Category: Power

Authors may dismantle and reconstruct elements of another text to remodel enduring ideas for new audiences, positioning us to embrace new perspectives, values and contexts. By dismantling and reconstructing the Jacobean drama ‘The Tempest’ (1610), Margaret Atwood is able to imitate William Shakespeare’s timeless ideas, through her postmodern novel ‘Hag-Seed’ (2016), which resonates with ‘The Tempest’ by exploring the ability for power to provoke vengeance while offering the value of forgiveness. However, by acknowledging the power of grief to constrain, she frames Shakespeare’s Jacobean with a more relatable dimension, offering a new insight on power.

Atwood recycles and reimagines ‘The Tempest’ insights on power for the purpose of engaging a modern audience with the timeless notion of revenge, warning readers about power’s capacity to imprison us. ‘The Tempest’ reflects the Jacobean value of the Great Chain of Being, which held that a person’s rank and position was decreed by God, and any violation would be punished. Shakespeare initiates this broken order through the pathetic fallacy, “a tempestuous noise of thunder and lightning heard”, this stage direction foreshadows a sense of chaos. He is able to effectively expose Prospero as a “master of a full poor cell”, alluding to the island as a jail, which we quickly realize is a plot of retribution after his forced abdication. His vengeance is established in the metaphor “my high charms work, and these, mine enemies, are all knit up”, as Shakespeare challenges the audience to condemn Prospero’s use of magic and the metaphoric “sweet airs” of the island to justify his revenge rather than seeking Christian redemption through forgiveness. As Prospero’s vengefulness fades, he forgives his enemies, “I am woe for’t, sir”, contrasting his qualities at the beginning of the play with his sudden necessity for forgiveness. Atwood significantly dismantles this vengeful protagonist by reconstructing Jacobean themes of political betrayal within a postmodern context, as opposed to losing a dukedom, Felix is dismissed as artistic director. Felix’s vindictive character resonates with Prospero, which is illustrated by the metaphor: “It rankles. It festers. It brews vengefulness”. The anaphora emphasizes the unnamed hatred towards Tony for his usurpation. Felix preserves his power by using the jail as his ‘island’ and a literacy program which allows his to direct his Tempest as ‘mine art.’ This metafictive intertextuality allows his to ensnare his prey, through the metaphor “he follows them through the vibrations of the web, playing spider to the butterflies”. Atwood forces the modern audience to question Felix’s lust for revenge, “Is extreme goodness always weak? Can a person be good only in the absence of power?”. This uncertainty catalyzes Felix’s transformation resembles Prospero’s apology, “It’s not my play… it’s our play”, showing Felix’s progress throughout the book parallels Prospero’s. The intertextual link to ‘The Tempest’, “he’ll break his staff, he’ll drown his book”, depicts Felix giving up his supremacy – magic, the theatre. Here Felix’s character collides with Shakespeare’s Prospero and is greatly reconstructed to reflect 21st century interpretations of control, while Atwood successfully cautions us to expel these self-destructive emotions.

In ‘Hag-Seed’, Atwood dismantles and reconstructs Shakespeare’s portrayal of the role of power and its drive, making the protagonists insane, while captivating her contemporary audience with the significance of mental health and the toll it takes on people in power. In the Jacobean era, Shakespeare’s audiences understood Prospero’s madness to be a result of his indulgence in the dark arts and dominance, thus breaking Christian values. This is achieved initially through the setting, as Miranda expresses through the simile, that their life on the island is “rather like a dream”, presenting this motif of sleep as not only metaphorical, but depicts the island as a magical place that may only exist subconsciously. This idea becomes more prominent Prospero’s prisoners on the island begin to rhetorically question, “O, the heavens! What foul play had we that we came from thence? Or blessed was’t we did?”, as they begin to query their faith. It is ironic that Ariel, who carries out Prospero’s magical acts, is the catalyst for his redemption through a renewal of Christian values. The personification “I fear a madness held me,” conveys that Prospero has tempered both his anger and vengeance, and can stop enslaving Ariel to his dark arts. This is created through the hyperbole “shalt have the air at freedom” followed by the emotive language “be free, and fare thou well”. Atwood is able to rebuild Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ by replacing Christian values, by engaging with Felix’s undiagnosed but evident depression, reflecting the modern understanding of the capacity for supremacy to catalyze poor mental health. Felix uses Miranda, his late daughter, as his Ariel – a map to freedom from power in the personification that she is “frozen in Time’s jelly… where she is visible, but not alive”, paradoxically conveying his poor mental health as a result of his grief and power. The motif of dreaming across the book and play allow for ‘sleep’ to be time for the protagonists to find their ‘guardian angels’: “Too much time alone with his grief eating away at him… He felt as if he were waking up from a long and melancholy dream”. Atwood uses the metaphor “How long will you keep yourself on this intravenous drip?”, implying that Miranda’s image is his metaphoric ‘intravenous drip’, the only thing keeping him alive. Felix finally lets go of Miranda, a parallel with Prospero letting go of Ariel with the intertextual reference “to the elements be free”, letting go of his grief and power. Atwood’s Felix and Shakespeare’s Prospero resonate as they both are mentally imprisoned and find that seeking retribution and power holding them back is the image of Miranda and Ariel, as Atwood effectively achieves a textural conversation and reconstruction of ‘The Tempest’.

Therefore, in ‘Hag-Seed’ Margaret Atwood recycles Shakespeare’s timeless notions of vengeance, and forgiveness, while dismantling and reconstructing them in order to engage a contemporary audience. She aims to position us to embrace 21st century insights on power, particularly its cause of destructive emotions through vengeance, but to reach redemption through forgiveness.

Power is something that is impossible to avoid and is something that we come into contact with every day, even if we don’t realize it. It is something that the majority of mankind strives to attain, and is never easy to do so. As defined by www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com, “the standard theory is that power is the capacity for influence and that influence is based on the control of resources valued or desired by others”. In other words, the nature of power is the group of people whose opinions and judgements have the most influence, and therefore have the most power on the majority of the people (population wise). It is the magnitude of ability to bring about outcomes or changes in the world. This influence can be abused or used for the common good of the people. This essay will discuss how a certain group of people in society has the nature of power and how they keep it in their own control.

In our society today, it is a common opinion (and a reoccurring discussion in my house) that celebrities have the biggest power/influence on adolescents and even older generations. Since social media has come a part of our everyday lives, we are constantly seeing what celebrities think and their opinions, if they so choose to display their beliefs online. Since the average teenager is not watching the news or looking at a variety of perspectives on certain issues, especially if current events are not often spoken about in their homes, these celebrity opinions are all that they are going to know and that’s all that they are going to believe. Especially considering that the majority of celebrities have similar political opinions, this results in the majority opinion of youth being the same as these well-known people. Additionally, adolescents may think that their opinions are more valid because they have the backing of the biggest and most known celebrities. Along with political influence, these celebrities also definitely hold much of the nature of power when it comes to style, music, and anything else that is categorizes with ‘pop culture’. Celebrities such as Kylie Jenner, Beyoncé, Rihanna, etc. have a lot of power when it comes to setting trends and unique styles. If one of these huge celebrities were to put on something so random and quirky and go out in public, it would be seen as some of the most refined and elegant wardrobe pieces to be seen. It’s almost as if society is blinded by their popularity, that it doesn’t matter what they do or wear. In a similar sense, when Joe Starks and Janie in ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ come to this beaten down ‘village’ and fix it up into a real running town, Joe is seen as a sort of celebrity, and no one dares to question him or any of his doings, even if they don’t necessarily agree with him. Even after some time has passed and the people of the town start to doubt what he is doing and aren’t as fond of him anymore, they are still too afraid of his power and don’t try to question him to his face. Since the people of the town don’t really know any better because Joe Starks has been the only person to step up, they don’t think too much of it when he does something that seems to be only for the benefit of himself.

