Category: Morality

Both texts, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’ and Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, show aspects of conventional behaviour not always being moral. Gatsby is involved with criminal activities in order to obtain his highly sought-after ‘American Dream’. The conventional system in the futuristic city of Gilead in is indefinitely immoral; Atwood’s primary representation of Gileadean society presents a corruption of morals, the death of female rights and an ingrained class structure – as Linda W. Wagner-Martin puts it “It is a brutal horrifying culture.’ These novels that rely so heavily on strict societal structures, allows the modern reader to experience a lifestyle completely foreign from theirs and explore the spaces ‘within and without’ conventional norms.

Firstly, the society of Gilead destroys conventional societal morals in this novel through its characters. Offred, the narrator and protagonist of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is depicted as a bystander who only cares about her own survival over anyone else’s; “Moira was right about me. I’ll say anything they like; I’ll incriminate anyone. It’s true, the first scream, whimper even, and I’ll turn to jelly…” (THT Ch44) . As a result of her submission into Gileadean society, Offred develops a defensive personality, choosing to quietly observe the people and events surrounding her rather than reacting to them. Offred’s initial reaction with Ofglen demonstrates her survival-orientated attitude as she never makes any attempts at camaraderie and it takes two attempts of Ofglen taking a chance to get them talking. Offred then continues her relationship with Ofglen out of a mostly selfish desire to rid herself of her monotonous everyday routine, rather than a genuine desire to assist the disguised rebellion troupe ‘Mayday’. This is exemplified when Offred refuses to search the Commander’s study and when her relationship with Nick resulted in her neglecting Ofglen; “Ofglen is giving up on me… I don’t feel regret about this, I feel relief” (THT Ch41), we are able to infer that Offred is so smitten with Nick that she would rather stay under the regime than become part of the Underground to which Ofglen belongs. In addition, Offred agrees to meet with the commander in his study for her own benefit, giving her a sense of dominance over the powerful status of ‘men’ and giving her the opportunity to read and ask for forbidden things such as facial creams; “There must be something he wants, from me. To want is to have weakness… that entices me.” (THT Ch23). Pretending to love him, playing fruitless games with him and passionately kissing/sleeping with him seem all ‘worth it’ to Offred in her Gilead-distorted state of mind; “Fake it… move your flesh around, breathe audibly It’s the least you can do.” (THT Ch39). She is similarly using Nick, mainly to be impregnated by him, although she seems to appreciate his company as he can provide a sense of an emotional escape to her. Nick, however, doesn’t really stand to benefit from their relationship since Offred doesn’t have much to offer him other than carnal pleasure; “He seems indifferent to most of what I have to say, alive only to the possibilities of my body.” As such, there is an imbalance in the quality and value of both these characters towards each other. (THT Ch. 41) Moira, on the other hand, starts out to be characterised as a strong-willed individual who strives to maintain her original sense of freedom and morality, unhindered by Gilead’s own notion of morality. Moira exemplifies her tendency towards rebellion in her first major appearance in which she commits as a dangerous escape of her confinements. By threatening her overseer, Aunt Elizabeth, and then subsequently defeating her in order to escape, Moira proved that she was not afraid of her surrounding and was not discouraged by their threats of punishment; “In the light of Moira, the Aunts were less fearsome…” (THT Ch22). However, once Moira was caught and captured, she was given an ultimatum of living the rest of her life in the colonies cleaning up toxic waste (indefinitely leading to an early death) or working at the Jezebels as a prostitute she remorsefully chooses the degrading latter. Whilst rebellion would traditionally be seen as going against one’s morals, Atwood, here, presents the need for rebellion in order to try to extinguish such immoral conventions from a women’s mind, therefore rebellion is necessary to overcome immorality. This choice between life and death is when Moira finally loses her sense of independence; “Nevertheless Moira was our fantasy, we hugged her to us, she was with us in secret, a giggle…” (THT Ch22), Moira clearly had nostalgia for the life she once knew, and her expressive displays of rebellion against the system that took her away most definitely influenced her weakened peers, who all looked upon her with awe and amazement, as if she held a legacy. “Have they really done it to her then, taken away something – what? – that used to be so central to her?”, upon her capture, Moira was diminished to a lowly state of life, solidly proving that even the strongest of spirits can be broken by ruthless, autocratic societies.

Similarly, immoral conventional behaviour is also evident within the characters of The Great Gatsby. Jay Gatsby, the protagonist of this novel, is a prime example of conventional behaviour not always being moral, as critic H L Meneken states : Gatsby is ‘morally complacent’; he is likely to have committed crimes such as bootlegging in order to obtain status and wealth; ‘He and this Wolfsheim bought up a lot of side-street drugstores here and in Chicago and sold grain alcohol over the counter. That’s one of his little stunts. I picked him for a bootlegger the first time I saw him, and I wasn’t far wrong.'(TGG Ch7) . He chose to ignore the possibility of managing a business ethically in order to improve his chances of upward social mobility. A further example of Gatsby’s disregard for a moral regime is his choice to have an affair with Daisy and his indifference towards her marriage, and more importantly, Gatsby disregards the fact that daisy is a mother. This further exemplifies Gatsby’s willingness to desert conventional morality in order to acquire Daisy’s love, which amay be implored as equating to wealth; her voice was “full of money” (TGG Ch7).

Myrtle portrays similar attributes to Gatsby as, she, too, is engaged in an affair. Although, her lack of wealth contrasts with Gatsby she also wishes for the lifestyle of someone affluent and significant via, Tom, as a leverage, and in doing so, she exhibits infidelity towards her husband, George Wilson. It is apparent that Myrtle prioritises Tom and his money higher than she does Wilson; “I married [George] because I thought he was a gentleman,” (TGG Ch2). Fitzgerald shows the woman that Myrtle wants to be through her appearance: at home she is described as a ‘thickish figure of a woman’ (TGG Ch2) but when she was with Tom in his flat ‘she was now attired in an elaborate afternoon dress of cream coloured chiffon'(TGG Ch2). Myrtle tells Nick that she knew she had made a mistake marrying George because ‘I thought he knew something about breeding, but he wasn’t fit to lick my shoe.'(TGG Ch2). When she meets Tom, she sees a way to escape but she continues to suffer as Tom doesn’t treat her well. When she’s with him, she feels like a rich person, ‘she flounced over to the dog, kissed it with ecstasy, and swept into the kitchen, implying that a dozen chefs awaited her orders there.'(TGG Ch2). Myrtle is jealous of Tom’s wife, however, and goes too far by talking about Daisy when he tells her not to so that ‘Making a short deft movement, Tom Buchanan broke her nose with his open hand.'(TGG Ch2). Myrtle suffers because she doesn’t love her husband, has dreams of a better life with Tom but he won’t leave his wife and treats Myrtle badly. This is because Myrtle presumed that George shared her passion for upward mobility and that he possessed the necessary refinement to improve their lives, therefore demonstrating that Myrtle’s morals are clouded in materialism. However, feminist readers may sympathise with Myrtle as in that era social climbing was much more difficult for women than it was for men. Evidently, however, George did not live up to Myrtle’s expectations, and she, believing herself far superior, claims that “he wasn’t fit to lick [her] shoe”(TGG Ch2); the verb ‘lick’ implies she feels as though he is lower than her ,despite their equivalent social class, and feels as though she is far more superior to him. Considered in context, the quotation takes on contextual sense, but Myrtle exposes her own lack of ‘breeding’ by the way she phrases her remark; the sheer disrespect and immorality evident in her speech exemplifies this. She much rather prefers her immoral relationship with Tom Buchannan than her lawfully wedded husband. It is evident that affairs and unfaithful attitudes are a conventional and acceptable norm amongst this society, despite its lack of morality.

Lack of morality portrayed through the presentation of societies in both novels

It is unarguably true, that The Handmaid’s tale is a novel addressing societal issues. Atwood states in the ‘Historical notes’ section of the novel that “When it first came out it was viewed as being far-fetched. However, when I wrote it, I was making sure I wasn’t putting anything into it that humans had not already done somewhere at some time.” She did this to, in theory, portray the extent of the lack of morality in society. The novel is much closer to home than some may believe and is evidently relevant to this day and age. The Handmaid’s Tale offers up a bleak world in which women’s ability to control their own reproduction, and particularly to access safe abortion, is non-existent . This idea is introduced gradually over time: for example, Offred sees the bodies of hanged doctors who have carried out abortions and comments that “in the time before… such things were legal.” (THT Ch6) She also witnesses the funeral procession of a miscarried foetus – and, towards the end of the novel, notes that there are no ultrasounds or scans carried out in Gilead. “What would be the point of knowing, anyway?” she ponders. “You can’t have them taken out; whatever it is must be carried to term.” (THT Ch19). When such procedures were found in 1956 and made available, early responses were repellent of new technology because it challenged their morals. Atwood, perhaps, may be reflecting such attitudes here. However, while this may feel incredibly removed from our own lives, it’s worth noting that more than 40% of women around the world aged 15-44 live in a country where abortion is highly restricted (according to research by the Guttmacher Institute ). El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, Vatican City and Malta do not allow abortion under any circumstances, with doctors who find evidence of abortion forced to report patients to the police, even if the women are in need of medical attention after desperately self-inducing a termination. In addition to this, Atwood comments on how society is “… seeing a bubbling up of it now,” she said, referring to moves under President Donald Trump to restrict the right to abortion. Trump said in 2016 women should face punishment if they receive abortions, a comment he later retracted. This overall, may indicate that the conventional ideology of negative stigma around abortion in Gilead (and even still now present-day America amongst several countries around the world) and Offred’s desensitised nature towards this proves that Atwood exemplifies that conventional behaviour may not always be seen as moral.

