Conflicting Perspectives
- Submitted by: anto99
- Views: 741
- Category: English: Novels
- Date Submitted: 01/22/2013 06:36 PM
- Pages: 9
- Report this Essay
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ‘THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES CAN ONLY BE ENRICHING’
The term, “only”, as used in the statement, contradicts the intrinsic quality of conflicting perspectives, being perceived differently and having dissimilar effects with accordance to differing responders or characters. So, what one responder or character may value and believe to be enriching, another may not.
To prove my thesis, the existence of conflicting perspectives is usually enriching for one person but not for the other, I will critically analyse its affect on personalities and situations in two texts. “Julius Caesar”, my prescribed text, a play fashioned by Shakespeare and “To kill a mockingbird”, my chosen text, a novel composed by Harper Lee.
Julius Caesar is a play in which conflicting perspectives are represented. It represents dominance declining to manipulation; the death of an emperor, Julius Caesar, by the manipulation of the, as Antony says, “noble Brutus”, by an animus, envious character, Cassius. It also represents power play on various levels, and groups and individuals struggling for predominance, honour, freedom and idealism. We are presented with many moral dilemmas such as the issue of governance and the admissibility of applying ones personal values and ethical and moral beliefs to justify and cover an act that seems unforgivable to others, which I believe is represented most profoundly. Close reference will be on Brutus and Cassius and the method and purpose of representation of personalities and events by Shakespeare’s.
Shakespeare represents this dilemma through what Brutus and Cassius reveal to the responder. We are enticed to question whether or not it is justifiable to murder an emperor, in the belief that he is “ambitious” and that he “may” transform into a tyrant. Brutus is represented by Shakespeare as a man who shows integrity is highly acknowledged by the plebeians as a “noble man” and values...
The term, “only”, as used in the statement, contradicts the intrinsic quality of conflicting perspectives, being perceived differently and having dissimilar effects with accordance to differing responders or characters. So, what one responder or character may value and believe to be enriching, another may not.
To prove my thesis, the existence of conflicting perspectives is usually enriching for one person but not for the other, I will critically analyse its affect on personalities and situations in two texts. “Julius Caesar”, my prescribed text, a play fashioned by Shakespeare and “To kill a mockingbird”, my chosen text, a novel composed by Harper Lee.
Julius Caesar is a play in which conflicting perspectives are represented. It represents dominance declining to manipulation; the death of an emperor, Julius Caesar, by the manipulation of the, as Antony says, “noble Brutus”, by an animus, envious character, Cassius. It also represents power play on various levels, and groups and individuals struggling for predominance, honour, freedom and idealism. We are presented with many moral dilemmas such as the issue of governance and the admissibility of applying ones personal values and ethical and moral beliefs to justify and cover an act that seems unforgivable to others, which I believe is represented most profoundly. Close reference will be on Brutus and Cassius and the method and purpose of representation of personalities and events by Shakespeare’s.
Shakespeare represents this dilemma through what Brutus and Cassius reveal to the responder. We are enticed to question whether or not it is justifiable to murder an emperor, in the belief that he is “ambitious” and that he “may” transform into a tyrant. Brutus is represented by Shakespeare as a man who shows integrity is highly acknowledged by the plebeians as a “noble man” and values...