Another specific group of people who hold a lot of the public eye are those whose jobs literally give them the power. For example, congressmen, senators, or any kind of politician have a lot of power. Again, the amount of followers and the amount of what they have definitely can be a large factor in the quantity of nature of power that they can hold themselves to. Since this group of people actually hold the power in that their votes are what can determine a law from being put into action or denied, it can be argued that they also hold a lot of power in our society. Since politics are a huge part of our daily lives, it can really affect people’s lives in unexpected ways. For example, friend or even family relationships can be broken up because of differences in political beliefs. To be more specific, if there is an instance where a politician does something that can cause a lot of conflict, there will be debates about it in our personal relationships and it can end up badly. This shows the amount of power that these people hold in society, and it can be a scary thought. In ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ Nanny can be seen as a ‘political figure’, at least in Janie’s personal life, because she is the one who tells Janie that she should marry Logan to be safe and secure. Nanny has such a powerful influence on Janie’s life because Janie is under the impression that Nanny has a lot of life experience. This is similar to the people in society who automatically put all of their trust into politicians who they assume have all the experience in the world. In the end, Janie regrets her choice to marry Logan and even ends up running away from him. This shows the amount of power that Nanny held in Janie’s life, even when she was gone.

As discussed, these people (along with many other) hold much of the nature of power. In order to keep it, they have to keep up with their followers and assure that their actions to not defer someone from following them any longer. As much as these people hold power, their followers are just as important to them. The advocates can determine whether or not they even have a following anymore. A celebrity and politician need to ensure that their actions are not going to offend or upset their followers or else they will immediately become ‘evil’ and no longer have their power. Their actions need to be up to the standards of society. For example, if an artist were to come out with a new album and their promoters are not very fond of it, they will lose that popularity and everything else after that could be seen as ‘not good enough’ as their former music. As an artist, you need to constantly be outdoing yourself. The same thing goes for a politician. If they make a mistake or a piece of information from their past is dug up, they will no longer be seen as trustworthy and could possibly lose their body of support. In order for Joe Starks to keep his power, he has to make significant change in order for people to want him to be in power. “All we can do, if we want any light after de settin’ or befo’ de risin’, is tuh make some light ourselves. So dat’s how come lamps was made. Dis evenin’ we’se all assembled heah tuh light uh lamp” (Hurston, 45). This instance is an example of how Joe marked his power and a foreshadowing of how he is going to keep it. In order to get the people to trust him, he had to do something drastic, such as building a lamppost in the middle of town. This can be seen as a foreshadowing because this is the first of many things (such as the store) that he is going to bring to this town that are going to shed some light on this society.

To conclude, I believe that there are two main groups that hold the power of nature in today’s society, although there may be more. These two groups have an effect on our everyday lives and can be something that not everyone will be okay with. We see these groups work through the characters in ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’, through Joe Starks and Nanny.

Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ textual converse with Atwood’s ‘Hag-Seed’ examines the gradual descent of power and authority in society, infecting individuals with merciless corruption leading to disastrous consequences. Through the dramatic plot and characters, Shakespeare represents the volatile aspect of the human nature, reflecting the complex issue of power and authority related to the context of rising political power and the downfall of religious authority. On the other hand, Atwood’s personal context reframes this idea through a modern political lens on the battle for women’s rights and criticism of the government power due to its fiscal policies.

Prospero’s desirable ambition for power and authority transforms his ideologies, influencing him to act mercilessly out of vengeance against his opposers, due to being dethroned from his dukedom: “Pox o’ your throat, you blasphemous, incharitable dog”. Through the implementation of violent animalistic imagery, Shakespeare portrays the role of power on catalyzing corruption and revenge in individuals, hence revealing Prospero’s aggrieved sentiment, which is symbolic of his vengeance. This foreshadows the upheaval in the play and highlights Prospero’s merciless attitude through his slave master relationship with Ariel. In contrast, Atwood offers a more contemporary view of power and authority in ‘Hag-Seed’, as it is translated from the court to a professional vocation, and then to politics. In addition, the consistent application of Prospero’s magic as a motif is symbolic of the Renaissance context of how the portrayal of magic in a theatrical performance was risky. This extends to the indirect motif of dark political power throughout the play, “Till thous hast Howl’s away twelve winters”, revealing Prospero’s threatening and authoritative tone, portraying the dark nature of his power. Also, the hyperbole speaks to the long-term repercussions of his actions, and the cold imagery is symbolic of his immoral attitude. Another recurring motif throughout the play, represented in the hellish imagery in the language of biblical allusion, “Hag born dam” and “hell is empty and the devils are here”, further highlights Prospero’s hypocrisy due to his evil nature. However, the biblical allusion relates to the Renaissance due to the fall of power in the Roman churches during the Renaissance.

Overall, the ideas of power resulting in the destruction of one’s humanity is examined within the textual converse of Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ and Atwood’s ‘Hag-Seed’, reflecting how the resonances and disparagements portray the context and values of both texts holistically through the lens of a contemporary audience.

‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel, explores, through the character of Offred, power within the totalitarian state of Gilead – where fertile women are treated as the property of the state, subject to systematic rape and subjugation. ‘The Power’, also a dystopian novel, published by Naomi Alderman in 2016, explores a world in which women become the dominant figures in society through the development of a ‘skein’ that enables them to release dangerous electrical impulses. The theme of power is central to both novels, providing a platform to explore the effects of indoctrination, violence and gender – all of which the writers use to illustrate how power is maintained, propagated and abused. The way in which power is portrayed in both novels has clear links to the contexts of both writers’ and previous events – implying that both writers use their novels as some form of warning to their readers against the dangers of power and their dystopian societies.

Firstly, common to both novels is the portrayal of power as something which can easily corrupt those who have it, as they seek to hold on to it through any means, including oppression and violence. The ease at which power is abused in both Atwood and Alderman’s dystopian worlds presents it as a dangerous entity of which to be fearful. The abuse of power is most explicitly explored through dramatic, uncomfortable descriptions of rape. In ‘The Handmaids Tale’ the handmaids, fertile women, are reduced to breeding vehicles, subjected to systematic, coercive rape to produce children to ensure the survival of Gilead – this is evident through: “The Commander is fucking. What he is fucking is the lower part of my body. I do not say making love, because this is not what he’s doing”. The impactful short declarative sentences create a sense of detachment and unease both in Offred and the reader, intensified by the plosive and guttural sounds; effective in that the description is uncomfortable to read and digest. Arguably, Atwood maybe trying to highlight the state’s power and how the roles assigned to people are a means of detachment, created to control and maintain order, as they oppress and strip people of any individuality. Fredrik Pettersson argues that this is “reasonable to say that is it actually the values of Gilead, or patriarchal discourse, which has intruded in Offred’s way of thinking”, highlighting the manipulation and indoctrination that has taken place, allowing Gilead to exert such power. This sense of detachment created can also be seen through the names given to the handmaids, emphasizing how horrifying the position they are confined to is. Offred’s original name, June, is taken away from her, and she instead given the name of her commander ‘Fred’ with the added prefix of ‘Of’, meaning belonging to – her individuality in this sense is completely stripped from her: she is dehumanized, treated like a possession, which will be discarded of when used. Alternatively, Atwood also states that her name has another meaning: “Within this name is concealed another possibility: ‘offered’, denoting a religious offering or a victim offered for sacrifice”.