A stark contrast to the futuristic theocracy of Gilead, the 1920’s American society, also known as the ‘Jazz Age’, was characterised as a period of carefree hedonism, wealth, freedom, and youthful exuberance. Due to these nonchalant attitudes, society was consumed by immoral behaviours simply for the ‘fun’ of it. This is exemplified in the parties held at Gatsby’s house; many people felt compelled to go to Gatsby’s parties as it was seen as ‘fashionable’ and a standard for everyone who was available to attend. However, at these parties, few exhibited restraints, they would, for example, get so drunk that they were unable to drive; “a bottle of whiskey was in constant demand by everyone.” (TGG Ch2), which entirely violates Prohibition policies as alcohol was against the law during this period. Similarly, we also see these aspects during Tom Buchannan’s party in New York which is a prime example for society’s lack of morality. Here, all the partygoers get drunk and argue over trivial matters, he becomes very violent as when “Making a short deft movement, Tom Buchanan broke her [Myrtle’s] nose with his open hand.”(TGG Ch2) simply because she mentions his wife, Daisy. His immediate reaction in becoming defensive and resulting to violence, proves that he is well aware of his immoral demeanour yet consciously chooses to disregard it to instead live in a fantasy world – elicited by the American dream. Truslow Adams says ‘The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunities for each according to ability or achievement’ . The Great Gatsby may be perceived as a tragic love story on the surface, but it is most commonly understood as a demoralising critique of the American Dream. In the novel, Jay Gatsby attempts to overcome his poor ‘past’ however, he is eventually killed after being tangled up with the ‘old money crowd’ for the majority of the novel – which may be indicative of Fitzgerald commenting that this dream will also soon die. Thus, the American Dream is sugar-coated with a rosy view of American society that conceals societal problems such as: systematic racism, misogyny, xenophobia, income inequality and tax evasion. Effectively, the ‘American Dream’ presents a myth of class equality when in reality America has a rather clearly well-developed class hierarchy. Through Gatsby’s life as well as that of the Wilsons’, Fitzgerald critiques the idea that America is a meritocracy; where anyone can rise to the top with enough hard work. As Sarah Churchwell puts it “Fitzgerald detected the ephemerality, fakery and corruption always lurking at the heart of the Great American success story” . In the first chapter, we are presented with 1922 America alongside some background regarding World War 1. This is a time of hollow decadence among the wealthy social strata- evident in the extravagant parties; “There was music from my neighbour’s house through the summer nights. In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars.”(TGG Ch1) We are shortly introduced to the working class people in the novel; George and Myrtle B.Wilson, these outcasts of society who are looking to improve their position in life; George through his hard work and through his business and Myrtle through her affair with Tom Buchannan. They both live in the Valley of Ashes- a virtual wasteland of the industrial products in New York City which alludes to the poem by T.S Eliot, “The Waste Land” , in which places and people seem dead spiritually and symbolically. Fitzgerald, who greatly admired the poet, connotes this same spiritual death in his description of the billboard of Doctor T.J Eckleburg, whose dimmed eyes, faded by repeated rains and sunny days, “brood on over the solemn dumping ground” (TGG Ch2), representing the ‘dimming’ morals of American society. Through these contrasting characters of the upper class and the working class, The Great Gatsby shows us both sides of the amoral Jazz Age the counterpart between a world of riches and an underworld of need, sleaze and violence (in the Valley of Ashes).

Lack of morality portrayed through the authors motives of both novels

Concurrently, in an article for The Guardian Margaret Atwood explained that she intended to present a dystopia from a female point of view; “The majority of dystopias – Orwell’s included- have been written by men and the point of view has been male. When women have appeared in them, they have been either sexless automatons or rebels who’ve defied the sex rules of regime” (Margaret Atwood) . Therefore, Attwood presents Offred, as the female protagonist and narrator to highlight the injustices (mainly in accordance to women) faced by the lower ranks of society. Atwood turned American democracy into dictatorship, in her portrayal of the fictional, theocratic society, Gilead. While the totalitarian regime in her novel doesn’t resemble our current reality, the power of the book comes from the sinking feeling that Gilead could exist in the realm of possibility- should certain events occur. Essentially Atwood highlights the immorality in this day in age and enlarges it to warn us and invoke pathos to anyone who reads it of the possibility of the dangers that may (even if seemingly far-fetched) arise.

Similarly, ‘The Great Gatsby’ could be implored as a novel of caution in relation to morals being spiralled out of control. Fitzgerald wanted to explore the American Dream and the lessons that could be learnt from its facade, as the novel goes through Gatsby’s desire to start anew and wipe away the past, which is part of the larger American dream of coming to a new continent and creating a new and improved society. As Richard Anderson states: “F. Scott Fitzgerald has the one thing that a novelist needs: a truly seeing eye” ; Fitzgerald beautifully accomplishes mastering a novel that was “consciously artistic” yet “beautiful and simple and intricately patterned” , according to the foreword to the novel written by Charles Scribner III. Therefore, Fitzgerald’s purpose may be received as a warning of morality that is dying.

Overall, there is an apparent contrast created between the ways in which conventional behaviour is presented as immoral in The Great Gatsby and The Handmaid’s Tale. F. Scott Fitzgerald conveys the idea that morality is something of little importance to many people, especially when it comes to obtaining status or wealth. As, Robert Orstein puts it: “In ‘The Great Gatsby’ Fitzgerald adumbrated the coming tragedy of a nation grown decadent without achieving maturity” , consequently, resulting into what they believe as conventional and ‘appropriate’ as the rest of society are engaging in this seemingly clouded way of living; ultimately disregarding their morals. Whereas, In the Handmaid’s tale it conveys a government taking complete control of women’s bodies through political subjugation which disables women from voting, holding jobs or properties, reading or essentially refrained from being independent to prevent them from undermining the state or their commanders. Despite the pro-women rhetoric that Gilead stringently enforce, women are evidently reduced to their fertility. Despite both novels varying extremely from each other they both show that society’s conventional behaviour is not always moral.

Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales depicts the journey of a group of individuals on a religious pilgrimage to the shrine of Saint Thomas Beckett. Chaucer uses a frame narrative in his satirical poem to convey his stories through the pilgrims. The outer frame begins with all his characters meeting at the Tabard Inn in Southwark to gather before they depart. The group amounts to thirty pilgrims, including Chaucer’s mouthpiece within the story, Chaucer the Pilgrim, who represent a cross section of fourteenth century England. Each socioeconomic class is represented apart from royalty and serfs. Here, they meet the Host, Harry Bailly, who prompts the crowd with a story-telling contest to keep the travelers entertained throughout their journey. Bailly suggests that the person who can tell the most moral yet most entertaining story within the duration of their pilgrimage will win the contest. Bailly will serve as the judge, and the teller of whichever tale he chooses will earn a meal bought by all his fellow travelers upon their return to the Tabard Inn at the conclusion of their excursion. Precisely, each individual must tell two tales on the journey to and from Canterbury. With this challenge in mind, the pilgrims set out on their adventure to the shrine. Throughout the trip, each tale creates the inner frame of the story. While four stories from each of the thirty pilgrims would have amassed 120 total tales, Chaucer only wrote a total of twenty-four tales, two of which are fragments. Of the twenty-four existing tales, the Pardoner’s is one of the most intriguing. While he himself is an entirely immoral character, he tells an entertaining and very moral tale. The Pardoner’s moral tale, while he is immoral, is a true example of Chaucer’s ability to match tale to teller.

The Pardoner is introduced toward the end of the General Prologue in The Canterbury Tales; within this introduction, his physical attributes are described in detail. He has “hair as yellow as wax” (Chaucer 21) hanging off his head “like rat tails” (21). Chaucer also describes his eyes as bulging, and his chin, having no beard, “smoother than ever chin was left by barber” (21). These qualities and his high, shrill voice have brought into question the Pardoner’s sexuality and earned him the reputation of “a figure debated in gender and queer studies” (Kern-Stähler par. 4). Through the characterization of the Pardoner, Chaucer has been credited with originally creating an openly homosexual character (par. 16). The Pardoner’s looks, sound, and acts leave the narrator questioning whether he is “a gelding, or a mare” (Chaucer, GP 21), and suggest that he is likely a eunuch, an effeminate male, or an effeminate homosexual (Kern-Stähler par. 4).

Alongside his physical attributes, the phrase “honey tongue” (Chaucer, GP 22) suggests that the Pardoner is witted and able to convince people of incredible ideas with his words. As a pardoner and preacher “he must sing well, and the addresses which win him silver take the form of either a homiletic ‘lessoun’ or a moral story” (Bloom 59). He uses such talent to sell the people relics and pardons, such as the pillowcase he brings along, “which he asserted was Our Lady’s veil” (Chaucer, GP 22). The holy objects he sells are purely for profit and of no spiritual value, but with his careful tongue and skilled words, he can talk the naïve townsfolk into purchasing anything that he offers. The Pardoner’s ease of misleading the common people and desire for money portray his corruption.

While “a pardoner was an ecclesiastical official who was licensed to dispense pardons … and sell relics” (Sauer par. 21), Chaucer’s Pardoner reflects the true corruption of the Church at the time when he uses his religious authority for his own personal gain. The Pardoner’s description, as well as his role in society, provides background for the Prologue and the Tale that he tells, which evince Chaucer’s ability to match tale to teller.

