literature

Set in a traditional African village, ‘Things Fall Apart’ is a literary fiction that draws its mettle from tradition and traditional African socio-economics. Fiction can be described as an imagined subject that is discussed in context. Chinua Achebe gathered moral evidence of real events that affected the society during that time and subsequently, he chose his characters well enough to fit the roles he had stipulated. Okonkwo fits the lead role. He is a symbol of a struggle against traditional African laziness and subsequent success against poverty through hard work and dedication.

This paper seeks to identify the aspects of fiction in this novel. The purpose of such an effort is to explain why literary fiction has functionalism as a core moral lesson provider. The book ‘Things Fall Apart’ for a long time has been African literature classes core set book. Due to the gently poked humour, the literary finesse and the literary fiction angle of the book makes it a very interesting and literary exemplary book. The fiction aspect draws literary interest from scholars. The underlying need to understand the elements of fiction used to make the theme and purpose of the book rhyme consistently to the end of the story is important.

In this paper, we identify aspects of fiction, how the author has used contemporary African tradition to create a protagonist and a scenario that depicts a struggle of a society that is gradually accenting to change in tradition, socioeconomics, and religion. It is important to note that, imagery is consistently used throughout the book to make sense of contemporary events and traditions. Through imagery, Chinua Achebe successfully makes up the social issues in the village of Umuofia to come to the surface. It is imagery and direct personification we identify fiction as the literary approach in this book.

It is important to note that, Chinua Achebe personifies and idealizes to promulgate fiction and literary excel. The aspects of fiction are etched deep in a social-cultural 1800 Ibo village trends. Literary, it is arguably more difficult to identify fiction as prevalent in the book since the events and the characters are almost real in context. However, it is important to note that, Achebe has only personified them and idealized in context, what the village should have lived. Secondly, his main character, Okonkwo is his ideal male character in an Ibo village during those early years when civilization and religion began taking a toll on Africa. As such, through personification and metaphorically ascribing to socio-cultural situations and social-economic betterment, fictitious characters idolized through Okonkwo provide a rationale of how to rise against poverty and ascend to a social class.

Elements of fiction

Fiction functions based on three aspects, plot, character, conflict, and setting. Other aspects include point of view and symbol. All these aspects of fiction can be employed, literary, to create a theme of a fictitious story and set the course of the complete story. This makes the story have meaning, function, and mettle. Fiction is commonplace though it draws its function from contemporary world events. Chinua Achebe, as argued earlier, has set up his story, ‘things fall apart in the traditional Ibo society. This dates back to the early 1800 West African civilization.

Symbolism

Using character, conflict, and setting, Achebe has made a magnificent scenario in context. We see a tradition that is not different from modern-day societal aspirations. Poverty is contextualized as a day-to-day social problem. Okonkwo is a ‘symbol’ (an aspect of fiction) of the usual struggle against abject poverty. Here, symbolism is evident as an aspect of fiction. Though this paper attempts to narrow the context of fiction to specifics, it is an impossible try since ‘Things Fall Apart’ draws its functionality from all aspects of fiction and each part of the story is based on fiction.

Okonkwo is a man born from a poor family. His father is poor and a pitied man in society. Okonkwo rises against this odd by working hard on the farm to become a very successful farmer. Farming symbolizes the core economic activity in the Ibo community that represents the African communities. Here symbolism features predominantly as the core aspect of fiction. Achebe seems to draw his theme from symbolic contexts and emphatically employs personification and imagery to provide viewpoints that narrow to the mettle of the story.

Tradition in the Ibo social set-up has it that, wrestling is a reputed and highly coveted sport (social activity) symbolizing a proactive community that thrives in competition and strength. The wrestling matches are indicative of the prowess of values and beliefs across the Ibo social ranks. It also symbolizes the community’s ability to repel adversary through strength. Besides such an aggressive approach to society’s beliefs and practices, wrestling symbolizes the power of the elite in this community. Of course, the more powerful and physically strong one is denoted influence and place in the society. Okonkwo, little known across the social circles climbs the traditional corporate ladder by becoming a rich man, the best wrestler, and respected social leader.