Alternatively, Atwood could be reflecting Offred’s psychological power – the feeling of emotional detachment implies that she is successfully able to distance herself from the regime, giving her some sense of freedom from the power of the state, and also possibly a sense of victory as she is refusing to submit. This idea is supported by Callaway who states that “detaching from her body enables her to detach from her emotions”. As a feminist, it could be argued that Atwood is spreading an empowering, positive message of resilience against oppression to women in her contemporary society to stand up against their subjugation. Past events can clearly be argued to have impacted on Atwood’s narrative with the systematic rape of fertile women in Gilead to increase birth rates, eerily reflective of the Lebensborn program in Nazi Germany. Germany, in 1935, similar to Gilead, had declining birth rates, so Himmler created a breading program where SS members ‘mated’ with suitable German women to create an ‘Aryan future’.

Similarly, in ‘The Power’, the abuse of power is explored through shocking descriptions of abhorrent acts of rape and violence. Alderman has, in her dystopian matriarchal world, flipped societal expectations and stereotypes of rape by making men the common victim, as contextually in modern society men are responsible for the vast majority of sexual violence. Alderman, like Atwood, uses impactful, declarative sentences, evident in “…jolts him fiercely, right through the scrotum. It’d feel like a glass spike, driven straight through. Like lacerations from the inside”, during her description of rape to emphasize the sickening, disturbing nature of what’s going on. This furthered through the use of sibilance, creating a sense of sinister and evilness, and the abrupt, powerful monosyllabic ‘glass’, ‘jolts’, ‘spike’ and ‘straight through’ possibly reflecting the ‘jolts’ and pain the innocent man is subject to. Furthermore, the fast pace created implies the helplessness of the man in this situation, highlighting his inferiority and powerlessness. Rape is also evident elsewhere in the novel when a random woman attempts to rape Tunde – the uncomfortable and sinister sibilance of “She licks her lips. He can see her skein twitching at her collar bone, a living worm”, whilst creating energy and pace when reading furthered by the assonance, again creates a sense of evil and possess a threatening nature. The metaphor describing her as a ‘living worm’ not only emphasizes her animalistic nature, implied through ‘licks her lips’, but also maybe her persistence, as when cut in half worms are known to survive. In deliberate choice of sentence length and sounds, emphasizing the wickedness of what these women are doing and how they are using the skein to gain power in this situation, Alderman is successfully highlighting the power imbalance of the scenario creating empathy within readers, not only for this man, but men in general in the novel. Published in 2016, a time when feminist movements were as strong and relevant as today, yet before the #MeToo Movement, Alderman’s portrayal of men as victims is shocking and thought provoking. The #MeToo Movement has arguably sidelined males, almost showing women as the only victims. In reversing societal expectations and stereotypes of rape, this juxtaposition is perhaps designed to open the reader to how easily power is open to abuse by anyone – the destructive and controlling impact of this connoted by the effective use of violent language.

The presentation of power as easily corrupting and open to abuse is effectively explored by both authors. Arguably, Atwood is more successful in achieving this through her straightforward and unembellished account of the abuse handmaids suffer as reproductive slaves. The simple, emotion lacking description of rape highlights the indoctrination by the state of those in society to see this as normal, in contrast to Alderman’s description, which implies rape still as explicitly and clearly wrong. This sinister image of totalitarian regimes is powerful to readers as we fear a future society ruled in a similar way.

Additionally, both authors use different narrative structures in order to highlight the impacts of power on their characters and the wider society. Atwood’s choice of a palimpsest, fragmented structure is effective at exposing concurrently Offred’s current bleak existence, as well as her painful memories. It is unique and successful in showing the before and after of the powerful, totalitarian regime, whilst also echoing the sense of shock and disorientation Offred experiences. Furthermore, Atwood’s choice of a first-person narrative is effective as it allows Offred’s story to be more personal in emphasizing the power that the regime holds over her as readers are given a greater insight into her emotions – furthered by a sense of a personal connection between the reader and Offred’s character created by the storytelling nature of her account. For example, the excessive use of personal pronouns in “By telling you anything at all. I’m at least believing in you, I believe you’re there, I believe you into being” not only creates a bond and effectively includes the reader, but the role of storytelling as an act of resistance is also explored. The personal pronoun of ‘you’ could symbolize Offred reaching out as a form of survival, whilst also showing her hope for escape. Readers are guided into their role as participants in Offred’s subjective account and survival, and therefore it could be argued that the lack of power she experiences is exacerbated in our eyes because of such an involvement. By Offred giving an account, she is automatically challenging the rules of Gilead, where the sight of letters and words is deemed to be ‘too much temptation’ for them.

Atwood’s use of first-person narrative is also significant as, from a feminist perspective, it could be argued that Offred, who serves as an intradiegetic narrator, is writing on behalf of other women who are lacking such a voice, further emphasizing the notion of storytelling as a form of survival. Some may interpret the novel as a cynical comment by Atwood on the patriarchy that defines Western society which holds centrally the denigration of women. In this sense, a feminist viewpoint may then see the narrative structure in terms of the stories of many women’s voices, protests and oppression, supporting the idea that Offred is the voice of many and not solely herself.

Contrastingly to Atwood, Alderman writes in transparent third person narrative allowing for a wider look at the impacts power has on society. Written through four different character narratives, whose stories eventually come together, allows for Alderman to view the effects of the skein globally, as well as from both male and female perspectives. This idea furthered by Jenna Todd who states that “Alderman’s structural style of telling the story from the four different narrators is a clever tactic to gain a broader view of the epidemic”. Impacts of the skein are effectively reflected through the narrative structure of ‘The Power’. For example, with Alderman focusing on a shift in power balance, three out of four of the main protagonists are women, and thus they dominate the narrative. Schonewill states how “this exemplifies how the social role of women has turned around drastically: from women being objects in a male-dominated social reality, to women now becoming the leaders of the narrative”, and as such they can reshape how history is experienced and therefore told. Through this third person narrative, a more descriptive, less emotional account of Alderman’s new fiction society exists, and the story is arguably more reliable.

The different narrative structures employed by both writers create different effects and serve to highlight varying aspects of their story. Despite Alderman’s use of narrative structure, allowing her to show the effects of changing power structures on a global society, Atwood’s first person is more personal and therefore it could be argued that a greater connection to the reader is created. She also allows for Gilead’s impact on others, and not just Offred, to be relayed through Offred’s narrative and her questioning of others experiences, allowing readers to gain a greater and more personal insight into the effects of oppression.

