses to give in to that pressure. Lady Capulet supports her husband instead of her daughter, leaving Juliet no other possibility than to go find other solutions to her problem that ends up getting her killed. If Juliet is kicked out of her parents’ house it would break the Nurse’s heart to see someone she considers a daughter humiliated and neglected by society. Unfortunately, Juliet sees this suggestion by the Nurse as a betrayal to Romeo and, as a result, she seeks out Friar Lawrence to give her a different, and more dangerous, a solution to her problem: Juliet fakes her death with causes her and Romeo’s real passing. Accordingly, because the Nurse is responsible for bringing these children of enemies together by supporting and arranging their secret marriage, she also drives Juliet to her death by suggesting Juliet hide that first marriage by marrying Paris, making the Nurse one of the primary people responsible for the young lovers’ deaths.

Lady Capulet is also responsible for Juliet’s death because she pressures her daughter to conform to the patriarchal expectations of marriage and then when she takes her husband’s side preferably of Juliet’s. Firstly, Lady Capulet encourages Juliet to hastily marry Paris, going along with Lord Capulet’s idea that this marriage will bring cheer to the family, helping them to get. over their mourning for Tybalt. Because young women were expected to desire the marriage- matches made for them by their parents, she makes the assumption the Juliet will be overjoyed with the wedding plans, regardless of how quick they are, when she says. ‘Well, well, thou hast a careful father, child. One who, to put thee from thy heaviness./ Hath sorted out a sudden day of joy./That thou expects not. nor I look’d not for (3.5.107-110) Lady Capulet presumes that Juliet will be happy with what would have been considered a normal and acceptable arrangement in this society. She does not consider Juliet’s feelings about this plan and makes assumptions about Juliet’s grief being for Tybalt, which increases her shock when Juliet refuses to wed Paris. Secondly, Lady Capulet does not ask for an explanation for Juliet’s strong, negative response to the wedding arrangement, and instead, she calls her daughter a fool and lets her husband angrily and harshly threaten Juliet. When Juliet begs her mother to delay the marriage and not disown her as Lord Capulet has threatened to, Lady Capulet’s response is, ‘Talk not to me, for I’ll not speak a word. /Do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee’ (3.5.202-203). Instead of supporting her daughter or at least delaying the marriage until Juliet can give a reason for not marrying Paris, Lady Capulet chooses not to listen to her and supports her husband’s threats. Her mother’s lack of sympathy and placement of patriarchal ideals above Juliet’s wellbeing also pushes Juliet to seek a desperate solution for her problem: She rushes to Friar Lawrence who devises a plan to fake Juliet’s death. Unfortunately, this plan goes awry, and Romeo and Juliet commit suicide to be together. Therefore, Lady Capulet is responsible for her daughter’s death because she unwisely pressures Julict to hastily marry Paris simply because it suits the patriarchal values of the time, and when Juliet refuses to give in to that pressure. Lady Capulet supports her husband instead of her daughter, leaving Juliet no other option than to go find other solutions to her problem that ends up getting her killed.

In William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, when women conform to society’s. patriarchal expectations, and pressure those that they are supposed to be looking out for to do the same. Any tragic results are their fault. Firstly when the Nurse blindly desires to see Juliet wed. something she has been taught that all women should aspire to, she unwisely helps Juliet marry Romeo, the son of their family small When Romeo is banished, and Juliet is rebelling against being forced into a marriage to Paris. the Nurse makes a second mistake out of fearing the wrath of patriarchal society: she advises Juliet to wed Paris to avoid being disowned by her father. Not only is Juliet driven by the Nurse to go seek a different and dangerous solution to avoid marrying Paris, but Lady Capulet is also responsible for Juliet’s death because she supports the hasty marriage to Paris in the first place. When Juliet rejects this arrangement, instead of finding out why Lady Capulet conforms to her society’s expectation and supports her husband instead of her daughter. Juliet is left with no allies among the mother-figures in her life and goes through with a dangerous plan of faking her death, but this leads to Romeo’s death, and then Juliet’s suicide as a result. Therefore, when women place the desires of a male-dominated society over their responsibilities of being good caregivers, it is often children, in particular, young women, who get hurt.

The novel, Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler, takes place in a post-apocalyptic society where there is little to no hope left for the remaining survivors on Earth. Many people have given up on saving the world and now result to taking what’s left of it. However, the few people who do believe in a better life, including protagonist Lauren Olamina, all share one common ideology, religion. Illustrating religion as the last hope against the looming darkness of the dying world, Octavia Butler emphasizes the character development of religious believers and non-believers in Parable of the Sower to represent the differences in lifestyles and choices between them; ultimately making the argument that religion is the driving force in which gives us humans a purpose and reason to prosper, or in this case, rebuild the world.