Conflict

‘Things Fall Apart is a contemporary story about the Ibo community of Nigeria. The story narrows its plot to an Ibo village in 1800. Chinua Achebe further narrows the story to a specific character ‘Okonkwo.’ Okonkwo is the village’s, great man. He has risen ranks from a mere peasant to a successful farmer, a husband to three wives, and one of the greatest wrestlers of the Ibo village. The context of conflict ascends from his title among his people, secondly, he is a member of the ‘egwugwu’s ‘who impersonate ancestral spirits. This caboodle also impersonates tribal rituals. They are a source of socio-religious conflict that goes a long way to make the Ibo a vivid picture of the African tradition and how it marred socio-economic development.

Conflict manifests itself again in the colonialist period. The white man tries to introduce religion to which the Ibo resists vehemently. Chinua Achebe uses Okonkwo as his main ‘conflict’ subject. Okonkwo outdid abject poverty. Poverty is a conflict in context. Okonkwo rose the social ranks to become a great wrestler and a member of the egwugwu club. His positions highlight the conflict within the society.

Conflict in ‘things Fall Apart’ is observed from the traditional values that inhibit the community from doing things the right way. A powerful culture subscribed to by the Ibo’s is a conflict. Okonkwo is an actor in the ‘things at Ibo falling apart’ conflict as Achebe hits on tradition and Ibo values. Colonialism is another conflict. The Ibo community I colonized by the British. Subsequently, the Ibo begin to subscribe to English values include religion.

It becomes practically impossible for the traditional elite to adopt these values for they remain steadfast to the traditional values and beliefs. Okonkwo is the symbol of the psychological crisis as top society leader’s grapple with the reality that their teachings are not needed and that the social values and laws they represent have become defunct in the advent of new values that erode the formers. Okonkwo represents this class of shocked society leaders and Ibo religion gurus who have been sucked into a shocking crisis of social values and morals changing hands. The tradition goes down the drain and Okonkwo cannot adapt to these changes. Society falls apart. It disintegrates into a confused ‘English’ learning community. The outcomes of colonialism are dire and tradition is sucked into oblivion, social class is replaced with nothing, the wrestlers are nothing but just fat huge men, and the egwgwu’s are nothing but just a bunch of cult-like liars. All that Okonkwo had worked so hard for went up in smoke just like that.

These changes accompanying colonialism are incredibly demoralizing. Okonkwo cannot take it; he is frustrated and angry for everything he had is falling apart. He kills an African employed by the British and commits suicide, which is a grave sin in the tradition he has clung to desperately. Chinua Achebe is successful in his attempt to pit two cultures against each other. The two cultures, the Ibo culture, the English culture clash, and the consequences are tragic. The aspect of the conflict is the most significant choice of contextualizing fiction in the book ‘Things Fall Apart.’

Introduction

The novel, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, is a story in the mental hospital showing the events that resulted in the narrator’s escape out of the institution. A huge Red Indian, Chief Bromden, is an inmate who served for a long time in the mental hospital and hence narrated the story through his experience. His insanity is as a result of the system The Combine’ which controls the behavior of the inmates. He was able to act as a deaf and dumb person so as to fight against prejudices which exist in the system. He recounted the oppression against him and other men in the ward. He was able to show clearly the conflict which arises between his inmate McMurphy and Nurse Ratched. The story mainly started on the arrival of the McMurphy in to the ward. McMurphy is a rebellious man who acted crazy so as to get out of the prison farm and transferred to the mental hospital where he meets Chief Bromden.

How the Chief’s image of the “combine” serve to explain and describe the way men are controlled on the ward.

The nature of the current way of living shows that the people suffer from nervous ailments which shows themselves in minor forms while others in mild depression, paranoia or in psychopathic and psychotic ways. According to the modern literature, there are some instances where characters show some forms of mental ailments which shows that a feeling of oppression and paranoia are most common minor affections. The causes of these ailments are not the fault of the victim but mostly the society around them or the events which took place in their lives. Ken Kelsey’s in his novel One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest tries to show some nervous ailments of some characters and the different ways in which the characters deal with them. He also portrays unfair treatment of men in mental hospital for their different ailments.