Further differences in the presentation of power can also be seen. In ‘The Handmaids Tale’, power is presented as fiercely destructive and dangerous and, whilst also arguably the same in ‘The Power’, it can also be said initially to be presented as a somewhat natural and iridescent force. Semantic fields and symbolism of nature effectively employed throughout ‘The Power’ almost allude to power as natural and a necessity, contrasting greatly to the forceful and brash nature of power alluded to by Atwood. For example, when describing the skein, Alderman through the third person narrative states: “She can smell something a bit like a rainstorm…There is a long red scar: it’s patterned like a fern, leaves and tendrils, budlets and branches”. Whilst a threatening force, the skein (and therefore power) through simile is presented as natural and delicate. Perhaps Alderman is juxtaposing its harm with her tender description to either hide its power or to reflect how its being repressed by those who possess it. This is furthered by the use of commas, which effectively slows down the pace, implying reflection and some sense of delicateness. Furthermore, through effective comparison to nature, the idea of the skein as a power which can grow and develop is created, allowing for possibilities of it to become as fiercely destructive and dangerous as that in ‘The Handmaids Tale’. As a result of the successful use of a lexical field of nature, the notion of power as a positive is cleverly suggested. Nature is good and pure: ‘fern’ and ‘budlets’ are signs of growth and health, and maybe Alderman is suggesting that when used graciously, power can be positive and beneficial. In terms of the novel, power, though the skein, is setting women free and allows them to grow and distance themselves from the oppression they once faced. This idea is further supported by Michael Burton who states that “this concept is central to the novel” with us wanting “to believe, so deeply, that power is and can be used for good. The novel’s speculative what if is, in itself, a reflection of that”. Reference to power as a positive force is evident today through feminism. Through power, created by a want for change evident in society, feminism has enabled the emancipation of women and greater equality – for example in the UK through the 2010 Equality Act. Power in this sense has been used for the good. Despite the hope of power as positive – implied by Atwood in her novel – it instead becomes a force for evil; not rebalancing previous gender and power inequalities, but swapping one extreme for another. Maybe Alderman is reflecting on the corruption of power, seen throughout history in Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, etc., that is so evident in our society today, and in this sense her novel can be seen as a warning.

Contrastingly, power in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is presented as a dangerously brutal, oppressive and destructive entity, also achieved through an effective use of symbolism and lexical field. The color ‘red’ is prominent throughout the novel, whether stated to or alluded to, for example, “red umbrella”, “my face is red”, “red gloves” and “the color of blood.” Atwood utilizes this lexical field to explicitly expose the force of Gilead and its dangerous power dynamics as red, being commonly associated with blood, suggesting danger and pain, thus implying death and torture. Alternatively, red is linked to blood, and thus the female menstrual cycle, childbirth and fertility. In this sense, such prominence of the color red in society and the lives of the Handmaids, for example, how “everything except the wings around (their) face is red”, serves to emphasize how the Handmaids can’t escape being reminded of their singular position and role in the state. It is implied through this that their fertility is the only thing significant about them to Gilead – this idea is supported by Diemer Llewellyn who states that “the power structure refuses to see women as human”. However, Roland offers a different interpretation of Atwood’s use of red in her novel, highlighting how “it seems that the government forces the handmaids to wear red to showcase their power to control others”. So, it could be argued that not only is the use of red to remind the Handmaids of their role and the ease at which corrupt power can oppress, but also to warn others of the state’s power. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ (1985) was written alongside the rise of the New Right Movement in America, a religious right-wing fundamentalist movement which endorsed strict conservative ideas about women’s place in society. The movements influence can be seen in how pro-life and new right campaigns lead to the failed ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982, furthering this notion of women as solely existing for pro-creation and sexual reason. Such anti-feminist views and conceptions of the role and rights of women are clearly mirrored in Atwood’s fictional Gilead – perhaps through Offred, Atwood is providing a warning to the dangers of patriarchy, and therefore the dangers of inequality. She could however be referencing the dangers of extreme views, which target the protection of rights and liberties, and their growing prominence at the time of writing. This idea is further developed by Callaway who states: “By showing us a possible outcome of the momentum of Second-Wave Feminism, Atwood reveals that radical strains of this movement could backfire, with disastrous results”.

In this sense, it could be argued that Alderman is more successful in her presentation of power, as not only does she show it as dangerous through corruption and abhorrent descriptions of violence, as does Atwood, she also implies a more positive interpretation and thus challenging reader’s preconceptions of power.

To conclude, power, all in all, is presented as an evil and destructive force which both authors successfully utilize to create a warning to readers about the corruption of power and the dangers that certain power dynamics create. In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, power and its effects are presented as destructive and brutal within Atwood’s dystopian society – emphasized through the striking parallels that exist between itself and past realities and events, with her presentation of power is arguably more explicitly influenced by context. ‘The Power’ can also be seen as a warning to readers about the dangers of continued female oppression and the rise of anti-feminist groups, yet also the risk of the abuse of power. Alderman presents power, similarly to Atwood, as dangerous and brutal through violence and descriptions of corruption, yet also implies that power can be positive. Perhaps she is influenced by her context in this sense, highlighting the need for woman to use what power they have in our current society to fight for equality, yet also for society in general to use power they hold to stand against corruption.

Throughout ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and ‘Blade Runner’, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick explores the theme of power through events that showcase a hierarchy in both texts. Both authors use power to give to the robust to take advantage of the fragile. What is meant by power in the context of each text is that power is used upon dictatorship with fascist leaders forming slaves to satisfy their needs and to exploit the weak.

Central to Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is the depravity of sovereignty that lies within the Republic of Gilead, a city in what used to be in the United States. Now its democratic government has been overthrown and replaced by a totalitarian one. The proprietor of authority that diminishes the lower grade of this state is Gilead and the Commander, both spending their gratitude over dictatorship. The methodology of exploiting the susceptible in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is to create an army of Handmaids to populate the state by making them produce babies. The tough being Gilead and the Commander, and the weak being everyone else. The same utility of control is also running in ‘Blade Runner’.

Contrarily, in the heart of Philip K. Dick’s ‘Blade Runner’, filled with darkness, neon, and smog driven streets of Los Angeles 2019, the society is built upon a communist hierarchy, where omnipotence is utilized by the prohibitive fanatical to manipulate the vulnerable. In perspective, Tyrell has power over others as he as economic powers to maintain and support all citizen equally inside a hierarchy. He is in the highest class of power as he is generally wealthy and fascist. His dictatorship influences the overall economic view of the dystopian world. Citizens in Los Angeles are generally poor and living in a smog of neon dark streets and poor homes. They have power over replicants as they are more important than them. Replicants serve as slaves towards Tyrell, but have the least amount of authority over the world as they are non-human.

In summary, Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and Philip K. Dick’s ‘Blade Runner’ share the even by applying control over the defenseless. Each leader in both texts share the same traits and authority, meaning that they can be identified as egotistical men. Both texts rely on a communist hierarchy that clearly sums up the economy and society in each setting. Just remember, mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power.

“I bought a dozen volumes on banking and credit and investment securities and they stood on my shelf in red and gold like new money from the mint, promising to unfold the shining secrets that only Midas and Morgan, and Maecenas knew.”