The Pardoner reveals his self-awareness in his Prologue when he “prefaces his tale with the long piece of self-characterization” (Malone 211). He describes the means by which he entrances commoners with “a haughty kind of speech” (Chaucer, PardP 241) and the “saffron tinge” (241) of his preaching, using Latin phrases to make himself seem more educated. His following words describe the relics he sells, such as the shoulder bone of a sheep which he claims will cure livestock of their ailments when dipped in a well (241). With the declaration, “The curse of avarice and cupidity / Is all my sermon…” (243), the Pardoner shares with his comrades that he preaches against the exact vice in which he himself indulges. His outright hypocrisy implies that the relics he distributes and the lessons he preaches are equally false. He admits to his fellow pilgrims that “he does not care at all about the spiritual well-being of those to whom he sells them” (Rossignol 270). They do not come from any divine inspiration, but rather the inspiration of greed and corruption. In saying, “And thus I preach against the very vice / I make my living out of—avarice,” (Chaucer, PardP 243) the Pardoner is recognizing and stating his own fault. He then goes on to denounce other sins such as gluttony, gambling, lust, and drunkenness, while the Pardoner himself is “Ironically… under the influence of alcohol and has just admitted to enjoying these vices” (Sauer par. 9). The Pardoner’s Prologue is, in essence, a confession of the way in which the Pardoner, while claiming to be a holy and God-fearing man, has prospered through taking from anyone who will pay. As Michelle Sauer writes, “it is confessional in nature and very revealing…” and “…attests to the Pardoner’s love of deception” (par. 31). He uses the talents of his voice to deceive others because “he must sing well…” (Bloom 59) in order to lure unsuspecting listeners into his trap. In his sermons, the Pardoner calls those who listen to shy away from temptation and greed yet “is not at all ashamed to say he does not care a fig about the state of their souls, but only about their pocketbooks” (Rossignol 268). Serving as the introduction to the Pardoner’s Tale, this Prologue is the Pardoner’s acknowledging of the pure hypocrisy which he will be sharing when contradicting himself in the tale to come.

The Pardoner swiftly rises to the challenge of telling the most moral yet entertaining Tale because as a preacher he is well versed in the type of tale necessary. He launches into a sermon which is “… unmistakably … a picture of him at work …” (Malone 213) and represents the type of sermon that he would preach to those around him. Specifically, the Pardoner’s Tale falls under the category of exemplum, meaning “example” (Sauer par. 24). The Pardoner uses his story to make an example of those who fall into the vices of greed and “… the preacher exhorts his congregation to beware of the sin or avarice …” (Malone 213). The characters in his story find adventure in searching for revenge for their comrade, who, as they have been told, was murdered by Death (CITATION). However, their toils only lead them to discover gold. Out of sheer greed, the three thieves formulate a plot through which they will steal the treasure. Their plan must take place at night, so they split up and send the youngest to collect food and water for the time being. Not only have they forgotten the entire plan to avenge their friend, the thieves also fall into their own avarice, each plotting to kill another to take the money all for himself. However, they all die by the conclusion of the story, and the Pardoner has completed his task of warning the crowd of greed. Through his characters’ drunkenness, he is also preaching against the sin of gluttony and the dangers of drinking in excess. The Tale is a noticeable portion of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales “… because of the context within which it is set as the tale told by the Pardoner” (Rossignol 270). Kemp Malone acknowledges that “the stories in the Canterbury collection are not there for their own sakes, so to speak, but for the use in characterizing the persons who tell them” (211). Chaucer uses the Pardoner’s Tale to characterize its teller because of the subsequent denouncement of avarice. As the Pardoner’s Prologue reveals, the Pardoner is hypocritically greedy but ironically continues to preach against greed. Rosalyn Rossignol concurs, stating, “The reason that this tale suits the Pardoner so well is because of the way it plays off the man’s occupation and those who buy his wares” (270). In regard to those purchasing his items, the Tale pushes them also toward his sales in order to find material solace in death as opposed to the characters who meet their demise in the Tale (270). The Pardoner’s Tale is appropriate to the Pardoner because of the strong ties to vices in which the Pardoner indulges so frequently. He even again pauses the main storyline and “proceeds to rail against drunkenness as a shameful vice even though he is drunk while telling the tale” (Sauer par. 3). Chaucer writes the characterization of the Pardoner directly into the Tale that he shares. Thus, the tale perfectly aligns with the Pardoner because of the direct parallel of every sin in which he partakes, denounced in his own words.

However, immediately after sharing his sermon with his fellow travelers, he implores them to buy into his preaching, saying, “‘Dear people. I’ve some relics in my bale / And pardons too, as full and fine I hope, / As any in England, given me by the Pope’” (Chaucer, PardT 257) and consequently asking, “‘If there be one among you that is willing / To have my absolution for a shilling’” (257). He is boasting again about having relics and pardons for sale then asking his fellow travelers to pay for them. In his drunkenness, the Pardoner gets incredibly arrogant and believes that even knowing how corrupt he is, the others will pay for his goods. Specifically, he calls the Host, Harry Bailly, out as needing his holy forgiveness the most, begging, “Come forward, Host, you shall be the first to pay, / And kiss my holy relics right away” (257). “Harry Bailly’s response is a violent verbal attack” (Bloom 59), as he replies in anger saying, “You’ll have me kissing your old breeches too / And swear they were the relic of a saint” (257). The Pardoner finds himself, once so vocal, left speechless (Rossignol 269). The commotion is only quelled when the Knight intercedes and facilitates the forgiveness between the Pardoner and Host. The Host’s angry reactionbecas can be expected because while the Pardoner would typically receive numerous sales after his sermons, “he has defeated any attempt to gull his companions by exposing his avarice before the tale is told” (Bloom 59). This again proves the pardoner’s “love of deception” (Sauer par. 25). He cannot resist any opportunity to gain wealth and even asks those around him “Do you think, as long as I can preach / And get their silver for the things I teach, / That I will live in poverty, from choice?” (Chaucer, PardP 244). The strong parallel between the Pardoner and his tale reinforces Chaucer’s perfect pairing of tale to teller in The Canterbury Tales.

The Canterbury Tales follows the story of thirty individuals on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Saint Thomas Beckett. This collection of poetic tales highlights Geoffrey Chaucer’s uncanny ability to match tale to teller. Through the narration of Chaucer the Pilgrim, Geoffrey Chaucer conveys a detailed description of each character, as well as an account of the happenings which occur throughout the pilgrimage. He expertly represents each social class of the time, excluding the royalty and the serfs. Chaucer’s renowned literary piece is a work which has been revered for it’s incredible storytelling and characterization. As all the thirty travelers relay their tales, the parallels and symbolism are evident when compared to their character. The Pardoner, a representative of the clergy, is described as a fraud and later reveals his own avarice in selling relics and preaching sermons. In fact, the tale he tells is a sermon instructing the listener to avoid the very vices which the Pardoner himself partakes in. Thus, the Pardoner is a critical example of Chaucer’s genius ability to match tale to teller in his acclaimed work, The Canterbury Tales.

The Picture of Dorian Gray, a Gothic novel by Oscar Wilde, was first published in the July 1890 issue of Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine during a period characterized by an emphasis on high moral sensibility and religious and scientific values. Upon being met by poor critical reception, the story engendered extreme controversy for including homoeroticism; offended book reviewers condemned its immorality, and some even believed that the author merited prosecution for violation of the laws regarding public morality. However, some of the criticism was personal with many reviews attacking Wilde for his hedonistic lifestyle and own moral beliefs. In the revised version, Wilde included a preface addressing the criticisms and explicating the role of an artist, the purpose of art, and the value of beauty: art may include vices and virtues but is not meant to instruct the audience on right or wrong. The preface establishes a foundation for how the book will take its course, the concept of aestheticism with no moral purpose mirroring how the titular character mindlessly pursues beauty above all else—a decision that instigates his soul’s perversion.

Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray adopts the “cult of beauty and pleasure” (Lusme), becoming a representation of the Aestheticism movement. Characterized by a hedonistic attitude, the movement encouraged the pursuit of pleasures and indulgences and emphasized beauty for beauty’s sake. Rejecting the traditional intellectual obligations of art, it exalted self-expression and the pursuit of aestheticism instead of the need for a deeper academic meaning (Lusme). Wilde’s aestheticism was the “deepest and most lasting of his passions” (Ross). Similarly, the character Lord Henry exemplifies the standard features of the movement; he lacks want of intellectual pursuits and claims that “pleasure is the only thing worth having a theory about” (Wilde). Attracted to the beauty of Dorian Gray, both he and Basil demonstrate an appreciation for the aesthetic that fueled the movement. However, Basil possesses a more innocent admiration for Dorian whereas Lord Henry’s is tinged with greater sinister implications. Notwithstanding, the more moral artist demonstrates the ideals of the movement of which Lord Henry is the paragon figure: he “puts too much of [himself]” (Wilde) in the portrait of Dorian, his form of self-expression revealing his obsession with the man. Basil intended to exalt the man’s beauty rather than an intellectual ideal. It is this superficiality that makes Dorian Gray especially vulnerable to corruption.

A self-centered and hedonistic aristocrat, Lord Henry “propels Dorian towards a life of self-absorption” (Alexandra), his influence engendering the character’s continued corruption and his ultimate demise. Through the leading character’s degrading soul and egotistical decisions, Wilde explores the pleasures and dangers of a lifestyle based on Aestheticism. Acting as a cautionary tale, Dorian indulges in decadence and explores a life free of visible consequences: no matter how cruel his actions are, he remains youthful and attractive (Alexandra). However, as much as Lord Henry advocates for losing oneself in idle pleasures, the aristocrat lacks the heart to wholly commit to what he preaches. Lamentably, this makes him naive to the depth of his influence on Dorian Gray whose increasing carelessness for morality eventually results in his karmic downfall. While the man abandons himself to hedonism, society fails to believe the terrible crimes he’s committed because of his innocent appearance; however, his increasingly appalling portrait exposes his true nature. This echoes the focus “on the individual will, imagination, and desire for self-realization” (Howes). Additionally, the theme of art as self-expression demonstrates its connection to reality—art reveals the truth about human nature. While the implications of his ways are superficially disguised by his striking appearance, Dorian’s hidden portrait depicts the truth. The despairing hedonist cannot undo its honesty, which represents the remainder of his moral conscience. Its grotesque appearance only probs at his mind and Dorian, a man who has sought beauty and pleasure, is exposed to the truth of his ways. When he can no longer bear its veracity, he annihilates the portrait to “kill the past” (Wilde), transferring to his physical body the eighteen years of horror it had hitherto avoided. The painting connects the soul and the body (Ozmen), which highlights the inevitability of the repercussions of a person’s actions.