Ken also tries to show how the head nurse, Nurse Ratched, treated these men unfairly claiming that it was even good for them not to have their signs of individuality so as to fit to their society well. He sympathized that the society’s oppression was the cause of their problems instead of trying to solve them. Ken expressed how men in the mental hospital were treated badly by the staff, dehumanized and just kept in the ward, away from their society, but not really to treat them. He gathered this information in that institution while working there. He was not happy by the way the arrangement tries to deny them their freedom. They could not speak at their own will or go anywhere and even their thinking was restricted.

Normally the men in the mental hospital’s ward were assigned their duties. On the arrival of the Randall McMurphy, he tried to disrupt the regime. He mobilized the men to realize that they can even think for themselves and this led to the complete destruction in the way the system was operating. However, this was not the truth because he himself declared that he was not deaf and dumb originally but was forced to adopt that act by the people who treated him as deaf and dumb. This clearly shows that the way the individual depend mostly on how the society around him treated him. This is well illustrated by Chief Bromden’s father who indicated that one should be careful so that they don’t end up being forced to take part in what other people wants them to do (Scott 89).

For the case of Chief Bromden, he pretended to be a person who can’t talk or hear, as it was the obligation reassigned. This act was fruitful to him for imitating what he is not really who he is. Due to his communication problem, he feels totally alienated. The sign of his silent situation portrays that he is not at his own home but rather a stranger. There were other males within the ward with issues brought about by the likes of Billy Bibbitt. This is because the stuttering issue he has is due to having been oppressed by his mother. Harding’s sexual resentment is also brought about by the beauty of his wife. The conditions of the ward were not helpful to these two men. Nurse Ratched who has been caring for the ward still escalate the issues of womanly tyranny which some of the men are already diagnosed with. This is clearly shown when Billy, who was threatens by the nurse that she will tell her mother of his behavior, eventually committed suicide. The first three suicides show that the men were dehumanized. McMurphy tried to oppose the system but the men were unwilling to vote since they feared the system.

He also tried to lift the control panel which no other man can try to do so. McMurphy also guessed that nurse Ratched may transfer him and he hesitate in his struggling for own individuality and originality. Cheswick has lost hope in life and decided to kill himself. He increased losing hope when he tried to escape but overslept after the party. Being on the ward for long time also makes him dehumanized where he was later lobotomized and finally killed by Chief since Chief was also oppressed in the different way to that of the McMurphy. Other men were pressed to be submissive while McMurphy become rebellious bringing reforms to the ward even by sacrificing himself. The awareness to Chief made him escaped through the window. McMurphy prejudiced all men to see light of releasing themselves. He portrayed a sense of being in a position of not experiencing any change hence running away is their only hope. This shows that their nervous ailments were caused by the society and recovery should come from within them (Scott 89).

How McMurphy resist the way men are controlled in the combine

Immediately McMurphy arrives into the mental hospital the people around him notice a lot of difference between him and the other patients. McMurphy who has proven to the staff in prison beyond doubt that he needs mental help.These results in him transferred to the mental hospital that he finds more comfortable when compared to prison. On arrival at the mental hospital McMurphy is seen to be different from other patients in very many ways, despite the notable difference the nurse Ratched sees him to be the same as the other patients. This in some way makes him to act differently from them and act in a way opposing Ratched policies that has left patients scare of her. McMurphy who has been characterized someone who is big, confident, sociable, and ignores the aides. He is also noted to be honest and laughs a lot. These are the character traits that none of patients has ever had.

The first thing that McMurphy does to challenge the nurse’s authority in the mental hospital is when he threatens her that he is going to drop his towel. Ratched quickly tries to handle the situation by screaming to the boys to get him new clothes. She actually does not realize that McMurphy has shorts. McMurphy in actual sense is playing around with her mind.

McMurphy becomes the first patients to show Ratched’s weakness. This happens during a group meeting when DR. Spivey casually mentions that he had a talk with McMurphy, and continues to go into details about what they had talked. The idea was supported by everyone with the exception of Ratched. This is actually what makes her shake since the inmates had ratified the plan and also because of the fact that the doctor felt that this was a great idea.

McMurphy motivates his fellow inmates but they are too scared of what Ratched could make them go through. This results in him getting angry at them because they are so scared of Ratched. He is letter approached by Billy Bibbit who informs him that no matter what he does will help him in any way in the long run. But McMurphy brags that he already has an arrangement to break out.