This is a good example of the encapsulating ability of literature- which transports you to an unimaginable realm. Literature has the ability to do this, to create environs. They lead you to a point and your imagination fills in the gaps altering and deleting as the description becomes more detailed. Here through a few words, we were taken straight to the roaring 20s. Hence, as you read more of the text you become more acquainted with it and you obtain a clearer picture in your mind. This is equally true for literature’s ability to shape our perception of concepts. Concepts such as power. The strange thing about power is that you determine its impact. Who has power over you, whom you have power over, how much power, how this power is exercised, and the impact of this power. Most of you would claim “Oh, I don’t read,” well, you did and your parents did and they raised you and their parents read, who taught them, and so on and so forth. Literature provides us with many meanings and ways of understanding our world. It explores universal themes that help us to formulate our society. Because literature is the essence of our society.

Society operates on a hierarchy, which is produced as a result of power, this hierarchy provides structure, a structure that provides functionality, a functionality that provides civilization. Clearly, power is a fundamental, requirement. It has and will always exist. It provides a means by which knowledge, experience, instruction, care, and respect are provided. A means by which society can operate and literature expresses this to us.

As mentioned in the opening, Literature provides us with many meanings, and power is no exception, hence Google’s definition of power is “the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events,” which has taken the negative viewpoint. Leading to the obvious fact of the matter that power is an overarching problem, an unsolvable concept. Although according to Shakespeare, all people will pass by and by, power is dependently variable on conditions, society’s current values, beliefs, and concepts, “The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet, Though to itself it only lives and dies” it lives and reigns, then dies and disdains. Power is ever-present but comes and goes.

Literature’s most common theme is Power. Power from the Pessimist Viewpoint. See, there are two viewpoints provided to the subjects of power. I have titled them, The Positive Viewpoint and the Pessimist Viewpoint.

The pessimistic view is provided by those who loathe power, who would describe power as dominance, control, and oppression, who fear power and so they envy it. If we translate these terms into a positive view we find the words care, guidance and protection. Literature provides examples of both, however, due to the uncanny ability of humans to always look to the negative side, the pessimistic view has gained prominence.

Tom Robinson does not resent Atticus Finch the same way that does. George Wilson is not attempting to rush up the social ladder like his wife although they are both subject to the power or from a different viewpoint, subjects of power.

The Wood Chopper had power over both the Wolf and Red Riding Hood, but the Wolf envied the Wood Chopper for meddling with his plan, while Red Riding Hood was thankful and grateful.

The response to power exploration is due to human nature which has led us to believe the pithy statement that power is bad. But without power, our society is without structure and hence it is fundamental. After the tiring struggle in The Tempest, power is still present, throughout the whole play, (finally falling back into the hands of Prospero). Power’s ever-present and necessary characteristic has caused its particular prominence in all of our literature as they attempt to explore and discover this universal theme.

Power can be harmful, it can have devastating effects. Kafka’s “monstrous grey buildings” that the mysterious character Joseph K. is engulfed during The Trial allow the exploration of the manipulation of power, and this kind of power is a result of corruption and immorality. The brainwashing effects of the government existing in George Orwell’s 1984 also determine that power can be misused however this only represents a handful of cases. Power can provide individuals with a chance to undermine others, Richard the Third cleverly manipulated all power available to him to gain more power, utilizing his brother’s bad health, a widow’s helplessness, and a child’s innocence. However, this is an exception, a discrepancy that does not account for the majority of power holders. A result of immorality, lust, and jealousy.

Everyone holds power, and all of you have power, Do you exercise this fairly? Do you use this correctly? Are you in the right? The expression “I’m only human” or “Nobody’s perfect” should be taken note of here to demonstrate that the impurities that exist in leadership are not due to power.

All humans have inadequacies and biases, there is yet to be a perfect leader of a Utopian society, and as a result of this flaw in human nature, other individuals begin questioning authority without considering the facts, fearing problems will arise as a result.

The widow decides to marry Richard for no other reason than for the security that his power would provide her, she married him for fear of what would otherwise happen. If fear can motivate individuals to strive for more power, it can definitely motivate individuals to undermine power.

Literature shapes our world, it provides suggestions, sometimes answers for issues we are confronting, it’s words are taken and applied, “A fool learns from his own experiences, but the wise learn from the experience of others” From the recorded literary world we can learn about concepts → power, however, the application or identification of these problems is down to the individual, to us. How you perceive the situation and how you react as a consequence is how an opinion is formed and depending on the opinion, the power play between the two is positively viewed or pessimistically viewed. Hence, the understanding of power portrayal in literature as evil and corrupt does not fit the fact as literature portrays both sides in their attempt to explore the complexities and perplexities of Human Relationships. Therefore power is a requirement of society.

I will leave you to consider a phrase from John Steinbeck ‘Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.’

At its heart, Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games exposes a world in which control is brutally enforced into all parts of society. The government uses harsh, unfair policies to change people’s view of them and maintain power. Her novel discusses these ideas through inhumane punishments, division and surveillance, and the fear and deceptions people are led to believe.

The people of Panem are controlled through cruel punishments inflicted on them by the power of President Snow. Katniss’s statement that “Attendance in mandatory… you’ll be imprisoned.” (pg. 19) indicates that punishment is taken to extreme measures. This concept is made clear by the game itself and the retribution brought onto any upstanders. During dinner at the training centre, Katniss recognized an Avox. She remembered her from hunting in the forest, however she was captured for being “Someone who committed a crime.” (pg. 95). As vengeance for any wrong or criminal act, a perpetrators tongue is cut out and they are made a Capitol slave. The government punished her as an extreme way of preventing others from doing the same. Using punishment, control can be maintained by the Capitol.

Collins emphasises the power of Panem’s government through them maintaining division and surveillance across the districts. Gale’s belief that “It’s to the Capitol’s advantage to have us divided among ourselves.” (pg. 16) reveals to us that the Capitol has people turning on each other. Gale believes this because he thinks that the tesserae is not a favour, but instead the governments way of planting hatred between the starving workers of the Seam and those who can count on supper. This distrust between the people has outlawed any possibility of the districts converging again to overpower the government. Furthermore, the governments scheme of peacekeepers and cameras keeps everyone portraying themselves as indifferent. From a young age, Katniss learnt to control what she said, “Eventually I understood this would only lead us to more trouble. So I learned to hold my tongue and turn my features into an indifferent mask so that no one could ever read my thoughts.” (pg. 7). To keep her sister safe, Katniss avoids discussing things that would inflict punishment if overheard by the peacekeepers. Through upholding division and surveillance, President Snow can maintain authority.

The government controls the belief of people by sustaining their fear and leading them to believe deceptions. The quote ‘Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch…. If you lift a finger, we will destroy every last one of you. Just as we did in District 13.’ (pg. 22) uncovers that Panem’s government uses dread and propaganda to enforce regulations into society. Throughout The Hunger Games, the idea that district 13 was destroyed continually reminds everyone of the consequences of another rebellion. This fear, alongside the repetition of the story of the Dark Days, brings people to be too frightened of ever upstanding the government. Although it brings hatred towards authorities, fear and deception allows the government maintain power.