Lauren’s relationship with religion sprouted at a very young age. Her father, a local reverend, instilled his Christian beliefs upon her such as many parents do to develop good morals within their children. However, Lauren has since abandoned her father’s beliefs and now devotes herself to her personal religion, Earthseed. Earthseed, a work-in-progress, is founded on the belief that “God is change”. Earthseed says that God shapes us as we change, but we are also able to return the favor and directly change God. In addition, Earthseed claims that God exists to change the universe, and paradoxically the universe exists to change God. Earthseed is a religion in the novel, even if hardly anyone in the world knows or acknowledges it. Religion does not need a minimum number of followers, but simply one person engaging in and sharing it with the world. The reason for Lauren giving up on Christianity is not clearly stated. It seems as though she has no hard feelings towards it, she just prefers to focus more on reality as she knows it rather than place false hope into unforeseen entities. Lauren never denies religion or shows any signs of being an atheist, she certainly believes there is something more going on in the universe and the novel as a whole seems to be a coming-of-age story for Lauren and her development of Earthseed.

Octavia Butler doesn’t always portray religion in the best way and often challenges it throughout the novel. However, it can be seen in the characters who hold religion dear to their hearts that their faith is the much-needed foundation for the reconstruction of the broken world. It seems that almost every character who holds a belief in some sort of religion is also the only people left on Earth actively making it a better place, or at least trying. In order to show how each believer will achieve their common goal of restrengthening the world, the main characters’ purposes, which they will strive towards, are revealed through their religions and actions. Lauren’s father’s purpose is to be a teacher. He works tirelessly as a full-time professor, dean, pastor, and leader in their community. He not only teaches the youth how to read and write at the local school, but he is also a teacher of morality. He teaches those around him through words and actions how to maintain a solid community and relationships with others. It is safe to say that most of his actions are religiously motivated, and it’s not a coincidence that his actions are unselfish and out of love for his family, community, and the overall good of the world around him. He is the epitome of a leader during times like the one they’re in, and without him, Lauren would not have the role model and friend she needed as a child. Similar to her father, Lauren is also a believer trying to pick up the pieces of a broken world. However, instead of using Christianity as her main source of reasoning, Lauren makes decisions based on what’s best for Earthseed. Lauren treats Earthseed as if it is her child, and will do anything to protect it because she believes Earthseed could be the savior of humanity. Lauren can be seen as a type of prophet in her new religion. Similar to many other prophets from different types of religions, Lauren is a leader of a group walking into the unknown wanting to share and grow her faith with the world. Lauren strives to find “good ground” to create Earthseed communities such as Acorn, and develop a population that will join her in creating a better life, and ultimately “take root among the stars”.

Contrastly, the characters in the novel who don’t belong to any sort of religion seem to have accepted the fate of the Earth and don’t strive to improve the general quality of life. The pyromaniacs embody this persona and have no regard for anyone or anything aside from feeling short-term pleasure by burning the world to the ground. In addition, Keith Olamina, Lauren’s brother, believes “God is the adults’ way of trying to scare you into doing what they want”, and he certainly fits the theme of non-believers who don’t care about well-being of society. Keith’s role in the novel is short but meaningful. Keith, with money as his incentive, chooses to constantly sneak out of the gated town and get involved in dangerous activities against his father’s wishes. While he was trying to do what he believed was good for his family, Keith was unable to realize that he put his entire community at risk, and ultimately led to its demise. Characters such as these have tunnel vision and seem to have no sense of responsibility for the greater good of society but would rather take advantage of the broken world and deprive it of its last chances of recovering from such a plight. Octavia Butler continues to show that religion is the only thing keeping society together, and those who approach life with religion in their corner understand that it’s up to people like them to save humanity. In a dystopian world, religion is the hope that people need and cling to desperately to survive.