McMurphy assisted all the sick by steadily growing quite more rebellious against Ratched. It’s identified in one other meeting where Billy brought out his slutter and the way he wanted to talk to a lady whom his mother hated. During this same discussion McMurphy brings up the issue about World Series again, prompting Ratched to allowing the inmates to vote. The sensitive patients’ casts for the change but Ratched made it known that they are not eligible. McMurphy demonstrated by not accepting to do any kind of job and positioned himself before the television for a very long time despite the fact that the World Series was continuing. Later on the other patients join him. This shows how he has a big influence of them. He continues to behave this way but Ratched does not respond in any way (Kesey 146).

McMurphy has in a way enabled the men in the hospital of how they are being mistreated in since they begin to see how they are being mistreated. McMurphy is able to help his fellow inmate Harding after he finds out how rude his wife Vera is abuses him and how he leaves him while Harding just stands there. Though McMurphy does not answer in a straight forward way, the message is driven home.

Ratched made McMurphy look bad by pointing the patient’s final accounting books that reveals that he has generated huge profits compared to the rest of patients. She further makes matters worse by authorizations of the harassment of George Sorenson. But McMurphy steps in on time and defends him. This shows how he is ready to help his fellow men during their most trying times. McMurphy is seen as a legend by other patients after he had refused to apologize to Ratched. Ratched latter brought him back to the ward after he realizes that the resistance and absence had in a way led to him becoming an inspirational “legend”.

Conclusion

Harding then feeling that he owed McMurphy decides to plan for his escape. This clearly shows how men have become very independent and confident. Though the plan did not work out because McMurphy over sleeps. Another instance that shows how he empowers men is after Ratched had falsely accused for causing Billy’s death he responds by trying to strangle her. After she became well she could not talk. This is actually the pick of events as it is the time when the patients check out of the hospital.

Works cited

Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. New York: Penguin Classics, 2002.

Scott, James. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest: Reproducible Teaching Unit. Clayton: Prestwick House, 2007.

Victor Frankenstein is the true monster in the novel titled Frankenstein by Mary Shelley because his effort to assume supernatural status results in a creature that inspires horror and disgust in society. This postulation may be opposed by many readers who believe that the creature victor made is the real monster. The true definition of a monster is a creature that inspires horror and disgust. From the semantic viewpoint, the creature is the monster in the novel. However, from a thematic point of view, it is wrong to conclude that the creature is the monster. This paper is going to prove why Victor is the real monster in the novel.

To start with, the creature that inspired horror and disgust in society was created by Victor. Had he not created that creature, the people would not have experienced the atrocities committed by the monster. His irresponsible behavior after he fails to get satisfaction from his creature makes society suffer. He is therefore responsible for all the atrocities committed by the monster. Why did victor create the monster in the first place? Victor wants to prove to the whole society that he has some supernatural powers and that is why he engages in a scientific process that gives rise to this creature.

One may say that factors beyond his control pushed Victor to engage in the scientific process that gave rise to this creature. The demise of his mother and self-alienation from his society inspired this creative process. Creating is not the big problem in this case. The problem is the way he reacted to the results of his creative process. The results of his creative process are a grotesque monster whose sight horrifies its creator. He then resolves to destroy what he had created. Unfortunately, his creation escapes from the science lab, swearing to avenge by going on the offensive against victor and the rest of the human folk. Is the creature to blame for its actions? The perspective from which this book is written is very subjective because it makes the reader see the evils that the monster committed without giving them a chance to reflect on the origin of these evils. Keen analysts will discover that this point of view is subjective because portrays the monster as the evil character. Victor manages to bring out all the negative characteristics of the monster in a convincing way. This subjectivity draws the readers away from the flaws of the narrator (Tropp, p. 4).

However, a keen reader will notice that Victor was solely interested in creating a life without thinking about the responsibilities that were to be undertaken once the life has been created. He did not think about the aftermath of his creation. When the monster is created, its behavior is akin to that of an infant. An infant needs the care of the mother and the guidance of everyone concerned and this is what the creature needed. In the initial stage of its life, the creature does not have the mannerisms of a monster. Instead of caring for his creature and giving it the necessary guidance, Victor is devastated by its grotesque sight and his selfishness leads him to attempt to destroy the creature, which subsequently escapes from its confines to save its life.