From the start, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins exposes how the government uses the dangerous nature of control to power over the people. These strategies are highlighted through harsh punishments, division and surveillance, and the fear and deceptions people are led to believe.  

Oppression is the prolonged cruel and unjust treatment or exercise of authority. It refers to an overt or secret malicious and harmful pattern of subjugation and exploitation of a community or individual practices by a regime, which is thus authoritarian or totalitarian.

The oppression of women in the 21st century is perhaps more multi-faceted and developed than it has been historically. Gains in women’s rights have been products of the protracted struggle of women and anti-sexist allies over the centuries, but these gains have not ended the oppression of women. Theocracies are known for intentionally establishing barriers to prevent women from accessing power as a result they are forced to use manipulation, seduction, and lies. There is a lack of women in positions of power and regardless of a woman’s experience, education, or abilities, the patriarchal nature of society fosters the perception that women are less qualified and less competent than men.

The Crucible, a play written by Arthur Miller during the “Red Scare” in the 1950s, tells the story of the Salem witch trials in 1692 as a metaphor for the “witch hunts” of communalists in America. The Handmaid’s Tale, directed by Reed Morano, tells the story of life in the dystopia of Gilead, a totalitarian society in what was the United States. Gilead is ruled by a fundamentalist regime that treats women as property of the state and is faced with environmental disasters and a plummeting birth rate

Both The Crucible and The Handmaid’s Tale show how religion can be twisted into a form of control in society. The theme of oppression towards women is constant throughout these novels. Both The Crucible and The Handmaid’s Tale share the theme of oppression and power. The religion in both these novels keeps the women powerless, thus the only way for women to have power is to manipulate, seduce, and lie.

Oppression of Women Through Language and Violence

The regime in Gilead uses two main devices to control women. Firstly, they use a certain type of language to maintain the oppression of women. Secondly, they use actions or violence, which represent a more direct and harsh type of oppression. By combining these two the regime maintains its control of women in Gilead. Without either power or language, women become objects. In The Handmaid’s Tale reading and writing are entirely forbidden for women as a means of tightening control over their lives, particularly their ability to communicate with others. They say knowledge is power and giving the women the power of knowledge was a threat to the totalitarian government of Gilead, particularly the men.

The totalitarian government of Gilead uses violence and terror as their most effective weapon. They use the fear of being put on the wall and the punishments deemed necessary to stop people from rebelling. If a woman is caught reading a hand is cut off, the punishment for talking back is an eye taken out and the punishment for endangering a child is death by stoning.

In The Crucible women were obligated to the status of a housewife; they were unable to read unless it was the bible and were unable to earn or control finances. The oppression of women through violence is somewhat similar to The Handmaid’s Tale. There are threats of whipping and abuse if women don’t follow the rules given by the men of the household. The main character Proctor also uses violence to keep the people in his house in line.

Proctor: “I’ll official you! (he strides to the mantel, and takes down the whip hanging there)” Mary: “(terrified but stands erect, striving for her authority) I’ll not stand whipping anymore!

The fact that Proctor has power within the house shows that there are status rankings in the society. It also reflects how threatening to whip servants seems like a common practice. The oppression of women is also apparent here and if a feminist view is applied to this situation, we feel sympathetic towards Mary as she is daily faced with these threats if she doesn’t obey what Proctor says. Both works show the true extent religion and men can have on the oppression of women when it comes to language and violence.

Manipulation and Seduction.

The powerlessness of women in both texts is explored through the means by which they attempt to gain power. Due to the oppressive hierarchical structures in both societies, women are forced to use seduction and manipulation to access a limited amount of power.

The Handmaid’s Tale explores the political oppression of women, carried out in the name of God but in large part motivated by a desire to control women’s bodies. Gilead sees women’s sexuality as dangerous: women must cover themselves from head to toe, for example, and not reveal their sexual attractions. Offred feels this ability to inspire sexual attraction is the only power she retains. Every other privilege is stripped away. When her power is reduced to almost none, she uses her body as a source of power that further assists her in confirming her subjectivity. She uses her body as a seductive apparatus.

Abigail, a main character of The Crucible uses seduction to gain power over a specific person, John Proctor. Abigail Williams is a very manipulative, seductive, and dishonest person. She is constantly caught up in a lie or is in the presence of trying to manipulate a person or a group of people. Abigail being an orphan and unmarried woman puts her into a position of powerlessness

Abigail uses various methods of manipulation throughout The Crucible. She manipulated anybody that was involved with her. Her manipulative tactics are used for personal gain and to try to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor. She uses the Salem witch trials to her advantage and accuses the proctor’s wife of witchery. Abigail’s manipulative ways prove to be beneficial to her, despite all the damage she causes to the entire town. Abigail is driven by lust and constantly attempts to seduce John Proctor and tries to convince him that he’s still “in love” with her.

In both these pieces oppression is a strong theme, however the women use manipulation and seduction to gain whatever power they are capable of getting in such a religious town.

Women Maintain Power Through Lies

The powerlessness of women in both texts is explored through the means by which they attempt to maintain power. Due to the oppressive hierarchical structures in both societies, women are forced to use lies to maintain the limited access they have to the power they gain through seduction and manipulation.

In The Handmaid’s Tale Offred usually uses lies and the power from it to protect the people she cares about. As a woman who is unable to read or write without consequences, she has access to limited power, almost none. Without any power, Offred/June feels powerless when it comes to protecting the ones she loves. With the limited power she gains from seduction and manipulation, she uses it to her benefit. She does this by lying to the people in her household by pretending to be relatively obedient, she does this to make people oblivious of the limited power that she does have.

In The Crucible Abigail is known for using seduction and manipulation to get into people’s heads and to escape the punishments given for the crimes she’s committed. This gives her a lot of power over everyone, as she gets away with so much and constantly puts the blame on other people. An unmarried woman and an orphan occupies a low rung on the Puritan Salem social ladder and for this has very little to no power. This puts her in a position to have to use lies as it is her only access to power.

The Crucible and The Handmaid’s Tale are very similar in the way that women are oppressed due to the men and Governments of their society. However, The Crucible is based in the 1690s and tells the story of the Salem witch trials, whereas The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the near future and tells the story of a totalitarian government and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America and uses fertile women to fix the problem of low reproduction rates. So although these texts are completely different they still similarly show the oppression and powerlessness of women that a theocratic government can cause and how the oppression of women forces them to use seduction, manipulation, and lies to gain and maintain a limited amount of power.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince explores the nature of power and his views of power which are still somewhat in existence today. This essay will discuss and examine the principals of Machiavelli’s theory. Machiavelli emphasis power over the people and dictatorial power, and power with people. It is possible to use power to attain greater acceptance in society, as there will always be people who have power over them.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses, on how to obtain power and keep it this has been said to be seen as the creation of tyranny as Machiavelli is not obliterating the difference between tyranny and principality. As the common meaning for tyranny is a cruel, oppressive government or rule (Collinsdictionary.com, 2019). Yet it can be said he is aiming to permanently educate the statesman on how he can furnish a vision in the correct aim to pursue his/her idea, at the same time enable him to master the quality of the times (Giorgini, 2008). Which can be seen as compatible, with his idea in the Discourse on Livy. Machiavelli is stressing the idea that society should be run as a republic, and with that, he states power should only rest in the hands of one person. Demonstrating, Machiavelli notion of tyranny is ambiguous as it is not based on moral or legal consideration, which modern day tyranny is known for. Before beginning the analysis on whether Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince often described as a handbook for tyrants and whether it is compatible with his republican views in the Discourses on Livy this essay will highlight the significant ideas presented in the Prince.