Moreover, his behavior engenders appalling results for others. Almost immediately, Dorian falls in love with the actress Sibyl Vane. Gorgeous, talented, innocent—she’s won over the hearts of her audience and ultimately the infatuated Dorian. Her demeanor echoes his: naive and unaware of her attractiveness. His search for pleasure leads to a short love affair, however, his fascination for her is due to her beauty. In a way, he perceives her as a reflection of himself—a walking work of art. The man desires to position her on a “pedestal of gold” and have the world “worship the woman who is [his]” (Wilde). Overall, his affection is not fueled by genuine care for the actress but by arrogance. Thrilled about having such a creature idolize him, he desires to possess a woman with glorious talent, her attraction inflating his ego. Furthermore, Sibyl’s guileless nature allows her to fall head over heels for Dorian, and her acting performance sustains severe damage. Now that she has felt love so intensely, she cannot pour her whole being into cultivating a pretense. This again reflects the theme of art for only beauty and self-expression; an artist’s work suffers if she cannot convey herself with it. Nevertheless, Dorian rejects her under Lord Henry’s influence now that her beauty has been lost to him and this engenders her death. On his painted counterpart is a dark sneer; the portrait reflects his cruelty. From then on, his behavior only worsens, advancing from “merely appreciating Lord Henry’s wit and oddities to employing his own adages” (Pierlot). In being led to pursue pulchritude at the cost of other qualities, he initiates a path of self-destruction, becoming less and less capable of regaining his morality.

His untainted youthfulness only encourages further separation from his soul, the art liberating him (Jawich). His attractive appearance liberates him from moral bounds. Adhering to the philosophy that enjoyment must be sought after, the titular character continues to immerse himself in sensual and pleasurable activities (Alexandra). Driven to sin by an infatuation with beauty, the aristocrat is so obsessed with hedonism now that he lacks the emotional capability of a normal human being. Concerned for the young man he’d put on a pedestal, Basil confronts him and condemns Dorian’s increasingly reprehensible behavior—a choice that results in him being stabbed to death. The narrative articulates a “doctrine of pleasure that absolves individuals from the ordinary responsibilities for their actions” (Gillespie). Suffering from a troubled conscience, Dorian attempts to escape it from more sybaritic behavior: going to an opium den. With a soul so corrupted now, he cannot healthily cope with his emotions and instead turns to drugs to numb his feelings. Having spent so long searching for immediate gratification, he cannot properly handle such situations. Dorian’s continuing habits engender a perpetual cycle. The hedonistic lifestyle mirrors the effect of a drug: the high is fleeting and he must further immerse in ignoble actions to regain it.

Ultimately, Dorian confronts the loss of his soul but is incapable of seeking redemption due to his selfish and unempathetic nature. More specifically, his desire to reform hails provenance from his hatred of the unsightly portrait. His morality is so distorted now, Dorian believes that abstaining from breaking his latest lover’s heart–a small act of basic human decency–will reverse all the damage suffered by the painting. He has not profoundly amended his ways and instead continues to seek immediate gratification. Moreover, Lord Henry asks about the portrait during a conversation, to which Dorian confirms it has been lost. This marks his admittance of his soul’s absence, which the portrait has served as a manifestation of. Now the character has evolved from “his hesitant and instantly regretted exploration of sin to his eventual identification with sin itself” (Pierlot). So poisoned by his hedonistic lifestyle, the character has reached a point where he cannot bring himself to truly repent. Having never “done anything” (Wilde) throughout his life, Dorian seeks shortcuts–even in redemption–from indulging in opium to repress guilt to ending his affair with Hetty Merton. None of the actions the aristocrat takes require significant effort; he does not genuinely work to improve his character. Overall, this is why his attempts do not work for Dorian cannot fake morality. With a propensity to evade consequences, he instead dismisses the deaths he’s caused and fails to accept responsibility. Dorian Gray’s hedonistic ways and pursuit of empty pleasure and beauty have engendered his moral decay, leaving him a shell of the youth he once was. In the end, the only way he achieves redemption is through destroying the portrait and therefore accepting its grotesqueness onto himself. As illustrated by the character’s failure to “achieve this blessed state” (Parini), perfection is impossible to those who sin and the soul is forever stained.

A subject of dissension, A Picture of Dorian Gray was the product of Aestheticism concepts, serving as a novel of expansive ideas and eloquent language. The titular character Dorian Gray is a paradigm of the movement’s fixation on beauty and lack of moral or intellectual purpose. Mired in an obsession with superficiality, the character’s propensity to seek immediate gratification induces further corruption. The book, frowned upon by Victorian society for its depiction of hedonism, received significant backlash from reputable reviewers. While meant as a work of art with no intent of a moral purpose, Dorian Gray maintains a warning against corruption through an infatuation with beauty.

Works Cited

1. Jawick, Rihan. “3.1.2. The Liberation of Art.” The Concept of Aestheticism in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, 4 Oct. 2015, pp. 6, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/12932450/The_Concept_of_Aestheticism_in_Oscar_Wildes_The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray.
2. Alexandra, Diane. Oscar Wilde: Creating Art. Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/40667449/Oscar_Wilde_Creating_Art.
3. Lusme. “The Aesthetic Movement: Oscar Wilde.” Atavist, 13 Nov. 2017, https://lusme.atavist.com/oscarwilde.
4. Ozman, Doga. Art and Soul versus Body and Life in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture Of Dorian Gray, 31 May 2018. Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/37941702/Art_and_Soul_versus_Body_and_Life_in_Oscar_Wildes_The_Picture_Of_Dorian_Gray.pdf.
5. Ross, Alex. “How Oscar Wilde Painted Over ‘Dorian Gray.’” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 12 Oct. 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/08/deceptive-picture.
6. Pierlot, Anna. ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray.’ Catholic Insight, Oct. 2013, p. 34. Gale Academic OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A348786139/AONE?u=j020901006&sid=AONE&xid=7160d8fd.
7. ‘Overview: The Picture of Dorian Gray.’ Characters in 19th-Century Literature, edited by Kelly King Howes, Gale, 1993. Literature Resource Center, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/H1430001545/GLS?u=j020901006&sid=GLS&xid=257a4663.
8. Gillespie, Michael Patrick. ‘Ethics and Aesthetics.’ The Picture of Dorian Gray: ‘What the World Thinks Me’, Twayne Publishers, 1995, pp. 54-73. Twayne’s Masterwork Studies 145. Gale Literature: Twayne’s Author Series, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX1712600019/GLS?u=j020901006&sid=GLS&xid=e12673ea. Accessed 14 Dec. 2019.
9. Wright, Thomas. ‘Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray.’ British Writers Classics, edited by Jay Parini, vol. 2, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004, pp. 211-228. Gale Literature: Scribner Writer Series, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX1385500021/GLS?u=j020901006&sid=GLS&xid=3e3f091e.Ye

Morality is subjective to an individual and is not black and white, how one evaluates right and wrong is based off of the teachings and environment they grew up with and the circumstance they are evaluating. At a young age, parents teach their kids what is good and bad, and as they grow up, they keep and develop those moral standards their parents set for them, and those end up becoming their own beliefs. Without consciously thinking about it, people also passively absorb the ideas society has of what’s right and wrong. ideas of morality are not just one’s own but are evolved from ideologies witnessed through family and society.

Parents’ advisements heavily influence their kids’ morals. When a parent teaches their child right from wrong, that is the child’s fundamental moral basis for the rest of their life. Many juvenile delinquents do the terrible things they do because of how their parents raised them. If they were beaten as a child by their parents, that messes with a kid’s psychic and makes them think that’s a norm, and doing bad things like that is morally acceptable (Totenberg). In the first Kohlberg dilemma, the way Joe reacts when presented with his difficult predicament is based on what his parents taught him was okay. Is it okay for Joe to say no to his father, or should he honor him and give him the money? Joe’s decision will be heavily influenced by how his parents raised him (Kohlberg). Kids’ thoughts and ideas are constantly developing, and their parent’s ideas are developing with them. Kids aren’t being taught morality, but rather subconsciously absorbing their parents’ ideas of morality along with their own.

Morality isn’t as simple as judging based on whether someone did a good thing or not, there are times when people do bad things with probable cause, and in that case, circumstantial evidence needs to be used to evaluate whether an action is right or wrong. Juvenile cases are especially tricky to evaluate, because as Nina Totenberg says, “their brains are literally less developed, they are more impulsive, more subject to peer pressure and less able to see the consequences of their acts”(Totenberg). One cannot judge a teen the same as an adult, because they are on different intellectual levels. Every case cannot be judged the same, context must be taken into consideration. Without considering context, anyone who murdered someone would be facing life in prison, instead of taking into account self-defense or prevention of a crime. In the case of juvenile killers serving life behind bars Totenberg argues, “In cases dealing with punishment for juveniles, context is everything.” Sentencing juveniles to life without parole for a crime without factoring in their age or their circumstances is arbitrary and unjust. This is important because teens’ brains aren’t fully developed so they can’t fully comprehend or consider the long-term consequences of their actions. When judging the morality of anything, the context must be looked at to fully understand the circumstance at hand.