While religion seems to be the motive for bringing the world back together, it is also possible that religion could be hindering society’s ability to progress. Wasting days at Sunday masses or using resources and money for baptisms are a few examples of how religion may seem to have a negative effect on the outlook of society. The time and energy that Lauren’s community spends on organizing and putting on religious events could very well be used to help one another prosper and grow their community. Religion forces them to work towards achieving their ultimate goal of gaining access to heaven, but is it really worth it to spend their lives working towards something that may not even be true when people all around them are struggling to survive in this life? While religion may seem as though it could be a false hope and a waste of precious resources, losing it would leave humans with no purpose or reason to do anything but survive, such as Keith or the pyromaniacs. If there is no goal or something to work towards and everything is meaningless, then what is the point of doing anything? Even Earthseed, a religion that doesn’t believe in an afterlife, still has heaven. However, this heaven is attainable during one’s life, and “the destiny of Earthseed is to take root among the stars”. Religion pushes us to create a better life for ourselves, and a better future for the generations to come. Even if the religions in Parable of The Sower are false, they are necessary because in achieving their ultimate goals, society will also begin to be restored.

Parable of the Sower offers a potential look into our near future and serves as a warning to all of humanity. The horrors of this dying world are explicitly shown by the harsh conditions Octavia Butler displays throughout the novel, leaving many of the non-believers to give up and assume hope for this world is all but lost. However, religion constantly serves as a beacon to those who believe in a new life, a better life; and those who choose to follow this beacon are tasked with the responsibility of saving those around them and the ones who will make up our future. Religion offers the hope that can be used as motivation and the end goal its followers are longing for and striving to achieve, it ultimately gives them a reason and purpose to keep on living.

Tim O’Brien does an incredible job of blurring the lines of what is true and what is fiction in “The Things They Carried”. The story provides a personal view into the minds of soldiers and tells us the emotional and psychological costs of war. For the 17 Soldiers portrayed in the story, the physical pain was very minimal weight to carry compared to the emotional scars that they will carry throughout their entire life. It was those feelings that were the things they carried.

Many of the things that were carried were intangible such as guilt and fear, while others are physical objects, including matches, morphine, M-16 rifles, and M&M’s candies. The author Tim O’Brien is a Vietnam veteran himself. He receives his draft notice in June of 1968, and his feelings of confusion drive him north to the Canadian border, which he contemplates crossing so he doesn’t have to fight in the war. O’Brien comes to the conclusion that his guilt about avoiding the war and fear of disappointing his family is more important than his political convictions. There are many characters in the story that Tim sheds light on because they have ultimately helped him get through his experience and journey. They all carry their own baggage, but together they helped carry each other.

Kiowa was a Native American soldier on the team. He was probably the most loved one and his death was the hardest to take in for everyone. Kiowa brings the heart to the company with his kindness toward his fellow soldiers and his concern for the people of Vietnam. He helped the others by keeping them calm and keeping them in touch with their feelings. Kiowa made the men feel at home in a sense which was very comforting to the other men. He is fully conscious that he is on someone else land and pays his full respect to the people on it. Kiowa is a Baptist so he carries The New Testament in his pack as a reference to his Christian background. He also carries his grandfather’s hunting hatchet which is an important weapon in his culture that he carries to feel a connection with his ancestors. He was killed by a mortar round hit and that caused him to sink headfirst into a marshy field. He resembles the wastefulness of war.

Ted Lavender plays a significant role in “The Things They Carried” because he is not only the youngest of the troop but he is the first character to die. His death inherently marks a change in the narrative. He is a young male soldier who carries marijuana, tranquilizers, and extra ammo to ease his nerves. Lavender was shot in the head outside the village of Than Khe. Morally, all the men feel guilty for it. Lieutenant Cross and Kiowa accused themselves of his death. He represented emotional escapism through drug abuse. Lavender was a symbol of unweighed fear. Through his death, Tim is able to represent how quickly death can happen in the war.

Lieutenant Jimmy Cross played a big role in Tim O’Brien’s story. He is the leader of the platoon. He is in a constant state of daydreaming about his love for Martha. Martha was a girl that never loved him back. “On the morning after Ted Lavender died, First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross crouched at the bottom of his foxhole and burned Martha’s letters.” (pg. 22) He loved Martha more than anything even more than his men and as a consequence, Lavender was now dead, and this was something he had to carry with him that left a hole in his stomach and a tear in his heart. Cross had carried the weight of Lavender’s dead body physically and figuratively. Through his experience of seeing Lavender killed, Cross was changed into a more focused and serious person whenever it came to the war.

This book examines the lives of soldiers in the Vietnam war. It examines the soldier’s experiences in Vietnam and how they affected them in their lives later on. The things these men would carry were heavy. They were not only physically, but emotionally demanding and took a toll on their everyday lives. They carried guilt, shame, hopes, and dreams. The purpose of the storytelling Tim O’Brien bought to light was turning a war story into a love story by honoring the death of his men that he was very close with to whom he would call family.