In the Prince, Machiavelli explores the different ways that people acquire and maintain power. as the intent of the book is to give advice to prince Medici, the king of Florence for the unification of Italy as his method is up to political reality. With that Machiavelli commences the book by categorizing the different kind states: republics, hereditary princedoms, brand-new princedoms, and mixed principalities. As his prime focus was new states as those states are the hardest to deal with. He goes on to add, a conquered state whose original sole ruler is a monarchy is difficult to conquer, yet it is easy to maintain. However, a conquered state in which the prince shared power with the nobles easy to conquer, but difficult to maintain. Throughout the book, Machiavelli, states a prince aspire to rise to power on his merits and uses the example Cesare Borgia who rose to power through the connections of his father but also used his own niche, however, his reign fell short which lead to Machiavelli explaining that princes who rise to the power through crime are another matter altogether.

Machiavelli denounces people who gain power through this way as wicked but yet he contradicts himself as he states cruelty well used can be justified due to his appreciation for cleverness. Furthermore, Machiavelli goes on to add that the prince should not rely on advice. As they are likely to be disloyal as they are easy to divide and obey someone else which makes them dangerous to have around a prince. Which leads to Machiavelli idea on reputation and how it is an important element. As prince’s need to put on façade when dealing with the public, as Machiavelli notes; the better the liar, the better the prince. Machiavelli ends The Prince making the reader ponder the power of luck and the effect it has on human affairs. The prince gives an insight of power and politics as the book provides the reader/leader with a compass of moral judgment. However, it is debated on whether Machiavelli has a good moral compass.

Machiavelli is famous for the idea that it may be a necessity for a leader to do immoral things to maintain order in society as ethics need to become comprised. Which why Machiavelli takes up the question “is better to be loved or feared” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935) even though having both is desirable he goes on add if prince has to choose between one “it is much safer to be feared” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). this due to Machiavelli having a very cynical viewpoint on human nature as humans will always be deceptive and seek to harm others. By placing priority on fear rather than love it is a way of the prince maintaining their power. Machiavelli uses Annibale Bentivoglio as an example of what happens when a bit of fear is not installed in the populous as it can lead to your life ending/career. However, he does stress there needs to be a balance of love and fear. As he advises that leaders should “ read the signals and adapt their styles accordingly” (A. Snook, 2008) to respond to threats they may come across. As Machiavelli states in the prince “Therefore, it is necessary for a cautious man to act expeditiously, he does not know how to do it; this leads to his failure. But if it were possible to change one’s character to suit the times and circumstances, one would always be successful” (Fiedler, 1958). This form of adapting to meet specific demands to the situation is seen as the most effective form for leadership (Fiedler, 1958).

As Machiavelli is not Is articulating that a leader be tyrannical or oppressive, Machiavelli argues that the most effective leader shows leadership based on an analysis of the needs of the situation yet it is easy to understand why others may interpret it as tyrannical as 20th and 21st century this is seen as ethically appalling which is why the prince can be seen as tyrants handbook. From face value, the prince looks like a book promoting totalitarianism yet it has been debated by scholars that the prince was a book written to denounce the Catholic church. As Machiavelli found the relationship between the church and the state problematic and opposed it. As he believed they were an annoyance to the state. however, morality and religion are heavily mentioned in the prince, as religion played a significant role in government during Machiavelli time which can be seen even today with laws that have been put in place. As religion can shape laws, meaning it can determine justice for this reason laws do not only attend to issues of morality but also address “political goals that were religious in nature” (Klosko 2014). Due to this Machiavelli advocate for the separation of the church and the state, as this stops the government from perusing religious agenda. Keeping the state and government separate will allow the leader to focus on what is important which is to maintain the safety of the state and its continuity. However, Machiavelli does state the princes should have “embodiment of mercy, goodness, faith, integrity, and religion.

And there is no virtue which it is more necessary for him to seem to possess than the last” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). Machiavelli places emphasis on only seeming religious. “Within a nation, we were told, conventional morality should be upheld” (Hulliung 2014) As the reason is that people look for commonality when identifying with other people and religion is a widespread system. Hence why it is important to have an open proclamation to religion as a ruler to retain populace support. Religious organizations must be used to keep the populous pious in order to instil the fear of God rather than a fear of the state for the leader to avoid being hated, in turn allowing a prince to be both feared and loved. This also stops the religious organisation from being too powerful and become corrupt. So, it is understandable why people will interpret this opinion as advice for dictators however, it does demonstrate that this is not the aim of the book but to show the people the control religion has over the government and the people. Furthermore, it can be said on the intentions of Machiavelli ’s the prince book besides appearing to be a book for tyrants. However, it has been debated it is a book for him to further advocate his preference for republic state. “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.

One must, therefore, be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). Machiavelli is promoting civil liberties for its citizen, as it the duty of the government to protect and serve its citizen. While also advocating citizens to work together with the government to maintain cohesion within the state as this creates a united front. However, Machiavelli does advocate for a “republican government and the free and civil way of life it facilitates” having said that there is “difficulty and emphasized the necessity of keeping prominent citizens from overstepping their bounds” (McCormick, 2007). He adds leaders need to have a check and balance between their citizens and that no-one is above law no matter their title in society to maintain a healthy government. If the populous and other citizens of states have access government rule it can make it complex. As the main goal for everyone is that the government is just for all and provides protection. The government needs to have a check and balance and protect the establishment. As “Machiavelli’s republic is a classical mixed republic. It is not a democracy… but is characterized by social equality, popular liberty, and political participation” (Doyle,1986). For Machiavelli for society to be longstanding and free, it needs to be a republican government. This requires the government not to be undivided and meet the needs of the people.

A republican government must represent the will of the people. It is the job of the leader to find an understanding between the government the people. Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy main focal point is on republican government as he focuses on the structure and development of them. It also contains the theorist’s analysis of the famous Roman historian Livy’s history of the Roman Republic. However, it can also be said that it is a hybrid of Machiavelli’s The Prince and the contemporary ideas of good and virtuous government. The discourse is divided into three volumes. With the first book, Machiavelli, discusses the why different political societies can deteriorate, agreeing with Aristotle who argued that the problem could be counteracted by mixing the different forms of government. Machiavelli argued for republics, as he stated that republics preserve liberty and promote the general welfare. The second book examines the growth of the Roman Empire, which Machiavelli believes was essential for the growth of Roman political order. As Machiavelli believes that conquest and government are required by many social circumstances to protect a republic’s integrity. Book three draws eternal truths from the example of the great men of the Roman Empire.