Environmental awareness is a crucial factor in the consideration of morality. In Japan, it is extremely offensive to have the bottom of your feet pointing to another person, and is considered wrong. In America, no one pays attention to the bottom of another person’s feet and there is no moral significance. Returning veterans are very aware of this environmental shift in morality. When Afghanistan war veteran, Capt. Kudo was fighting, he had to kill other men, and he saw those murders differently when he was in Afghanistan than when he came back home, “Capt. Kudo did not think much about killing the two innocent civilians while in Afghanistan, but later he could not stop thinking about it” (Martin). Determining whether it’s right or wrong to take a life is completely different in the middle of a war in Afghanistan, than any other kind of murder. It’s different for a war. Moral standards are different from setting to setting and impact one’s ability to evaluate right and wrong.

Morality is different for everyone and is complicated to determine, how one evaluates right and wrong is based on their childhood, parents’ influence, and the context of the given situation.

One of the traits of an epic is that a character must have a transformation of nature throughout their journey in the narrative. For the Odyssey, that character would be Odysseus. Through all the encounters with gods, giants, monsters, and humans, each which helps in his development, he is able to grow into a different man as he manages to survive and reach his homeland of Ithaca. Aside from gaining the heroic qualities that Greeks value, his morality also shifted based on the situation he was in. [will change the intro based off feedback]

In the story, Odysseus is portrayed as a good man with all the valued greek morals, doing nothing wrong to deserve suffering. This is first shown when Athena argues with Zeus to release him from Calypso’s island, as she says,”But my heart breaks for Odysseus, that seasoned veteran cursed by fate so long…”(Fagles 1. 57-58) Athena as a goddess stands up for Odysseus, insisting that the misfortunes in his fate were not of his fault, while implying the fact that she couldn’t help much even if she wanted to. Homer also chooses the word “cursed” indicating the torments that are involved were not chosen by Odysseus, but given. Throughout the epic, it is also stressed that he has his path set on returning home to his wife and son, even on Calypso’s island, he thinks,“By nights he would lie beside her, of necessity, in the hollow caverns, against his will… breaking his heart in tears and lamentation and sorrow as weeping tears he looked out over the barren water.” (Wilson 5.152-158) Despite Calypso seducing Odysseus with pleasure and immortality, he still weeps for a longing to return home no matter what. This sense of reunitement demonstrates the value of loyalty, where his heart remains pure to family, and is thus a moral character to Greeks.

However, on his journey and he slips from that [pure] mindset from time to time, he ends up becoming immoral, where the delay in his homecoming prolongs as well. This ignorance from the morals he once held can be shown in several situations. One of them would be his encounter with the cyclopes, Polyphemus. After being trapped by the monster, Odysseus begins to think of a plan to escape, described as,”I was left there, brooding on how I might make them pay and win glory from Athena.”(Lombardo 9.310-311) As he is forced to become cunning in this situation, it becomes more of a negative connotation. Odysseus used his wit to escape from a difficult situation, but unlike clever, he is deceitful and sly in nature. This shows that his heart is clouded, by wanting to gain something for himself only. After that, the instance following his escape, Odysseus once again does not make the right choices. He taunts the cyclops, yelling,” You savage! But you got yours in the end, Didn’t you? You had the gall to eat the guests. In your own house, and Zeus made you pay for it.”(Lombardo 9.477-479) His hubris took over and he believed he was powerful enough to mock such a monster. This behavior of exceeding human nature and comparing oneself to the gods was forbidden by greek standards, where Odysseus received retribution by Poseiden for the remainder of his time at sea. If he had not provoked Polyphemus and maintained the morals of being modest, his homecoming would have come drastically sooner.

By the end of the journey, when Odysseus finally returns home to Ithaca, he becomes incredibly cruel and displays merciless behavior towards the suitors. He slaughters anyone that gets in his way, to which is emphasized by the vivid images of Homer’s descriptions. When he was faced with Eurymachus, Odysseus responded,”…not even if you gave me your entire family fortunes, All that you have and ever will have, would I stay my hands from killing.” (Lombardo 22.65-68) Despite the begging and pleads, he refused to keep the suitors alive, which is not a trait a hero should have. After all the adventures he’s faced, it changed his character considerably. Instead of choosing who to kill, he now chooses who not to kill, showing his morality and views have been altered. The situation becomes worse when he asks for all his maids to be hanged as well, just for being with the suitors. Furthermore, he says,” You dogs! You never imagined I’d return from Troy, so cocksure that you bled my house to death, ravished my serving women…” (Fagles 22. 35-36) This reveals the fact that Odysseus knew that the maids were forced and raped by the suitors, but still decides to kill them all. He is immoral this way, especially when he [voluntarily] chose to be unfaithful to Penelope several times on his way home, but nothing that vicious happened to him.

Compared to the beginning, when all Odysseus wanted was to reach home to see his wife and son, his morals have adapted to fit his journey, shunning away purer thoughts, and becoming more immoral in order to survive. This immorality can be expressed in a multitude of character traits, such as the cunningness he needs to outsmart monsters, or disloyalty at times to prevent endangering his men.

In literature, tradition can be seen as the driving force for an idea or a question that the author feels the reader has to know. The theme of tradition can raise hypothetical queries about the validity of these practices. This theme and the questions asked regarding it can be seen in two of the most influential short stories in literature, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin and “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson. Both short stories encompass beautiful and utopic towns and cities where life is seemingly perfect. The narrators soon reveal that everything is not as it seems, as the rituals and beliefs of the townspeople show to be cruel. Their common theme of tradition is divulged in the terrible secret of Le Guin’s beaten and confined child hidden away from society, as well as the stoning of the unlucky winner of the lottery from Jackson. These immoral acts are rationalized by the people of these two places because of the belief that if the lottery is not continued, their crops will die, and if the child is no longer suffering, the people of Omelas cannot be happy. Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” and Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” explore the treatment of their shared theme of tradition through their form and literary elements.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, tradition is defined as “a belief, principle, or way of acting that people in a particular society or group have continued to follow for a long time, or all of these beliefs, etc. in a particular society or group” (Cambridge). Shirley Jackson and Ursula K. Le Guin’s short stories both take this definition of tradition and transform it into the theme that rules over the people of Omelas and the town in “The Lottery”. In the two different societies of these stories, the authors utilize tradition to show how tradition can take hold and not necessarily be the best for the communities. Paired with the literary devices of narration and symbolism, they aim to take tradition and turn it on its head as the “shock” of what the individuals believe and act upon is not expected.

The use of narration supports the theme of tradition as it relies on the unanswered questions in the short story. Le Guin uses the narrator to treat the confined child as a practice that has to be continued. With the revelation of the tortured child, the narrator attempts to show the reader that no place, or even idea, can truly be perfect. There will always be a sacrifice made, and it is shown to the people of Omelas at a young age to establish that they cannot live a happy life without this child. The drastic change from the description of the wondrous and ideal utopia to the tradition of the child locked away can bring up the questions that come along with ritualistic beliefs. The narrator breaks from these descriptions to ask “Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? No? Then let me describe one more thing” (Le Guin 3). This sentence, where the horrors of this poor child’s life are revealed, is placed to bring the theme of tradition into the light. Le Guin’s use of this theme is used in a way that introduces the questioning of morality.

The ritualistic abuse shown raises questions for some people in the town, but the sort of mob mentality that comes with the tradition stops them from actually helping the child. In an article detailing the idea of utopianism in “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, Gabriel Mamola sets forth the idea that the tradition is reliant on the narrator’s narrative and writes “the pivotal moment where the contract is introduced into the story and the city as contingent on the narrator’s rhetorical question” (Mamola 158). Without the narrator’s support and push to slash the idea of the perfect utopia, this idea of tradition would not be as profound. The previous description of the perfect city where beautiful music is played and guilt does not exist shows that the people who know of this tortured child are content with the trade of tradition for happiness. Le Guin’s treatment of this theme extends to the reader through morality and the narrator’s control of the story.

Similar to Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” and its theme of tradition is unexpected as the narration leaves the reader unknowing of the horrors to follow. The foundation built by Jackson’s narrator gives the theme a pedestal to stand upon, and unlike Le Guin, the narrator stands back from commentary. The narration of the short story is still important to the tradition in the text, as after the unlucky ‘winner’ of the lottery is chosen, the narrator gives context into how the townspeople proceed. By using the third person narrative to show the gruesome horror of this tradition, Jackson writes “although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. The pile of stones the boys had made earlier was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had come out of the box” (Jackson). Jackson’s use of the tradition of sacrificing a townsperson to continue having a good year of crops is meant to bring questions about why society continues with the beliefs or rituals that it does. Through the omniscient narrator, what is important to these people is established. To remain prosperous with their crops, which may be superstitious, the town willingly chooses to murder a person even after mentioning other towns were successful in ending the lottery. This is not something they have to do, but the tradition is carried on because they believe that it is what is right.

Jackson’s thematic choice of the ritualistic stoning in “The Lottery” completely shocks the reader. Elements like the foreshadowing of the children gathering the stones may not be recognized until after the short story is read, but contribute to the impact. In the article “The Lottery”: Symbolic Tour De Force”, Helen Nebeker notes that “This narrative level produces immediate emotional impact. Only after that initial shock do disturbing questions and nuances begin to assert themselves” (Nebeker 101-102). Jackson chose to leave the reader in the dark for most of the short story, and the theme of tradition is only taken lightly until the end because of this. This twist given to the reader that they are sacrificing a person and not drawing names to win a prize is unexpected, and this horrific ritual can be seen to symbolize many different aspects of the world.