Righteous leaders have a crucial function in maintaining a flourishing society. Both forms of virtue are necessary to prevent republics from being destroyed from without and decaying from within. Machiavelli indicates his lack of trust in the people, often stating that the people are wiser than princes, though leadership is required in cases of danger. When looking at the parallels between the discourse and the prince, at the beginning of the discourse Machiavelli discusses the birth of Rome as he is trying to demonstrate the importance of a good foundation is to a state. As he states that “early institutions, even if defective, did not, none the less, deviate from the straight path which could lead them to perfection” (Machiavelli and Bondanella, 2008). As these laws set the foundations for changes “combined kingly and republican aspects…thus creating almost a system of checks and balances between the Senate and the people” (McAleer, 2016). Which is similar to the prince who discuss the beginning of the state as well. “The actions of a new prince attract much more attention than those of a hereditary ruler… Thus the new prince will have a twofold glory, in having founded a new state and in having adorned and strengthened it with good laws” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). This quote has a similar notion to the Discourses, for in it Machiavelli advising that the foundation of a state is essential for its success later on.

Machiavelli also dismisses the idea of hereditary rulers necessarily being better, stating that a new prince can establish a stronger state if he uses the right laws at the beginning. As this is in reference to his admiration for the founding of Rome. As the goal of both The Prince and Discourses is to serve as a framework of how to best run a state, and while of course meant for already established rulers. As both books, Machiavelli shows Machiavelli’s preference of starting a state as a new republic or new prince as a way of establishing good laws for the future. When comparing, whether Machiavelli ideas in the prince are compatible with his republican views in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli in the prince never used the word tyrant in the prince even though he illustrates many with tyrannical behaviour and calls their deeds tyrannical in the discourse and in his other works. As the prince was written in a traditional style of specula principis as it was dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici as it is written to suit Lorenzo as it is addressed to him. Why some scholars believe the “tyranny” should not be used as it is too “harsh” to describe this piece of work as its dedicated to a prince (Strauss, 1958). As Machiavelli in the discourse and the prince highlights he agrees with classical idea tyranny as long as it differs from despotism.

This form of government is distinguished by the prince keeping all his subjects equal in the condition of servitude (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). In the Discourse Machiavelli distinguished tyranny and despotism by giving the example of oriental princes by calling them “barbarians” (Machiavelli and Bondanella, 2008) and the “destroyers of countries” (Machiavelli and Bondanella, 2008). As Aristotle believed that eastern Asians servility when it comes despotism is what prevents them in excelling in virtu and doing any good. Due to this their form of the governess is lacking moralistic judgement which is why Machiavelli is not interested in a despotic form of government. Virtu and Fortuna are constantly mentioned in the prince as something every prince needs to keep their power.

As virtu in the prince is described as the ability to do whatever is needed to succeed and fortuna is personified as women who controls fate which intertwined with luck which can be manipulated. With Machiavelli stating in the “ for fortune is a woman and the man who wants to hold downbeat and bully her” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935) as he believes virtu is necessary to attribute to have when dealing with Fortuna as its unpredictable like life. However, Machiavelli states it does not have to be a singular ruler who can possess virtu to control Fortuna; according to Machiavelli a collective body can possess virtu (Lahtinen and Griffiths, 2009). Demonstrating, that Machiavelli believes in a power structure that respects Fortuna. As he sees political systems and civil communities as a means to end a way of pooling resources in purist od wealth and riches when virtue is implemented correctly. which can be seen in the discourse as Machiavelli comments on the ‘wonderful examples’ of the prodigies of virtu and wisdom displayed by kings captains, citizen and legislators who have sacrificed themselves for their country demonstrating, he views in the prince are parrels to his views in the Discourse as book was not meant to be seen as handbook tyrants. In both Discourses and The Prince, Machiavelli suggests that action is the best way to combat fortune and that ability is always more important than luck, believing that accepting events as determined by God would not create a strong state. This also reflects his well-known pragmatism, claiming that actions should be determined by the different situations given by fortune, rather than following one set ideology no matter what is occurring (McAleer, 2016).

To conclude, as readers we will never be sure the exact aim of Machiavelli on whether it was an open document on how to control the masses for a deceitful leader. As Machiavelli did say “men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935) . As he laid the foundation for modern management and leadership theory. However, it needs to be remembered that Machiavelli was writing this at the pinnacle of the Italian Renaissance where people were also questioning religion and how religious leader was being corrupt. As this book could have been an open document to the masses on how government state should be separated. However, the prince which is compatible with his views Discourse, as both books he advocating for a republic. As the job of the government and leader in power is the common good that results from a government that secures the lives, families, liberty and property of its citizens. Machiavelli advocates fully democratic purpose for government. Even though does not believes that a purely democratic process or even adequate way of achieving this he does add leaders who understand that the best way to fulfil their own desire to rule is to satisfy the desires of their people for security. Machiavelli’s work has lasted through the years, and it has proven to be a classic piece of literature by standing the test of time just because of controversial it is but assume his only aim was to promote tyrannical behaviour demonstrates a closedminded view of the book.

Adaninggar Septi Subekti (2017) Critical Analysis of Steinbeck’s The Pearl: Power and Silenced Voice, The journal analyzed Steinbeck’s The Pearl the usage of Critical Literacy Framework on its components of electricity or dominant voice and silenced voice. It used to be once located that power contributors of the family between those who had dominant voices and those whose voices had been silenced and not stated had been in frequent relation to the unjust social machine at the time which favored the colonising neighborhood over the subjugated Indian community. The former, typically characterized as these in possessions, typically in many strategies “silenced” the latter, commonly characterized as those who had been poor, ignorant, and now no longer in possessions. Indian humans had been considered inferior and consistently oppressed and cheated by the colonizing community. They had little or no get entry to to schooling and healthcare, and at some instances, they did now not get befitting admire as human beings. The novel, furthermore, additionally portrayed male as the extra proper gender with the useful resource of narrating the dominance of the male vital character over his spouse and his family.

Roger Caswell (2011) this article shows that emotion drives attention, which in flip promotes learning. The use of famous song in literature training emotionally engages students with text. The combination of melodies and lyrics aids in connecting text to reader, for that cause paving the way for comprehension. With over a hundred twenty-five musical references, John Steinbeck’s The Pearl is a natural desire for demonstrating the use of well-known tracks in the classroom. Five student‐centered education are presented in this column, alongside with guidelines for alternate lessons. Drawing on this model, instructors can mix unique great literature with chosen songs to interact with university college students in their classrooms. A tune bibliography and tune references are provided.

Li Songyue (2010) in his e-book he wrote that, Within the few remarks on The Pearl with the resource of Steinbeck in China, the theme of it is typically described as reflecting the miseries of the substrate or exposing the merciless nature of capitalism. These views are quite superficial. Actually, The Pearl implies multilayered significance. Firstly, it expresses contingency and blindness of the person’s destiny; secondly, it exposes the distortion of human nature inflicted via fabric desire; thirdly, it oppugns and introspects the capitalistic civilization. The Pearl touches the quintessential proposition of human’s being and will come to be the allegorical writing of human destiny.

Putu Marlyn Arista (2014) the evaluation of syntactic structures in the relative clause with reference to Steinbeck’s the pearl Journal entitled The Analysis of Syntactic Structures in The Relative Clause With. Reference to Steinbeck’s The Pearl is centered on Relative Clause analysis, in specific in relative clause patterns, structures, and types. The intention of the lookup is to understand and identify the patterns, structures, and sorts of