Both “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and “The Lottery” stand to symbolize tradition in an idealistic world. Both authors explore the use of symbolism when looking at their treatment of the theme of tradition, but defying this tradition is something only Le Guin does. Indicative in the title of Le Guin’s short story, few people of Omelas do leave after finding out about the tortured child. They decide to ignore tradition and leave behind what everyone in Omelas believes. At the end of the short story, after describing why the people leave, she writes “They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness” (Le Guin). Her use of symbolism of this unknown place, showing the defiance or morality of the ones who denounce the ritual, is supportive of her theme. This ending also brings about the difficulty of abandoning something that the whole city is fine living with. Barbara Bennett’s article discussing Le Guin’s short story mentions, ‘The answer of where to go and what to do is a mystery of individual action; the only sure thing is that it will be difficult, symbolized by the mountains in the distance” (Bennett 67). The symbolism of the difficult journey ahead for those who walk away is juxtaposed with the whole city accepting happiness in exchange for someone else’s suffering because of tradition. The way the author integrates the theme into “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” is important to how Americans can respond to the sacrificed child.

Introduction to Revenge and Mortality

Edgar Allan Poe is most known for his short stories containing the same gothic themes. In most of Poe’s stories all the characters sound alike but in The Cask of Amontillado Montresor is different and has his own voice (Morsberger 336). In the act of committing a crime, it is for certain the criminal will do anything to justify what they have done whether they are right or wrong. The Cask of Amontillado is the confession of a man whose thoughts are subject to mortality. The murderer, whose name is Montresor, is telling the confession fifty years later which shows that he is older. Montresor is approximately seventy to eighty years old when he is confessing to the murder. Since Montresor is now elder it is possible he feels a sense of guilt for murdering Fortunato. At this point in Montresor’s life, it can be inferred that he feels his justification for revenge is not valid. In The Cask of Amontillado, Montresor seeks revenge on Fortunato because he feels he has betrayed and insulted causing many emotional and mental injuries. Montresor planned a premeditated murder on his at-one-point friend because he felt required to do so. Montresor’s reasons for murdering Fortunato were never lawfully justified. Since there were never any legal actions, there is only Montresor’s point of view of the situation. Montresor took it upon himself to resolve the issues never giving Fortunato the opportunity to explain why he insulted him or the opportunity to apologize and make amends. In The Cask of Amontillado, Poe uses his perspective of revenge and mortality to show how individuals justify murder.

Poe’s Personal Influences

Throughout Poe’s life, he encountered many grueling things that influenced his style of writing. As a child, both of his parents died putting him with a foster family. After his foster mother died he was disowned by his foster father. Poe faced many issues with drinking making his financial situation more difficult than it already was. Poe needed a way to express his feelings so he used poetry but soon switched to short stories because they were in such high demand. It is known that his main reason for beginning to write like many others was because of his financial situation. Poe needed to financially support his Aunt and his cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, who would become his wife (Delaney).

Freemasonry and its Influence

It’s easy to notice signs of possible depression from the themes of his tales and personal issues that he faced. Also, Poe’s affiliation with Freemasonry may be why he was so easily able to manipulate gothic effects in his works (Davis-Undiano). During this time in American culture, Freemasonry seemed to be a prominent issue that most people today do not know about. Whether you were a mason or not during this time, you knew about it and without intention had some affiliation with it. It is not clear whether Poe was a mason or not but he made sure it was clear that Montresor stated he was during dialogue with Fortunato:

“You do not comprehend?” he said.

“Not I,” I replied.

“Then you are not of the brotherhood.”

“How?”

“You are not of the masons.”

“Yes, yes,” I said; “yes, yes.” I said

‘You? Impossible! A mason?”

“A mason,” I replied.

“A sign,” he said.

It is this,” I answered, producing a trowel from beneath the folds of my roquelaire. (155-156)

In this dialogue, Montresor not only says he is a mason but refers to it as a brotherhood. This brotherhood reference can mean that freemasonry feels like a brotherhood to Poe and he wants to indirectly inform people on it. Being that during this time it was not something that people were so easy to accept Freemasonry it is understandable as to why Poe would slip references about it in his work. This reference could be taken literally by the reader and could bring assumptions of Poe’s evolvement in Freemasonry. The way that Montresor murders Fortunato is an example of a Masonic ritual and could be his justified reasoning for his revenge.

Montresor’s Justification for Murder

The word mortality is defined as the state or condition of being subject to death (“Mortality”). This tale showcases the theme of mortality because Montresor sought revenge on Fortunato. Elena V. Baraban refers to the murder as mediocre and states that Montresor’s elaboration on it was a sophisticated philosophy of revenge (Baraban). Montresor felt that he had been insulted by Fortunato putting him in a position to murder him. The act of humiliation gave Montresor the motive to murder Fortunato and get the revenge he feels he deserves. Montresor says, “The thousands injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could; but when he ventured upon result, I vowed revenge” (Poe 152). This quote is the opening of the tale and Poe is sure to make it so that the reader is immediately wondering what he has done and why. It is easy to infer Montresor feels that the revenge on Fortunato was caused by the thousands of injuries he received from him (Baraban).

Montresor is showing signs of guilt by immediately explaining why he felt he had to get revenge on Fortunato. I believe that there is a possibility of mental issues or insanity in him. It is possible that the thousands of injuries from Fortunato were friendly jokes that Montresor took the wrong way. The carnival environment where this tale takes place could have influenced Fortunato to make the jokes about Montresor. The way it is projected in this story makes it seem that Montresor is being dramatic and misinterpreting what Fortunato meant. Perhaps all the injuries from Fortunato could have been solved in a different manner other than the act of mortality. Fortunato’s life was taken away from him for reasons that are unclear. The act of mortality was unfair in Fortunato’s favor because his murder was never legally justified.

The Unveiling of Montresor’s Guilt

When Montresor made the decision to murder Fortunato he made himself the court because he decided to handle the situation his own way. There is only Montresor’s explanation making the tale into a mystery with the question of “Who did it?” and “Why did he do it (Baraban). Because there was no real evidence as to why Montresor made the decision to murder Fortunato, he just felt that was what he had to do. If this murder ever had that opportunity to go to trial all of Montresor’s reasoning would have not been proven as justified. Though the reasons Montresor presented for killing Fortunato were not valid he was sure to try and convince the reader that they were. In The Cask of Amontillado Montresor said, “I must not only punish, but punish with impunity (Poe 152). Montresor wanted to punish with impunity in order to free himself from the thousands of injuries brought on by Fortunato. Montresor had waited fifty years to talk about what he has done which means instead of feeling impunity he has a guilty conscience (Baraban). Montresor felt that this was something that must be done on behalf of him and his “fatherland” (White 551). Montresor is a part of a noble family, which means he holds certain responsibilities. He is showing a sense of patriotism to his homeland by feeling it was his responsibility to murder Fortunato (White 551). Since he has these responsibilities this revenge could have felt justified to him.

When someone has done what Montresor did they will do anything to convince themselves and others that it was able to be justified. It is almost impossible to establish what one feels when the thought of murder is on his mind. Every day people take their lives or the lives of others because of similar situations like Montresor’s. There is not really a logical reason but only a physiological reason for committing murder. In today’s court system with similar circumstances, the defendant would plead a state on insanity. Whatever Montresor felt his reasons were they were wrong and this crime was not justified.

Conclusion: The Justification of Revenge and Mortality

By analyzing this tale the reader is able to see that Poe uses his perspective of revenge and mortality to show how individuals justify murder. In all of his characters and themes, Poe seems to base it on similar gothic details, but in this tale the character was different. Montresor changed and developed into an inhuman person or “mad man” because of the circumstances of the issues he faced (Magill). Poe went through many things in his life that influenced who he was and how he wrote. Although it is impossible to exactly know why Poe wrote the way he did it is easy to wonder why. In this tale, the act of mortality was simply based on revenge that Montresor felt must be done. Through all of the same aspects, Poe was able to express why revenge and Mortality were justified to a character who faced issues that he needed to overcome. The way Montresor felt he needed to be free of impunity, which was similar to Poe wanting to escape financial instability or his alcohol addiction. After analyzing all of Montresor’s reasonings, were the revenge and mortality justified?

Works Cited

1. Baraban, Elena V. “The Motive for Murder in The Cask of Amontillado.” Rocky Mountain Review Vol. 58, Issue 2. (Fall 2004): p47-62. Rpt. in Short Story Criticism. Ed. Jelena Krstovic. Vol. 111. Detroit, MI: Gale. https://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T001&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=2&docId=GALE%7CH1420082755&docType=Critical+essay&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=MISCLIT&prodId=GLS&contentSet=GALE%7CH1420082755&searchId=R1&userGroupName=avlr&inPS=true#. Accessed 9 April 2019.
2. Davis-Undiano, Robert Con. “Poe and the American Affiliation with Freemasonry.” symploke. (Winter-Spring 1999): p119. Gale. https://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T001&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA70652421&docType=Critical+essay&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZLRC-MOD1&prodId=GLS&contentSet=GALE%7CA70652421&searchId=R2&userGroupName=avlr&inPS=true. Accessed 9 April 2019.
3. Delaney, William. “What Inspires Edgar Allan Poe to write?” enotes. https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-inspired-edgar-allan-poe-write-433789. Accessed 1 April 2019.
4. Morsberger, Robert E. Masterplots II. Vol. 1, Salem Press, 1986.
5. “Mortality.” Dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mortality. Accessed 10 April 2019.
6. Poe, Edgar Allan. The Fall of The House of Ushers. New York: New American Library, 1998.
7. White, Patrick. “The Cask of Amontillado: A Case for the Defense.” Studies in Short Fiction, Vol. 26, no. 4, Fall 1989, p. 551. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=1b12e085-60ed-474b-988e-c673e7db4eda%40pdc-v-sessmgr02. Accessed 11 April 2019.

The Victorian Age was a period of remarkable development, growth and change for England. Dramatic changes happened in all spheres: economy, culture, trade, science and particularly literature. Due to the advancement of printing press and the increase of literacy, there was a boost in the literary culture. Among other genres, the English novel is the form that flourished the most in this period. With many novels being published, certainly a few have been irreplaceable and have resisted time, ‘’Wuthering Heights’’ by Emily Brontë being one of them.

Published in 1847, it is one of the most important novels in English Literature. Its greatness stands on its authenticity, complexity of narrative structure and character depiction, among other unique elements. It is a novel that explores the depths of human passion and emotion, in a way and intensity that was never seen before and quite impossible to recreate. Though critics struggle to label the novel with a particular genre, it is mainly considered to be a romance with gothic elements.

Set in the moorlands of Yorkshire, the novel is centered on the love story of Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw. Their love is of grand passion and even crosses the boundary between life and death. ‘’The love between Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw is far removed indeed from earthly considerations, for they travel in spheres unrecognized by the mortals in the novel’’ (R.Karl, 1992, p.151). Furthermore, this love story, particularly after the death of Catherine, is extended to the lives of the generation to come. As much as the novel is concerned with life, love, childhood, civilization, it involves death, hate, adulthood, savagery and society, too. It is a combination of reality and the supernatural or fantasy; including characters that believe in ghosts and show inhuman traits.

As of structure, the novel is an embedded narrative; we have stories within stories that begin with Lockwood. As he is a newcomer, he is interested to know the history of his new neighbors; by asking to hear it, we (the reader and Lockwood), listen to it from the housekeeper Nelly Dean and experience some intrusions throughout the novel from the narration of other characters.

While it is a work combining numerous themes such as love, family, suffering, social classes, marriage, childbirth, transcendence this paper will be of focus on revenge on morality. The aim of this paper is to explore revenge and morality as a personal trait of the characters and as depicted alongside the community of the novel.

Thyestes is considered Seneca’s masterpiece and has been described as one amongst the most impactful plays. Thyestes is focused upon a plot encompassed by revenge, indeed mobilizes a fashion the standard connection between tragedy and viciousness, authority and sacrifice. Seneca was renowned as a stoic philosopher, praised for his philosophical works, and for his tragic plays. His writings established one of the most vital constituents of primary material for early Stoicism. His writings were the focal point from the Renaissance onwards, Revived by Italian humanists in the mid-16th century, they turned out to be the standard for the restoration of tragedy on the Renaissance stage. Seneca’s plays were adaptations predominantly of Euripides’ dramas, works of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Perhaps intended to be recited at elite congregations, differing from their originals prolonged narrative accounts of action. On the contrary, they abide by comprehensive narrations of atrocious conducts and comprise of extensive insightful monologues. Thyestes is one such example of Seneca’s literary marvels a first century AD Roman tragedy with a Greek subject. Thyestes is an adaptation of Euripides Greek play of the same name narrating the tale of Thyestes, who inadvertently consumed his begotten sons flesh who were slaughtered and served at a feast by his brother Atreus.

Atreus and Thyestes the descendants of the cursed bloodline of Tantalus, struggled for the throne of Argos. Thyestes employed seduction upon his brother’s wife to acquire the Ram with the Golden Fleece to capture the throne and was banished from Argos by Atreus, who then established himself as King. Atreus was white with vengeance and in order to avenge the seduction of his wife he pretended to hold a reconciliation with the vehement intention to eradicate a contender for the throne by rendering Thyestes unworthy an immoral in the sight of the people of Argos. In due course, Thyestes fell into the pitfalls of this plotting and sought forgiveness. Atreus under the umbrella of reconciliation endowed his vengeance upon his brother by murdering the two young sons of Thyestes and serving their flesh to their father at a feast given in honor of his arrival. Thyestes was sickened when he learned what he had feasted on. He cursed Atreus, all his off springs and absconded from Argos.

The dominant motif of the play is revenge as the action of this play begins with the revenge of Atreus upon his brother. It comprises of a profound construction of revenge tragedy as in the first act the grim and basic requisites of a revenge tragedy namely the presence of Ghosts, violence, brutality and Cannibalism. Seneca’s plays adhered to a V act narration punctuated by choral odes. Concerning Thyestes, it stood as a dark, static, menacing and excessively violence obsessed play. The initial phase of action is the appearance of the ghost and the Fury in Act I it mentioned the curse of tantalus and wicked descendant apprising him of the impending doom that awaits his progeny due to their immorality. This validates that immorality is manifest in their blood and they despite knowing the suffering of immoral and vehement actions pursue revenge as mentioned in fury’s verses

“Let blinding rage incite their minds, let parents’ madness linger and let their long cycle of crimes be passed onto their children…” (Thyestes, Act 1)

Madness is also highlighted in this exposition by hinting a reference to Tantalus madness and ferocity of sacrificing his son and feeding his flesh to the Gods which incurred him the displeasure of the gods. It also provides an insight to the impending heinous action of Atreus to inflict his brother and elucidates that each awaited revenge shall surpass the crime in itself and the one will be greater delinquency. ATREUS: Crime is limited when it is committed, not when the crime is repaid. (Thyestes, Act 5)

Atreus mentions in his confrontation with his adviser that killing his brother will be favor upon him compared to the suffering Atreus intend to inflict him with. This Play has been saturated with violence and further explores the psychological forces that trigger violence, consider Atreus anger that blinds him and makes him perform such an act of ferocity. The characters are self-reflective and introspective evident through their monologues but eventually seek motivation for their actions. Atreus is blind in vengeance despite his advisor’s warnings that his transgression will befall upon his people as well but he disdainfully mentions “A king that has recourse only to honest practice is poised to fall”( Thyestes, Act 2). This reflects the disastrous impact of emotions such as anger and lust. The dominant view of the play is un-stoic despite Seneca’s admiration of Stoic philosophy and his ethical works moral chaos predominates and evil triumphs over good. Indeed, a depiction of a godless realm in his plays is evident as Atreus is intoxicated with his power and considers his word above all morality “Kings may do as they please” (Thyestes, Act 2). All sorts of morality are defined by the one who seeks revenge as Atreus defies the concept of family Devotion upon his adviser’s enquiry and argues that his brother’s atrocious enactments were unpardonable hence Atreus was justified in all his transgressions according to the madness that encompassed his mind. Critics such as

Deceit and Cannibalism also strengthen the stake for revenge as Thyestes was lured by the acting of a clever deception, the conspiracy, concealing and pretending with which the revenger rendered his malicious resolve into frightful reality. The Elizabethan playwrights found Seneca’s themes of murderous retribution more amiable to English perception than his method. The first English tragedy, Gorboduc (1561), by Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton, is a series of carnage and reprisal an imitation of Seneca. The Senecan tragedy is also apparent in Shakespeare’s Hamlet; the vengeance theme, the corpse-strewn ending, and ghosts trace back to the Senecan model of Revenge tragedy. After performing the deed Atreus praises himself at the view of his brother’s despondency, a more fragile reference to the poem ‘now I praise my handiwork; now is the true palm won. I would have wasted my crime, if you weren’t suffering this much” (Thyestes, Act 4). The reference to such programmatic passages endorses the fact that Atreus perceives his activities as arty accomplishments comparable to those of celebrated poets even as he plans the final step of his revenge (Alessandro Schiesaro). Atreus recommends for Thyestes what the Fury had primarily communicated to Tantalus’ ghost “his sons’ mingled blood let the father drink” (Thyestes, Act 4) Thyestes recognizes Atreus’ exact intention due to his own failure to heed his own disordered but true presentiments. An evident cycle of revenge is ensured through personal justice Revenge doesn’t seize. It is a flag transferred ceaselessly from slaughterer to future murderer. In Thyestes, even the most heinous acts of violence were termed as justice. Numerous stories in which the cannibalism of one’s children serves as the sweetest revenge endorse the view of the play being a revenge play

Counterpointing all transgression is the Chorus, whose dialogues aid to establish a Stoic antiphony to the callous purpose and orotundity of the revenger. The desire that clutches Atreus at the beginning of Act II heads the index of his brother’s felonies approximately in fifty lines. This induces a dramatic prominence, explicitly, not on the motives for obsession but on the obsession itself. This precedence and the shocking superfluous emotion prompts that in Atreus’ lust for revenge lies the perpetual hunger of Tantalus. it can be supposed that Atreus’ growing rage by some means summons the loath ghost of Tantalus, the culprit of that earliest revulsion, and brings its rotten influence back into the world. The Fury, Megaera, is hence acting in retort to the malice that Atreus quests for. Atreus is The first victim of this connection. The ‘coming-in’ (Thyestes, Act 1) of the Ghost establishes itself in the success of evil in the revenger’s head consuming his own mortality. In Kyd and Marston this progression is protuberant; the shift from despairing grief to callous viciousness encompasses their heroes’ experience. In Thyestes, it is compressed into a few lines. Atreus is monstrous in intention virtually from the moment he first appears clearly, he lacks the kind of self-awareness about respiring an ancient role becoming, himself the model of crime. Revenge is the exertion of a rotten creative inventiveness. The victim, the audience, and all the generations to come will look upon the deed and say, ‘This is the worst.’

Alessandro defines that It is in this third and innermost level of the tragedy, where the revenge finally takes place, that Atreus doubles up, not unlike a cunning slave, as an actor in the play he has himself plotted. Nevertheless, the divinities seldom appear in these plays, ghosts and witches abound. It has been stated that Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus assassination of Tamora’s eldest son in a ritual of warfare induces rape and disfigurement of his daughter Lavinia. As his revenge, Titus slays Tamora’s sons, serve them as a feast this reference highlights inspiration from Senecan tragedy Thyestes and further reassures that such abhorrent actions necessitate a stern motive which in this case is revenge. Francis Bacon in his essay, ‘Of Revenge,” depicts ‘the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong, putteth the Law out of Office”. Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his Enemy. But in passing it over, he is Superior: For it is a prince’s part to Pardon.’

The theme of revenge looms large in Thyestes, based on a premise that was prevalent in Roman drama and revenge plays, that evildoers are individually responsible for their actions, that they must be punished, and that they are always deserving of the punishment they receive, no matter from whom they receive it, or how horrific it is. Actions based upon of one’s free will and with full knowledge of their consequences are decidedly untragic. They possess neither of the points important to the tragedy which Brereton mentions in his attempt at a universal definition an ‘unforeseen or unrealized failure’ and an ‘ironical change of fortune’. Hounded by the Furies, who take revenge on behalf of those murdered by blood relatives also endorse Revenge as the dominant theme of this play. Cunliffe describes a small group of early dramas as ‘Senecan plays,’ and further describes the Senecan influence in other plays which might, in his opinion, that the Elizabethan drama owes its admittedly worst defects, namely, the violence of action and affectation of phrase, in any marked degree to the Roman playwright. T. S. Eliot, it is true, occasionally commends him for a happy phrase or line, but more writes in the familiar vein of condescension. He confesses it difficult to imagine why the Elizabethans held Roman tragedy in such esteem. Further evidence of Thyestes being a revenge play is the first fifty lines of Act Two of Thyestes inspired the Elizabethan playwrights is that wrong is avenged only by a worse. ( Scelera). The dreadful structures of Seneca were not the only features of his inscription to fascinate these Elizabethan translators and to incite them. His moralizing was also interesting despite being overshadowed by his graphic descriptions of emotions and enactments. According to (Rees) even Shakespeare’s Hamlet inspired by Senecan revenge tragedy was mostly entertainment with its centralized theme of Revenge, trapped with proficient grandiloquence, intrigue, and killings-and Ghost.

A predominantly political reading of the play opens up the possibility of a moralistic reading but tames its deeper emotional power. Atreus’ anger at the incestuous betrayal and his horror at the thought that the children are not his own are emotions readily shared by a Roman audience, and his revenge fulfils a profound if repressed truth that in a similar situation they too would want to exact similarly gruesome retribution. As Freud famously argues about Hamlet, a successful tragedy focuses on basic sentiments and instincts of the human condition (Nutell)

Thyestes gave us immense evil. And even though that evil was allowed to take place, the play-world was still a moral one – the Chorus deplored and condemned the actions of Atreus, describing them as an ‘Inhuman outrage’. If there’s evil, and we can see that evil, then we have something. Atreus’s revenge was not tragic for him because he equated it with justice, but the fruits of that revenge were very much tragedy for Thyestes. Atreus’s sacrifice of the children does result in peril, but not for Atreus – for Thyestes. Indeed, as Atreus makes the sacrifice to himself, to his own revenge-lust, he is elevated to god-like status – securing at once his revenge, his kingdom, and the last defeat of his brother. He is able to look on gleefully, as Thyestes is bent to his will

I walk among the stars! Above the world. My proud head reaches up to heaven’s height!…I have attained the summit of my wishes. (Thyestes, Act 5)

Despite some critic’s arguments that this play possessed elements of a morality play the whole play is dominated by vengeance and depicts a Godless world where evil triumphs over good at all instances. The Greek concept of hubris is referred to as the presumptuous arrogance of humans who hold themselves up as equals to the gods. Hubris is one of the worst traits and invariably brings the worst kind of destruction but Atreus at the end of the play rejoices. Atreus’s plan is meticulously carried out. He kills the children knowing full well what he is doing preparing them like a sacrifice. But this sacrifice is not to appease any deity, only Atreus’s thirst for vengeance:

Incense was used, and consecrated wine,

The salt and meal dropped from the butcher’s knife

Upon the victims’ heads, all solemn rites fulfilled… ( Thyestes, Act 4).

A tragedy such as Thyestes necessarily had been a substantial task for its self-declared Stoic author. Joe Park argued that this play is a product of not only of Stoic thought but of the social and political situation. However, the symbols of morality were there as mentioning of Hell and Heaven the punishment of one’s wrongdoings but still, Atreus ‘extravagant revenge plot is triumphant, and Thyestes’ less than persuasive actions to limitation and ethics fall short. Eventually in my view this presentation by revenge, by the deteriorating yearning for retribution which covers generations and encompasses human as well as superhuman aspects. despite the choral reinforcement of moral principles, this play in itself is a revenge plot constructed on trickery and fabrications, and the spectators are provided with an epistemic belvedere from the initial stage, how that dissemblance functions. It would be far more optimistic, to settle that this critical breach between morality and immorality is what guarantees the philosophical and moral practicality of dramas concerning an alarming range around rage, vehemence, nefas and dismay. Even an act as revolting as the killing of children and the serving their meat to their father is considered justice when established in the framework of vengeance. Even in the end, Thyestes seeks a curse to be laid upon Atreus for his gruesome enactments hence carrying forward the long bore torment of revenge.

Works Cited

1. Schiesaro, Alessandro. The Passions in Play: Thyestes and the Dynamics of Senecan Drama. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
2. Cunliffe, J. W., The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, 1893
3. Crosbie, Christopher. Revenge Tragedy and Classical Philosophy on the Early Modern Stage. Edinburgh University Press, 2019.
4. Eliot, T. S., The Tenne Tragedies of Seneca, translated by Thomas Newton, 1927
5. Scelera non ulciscetis, nisi vincis. (Thyestes, 1956).
6. Sanctitas pietas fides privata bona sunt; qua iuvat reges eant. (Thyestes, 218-9)
7. Rees, B. R. “English Seneca: a Preamble.” Greece and Rome, vol. 16, no. 2, 1969, pp. 119–133., doi:10.1017/s0017383500016946.
8. Norton, Thomas. Gorboduc. Rarebooksclub Com, 2012.
9. Nuttall, A. D. “Freud and Shakespeare: Hamlet.” Shakespearean Continuities, 1997, pp. 123–137., doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26003-4_8.
10. Poe, Joe Park. “An Analysis of Senecas Thyestes.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 100, 1969, pp. 355–376., doi:10.2307/2935921.
11. Shakespeare, William, and George Rylands. Hamlet. Oxford University Press, 1993.
12. Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus: a Tragedy in Five Acts. D.S. Maurice, 1819.
13. Seneca, L. Annaeus, et al. Thyestes. Benn, 1982.

We all love nice cheap clothes that look good, they last maybe a few months at most before going out of fashion or breaking and then we just buy more. But do we ever question where our clothes come from and how they were made? Well according to an article done by Cornell University 80% of clothing in America comes from sweatshops. Sweatshops that use child-labor and on average these workers will make $200 USD a year if they even get paid because in a lot of situations workers are paid with a place to sleep and some food, so yes a lot of your favourite brands and companies are using factories with slave-like conditions.

So why do so many companies use sweatshops? Well, it all comes down to the same thing that everybody wants in today’s society, money. Sweatshops are so cheap according to MR online it costs almost nothing for a business to use sweatshops compared to how much they make from selling their products. And it would cost quote ‘dimes and nickels’ if we increased wages in sweatshops as currently there are children working 16-hour shifts with half the minimum wage as their pay. It’s not just the big companies to blame though, they are only trying to fit the needs of the consumer after all, yes due to our consumer habits of not wanting to pay for more expensive clothes companies need to adapt to make their clothes cheaper. Another problem is fast fashion can change quite quickly and companies need cheap and easy ways to quickly be able to produce new clothes as a lot of people will wear something a few times and throw it out as it goes out of fashion and they go and buy something just as cheap again further fuelling the use of sweatshops. If only we knew that we were funding horrible, slave-like conditions.

“So just how bad are sweatshops ?” You might ask. Well, bad. Firstly there is shockingly widespread use of child labor all over Asia, did you know that 22 million children die in a year due to poor conditions in sweatshops. Some of these poor conditions include: getting punished for a lack of work or getting sick usually by being whipped or having oiled rags forced into their mouths and some nights being locked in the sweatshops and being forced to work through the rest of the night until their quota is completed. This doesn’t just happen to children, it also happens to women as 85% of sweatshop workers are young women between the ages of 15-25 who are often forced to take pregnancy pills to prevent them getting pregnant and go on maternity leave which even if they do somehow get pregnant they will have to keep working to support their family as their wages are so low. They can not afford to stop working as they would starve and their jobs are so replaceable that if they stopped working they would be replaced in no time . “well the alternatives to sweatshops are far worse at least they are getting paid” is a common argument for sweatshops? That’s the problem though, with nowhere else to go people are forced to work in horrible conditions for pennies saying it’s better than their alternatives is not a good argument as sweatshops are still horrible and don’t pay much more, but what solutions are there.

So what are the solutions then, well you can start by doing research in the companies we buy from and where they get their products made, and if they are unethical in their practices take your business elsewhere. If enough people do this surely companies will realize this trend and change how they produce their products. “But that would be bad for the economy supporting a business based on ethics instead of price and quality”, well you can still take into consideration quality and price, there are plenty of companies that have high quality and well-priced items whilst also being ethical and if you care more about the economy than the human quality of life then you need to take a long hard look at yourself. We can also increase the wages of sweatshops, as I said in my first point it would cost barely anything, maybe only 50p more for those cheap jeans from New Look (known sweatshop users) could change someone’s life.

We have many choices in life, from what we want to do when we grow up, to whether or not we want to support business with little to no morals. As consumers we can influence what businesses do, from fashion to how they make their products if businesses realize people are no longer buying their cheaply made clothes/products and instead were taking their business to places such as Boden, a UK based business which is dedicated to ethically sourcing their clothes and are against fast fashion making their clothes last longer, other companies might start taking notes and also start being more ethical, of course, this choice would not be out of the good of their heart but rather to keep relevant and profitable it’s still better than nothing. Remember it’s not just the business that needs to change, we also must make a change, we must reject fast fashion and buy better quality items.