According to Martin Tropp in his book titled The Mary Shelley Monster, Most readers believe that Frankenstein is the monster but in the real sense, it is the name of the scientist who made the monster (Tropp, p. 67). However, the name can fit both the creator and the creature. To prove his point, Tropp starts by examining the domestic situation that Victor had that inspired him to create the monster. Victor had a good family background, with loving parents, good friends, and material security. However, Victor is vulnerable to obsessions and this is seen when he rejects the alchemist’s thoughts from his professors. To him, the thoughts are useless and he, therefore, misses the grandeur of their thoughts and concentrates on harnessing the science of those days and matching it to the great visions of those who had come before him. Despite having a stable family, Victor turns his back on his family and friends as he becomes increasingly obsessed with his project. He also turns his back against nature itself and immediately after succeeding in creating, he turns his back on his creation also.

Victor can be compared to the mythical man in olden literature called Faust who sold his soul in return for the forbidden knowledge but the problem with him is that he refused to take responsibility for his actions. Tropp argues that the central figure in this book is not victor himself. The central figure is the creature he succeeded in making then turned his back on it. This creature is a technological creation created not through magic but a scientific process in a laboratory. According to Tropp, Victor is not responsible enough. When he discovers that his creature is horrible and would not give him the gratification he wanted, he wants to destroy it. However, the creature manages to understand its nature and the situation it is facing. “He is an adult, who has been rejected by his maker because he is horrible and therefore, he has no meaning and direction in life” (Shelley, p. 234). The creature discovers what truly makes a man by itself and struggles to identify with man and communicate with him. The creature wants to become a part of the normal society but does not manage. It is a story of someone who seeks a family or someone to identify with but does not get that chance. This passion is later turned into violence thus proving Godwin’s teachings that innate good can be transformed into evil by the narrowness and perversion by an immoral society. The creature, therefore, embarks on a terrible wave of vengeance because of the rejection it has suffered from society and its maker. The creature proves his point when it says “I am shunned and hated by all mankind and that is why I live a miserable life. This is why I am malicious. My creator wanted to tear me into pieces and I don’t see why I should pity man if he cannot pity me” (Shelley, p. 144). The creature asserts that it wanted to inspire love in society but is not given that chance because society rejects it even before discovering its internal qualities. Having denied the chance to inspire love, the creature decides to cause fear and revenge its injuries and miseries. The revenge is mostly directed to its creator. “And to you my creator, you are my biggest enemy and I swear that I hate you with an inextinguishable hatred. I will destroy you. I will desolate your inhuman heart until you curse the hour you were born (Shelley, p. 147).

The monster still has some human features, especially in behavior. This is evident when it was weeping after ranting about the poverty and the miserable conditions in which it was living in. The other features of humanity evident in this creature are exuding joy as it basks near the fireplace, expression of pain, and the appreciation of the aesthetics of nature. The monster is not nurtured by its creator, it is nurtured by nature which acquaints it with diverse skills to survive and the creature is very thankful to nature for the role it has played in its life. However, there are some acts of monstrosity in this creature but any keen reader will discover that the monster is innocent in its behavior because it had not been taught. It does not know how to make a distinction between right and wrong because it had been abandoned by its creator immediately after creation. This means that the monster is not responsible for its inhuman behavior and also its external horrific features that scare human beings.

Maurice Hindle in his book titled “The modern Prometheus illustrates the various acts of monstrosity in the novel that highlight the determination of the monster to hit back at the society that had rejected it. The biggest act of monstrosity comes in the middle chapters especially after the creature sees its ugly face in a mirror. The monster gets extremely angry after seeing all the scars on its face and decides to seek revenge upon its maker and had to leave the De Lacy family to pursue its revenge (Hindle, p. 49).

According to Hindle, the monster starts a journey that would help it locate Victor Frankenstein in determination to seek justice from the person responsible for everything that it had been going through. It is important to note that the author used shades of humanity to counter the monstrosity that is building up in the creature to indicate this creature was not an absolute monster and would have lived like a normal human being had it been given that chance by its creator. One of the best aspects of humanity comes immediately after the creature realizes that it had a hideous face that was not in any way human; when it saves a girl who had fallen in a stream (Tropp, p. 49). This showed that the monster had an interest in human life, had a human heart, and did not like to see people suffering. However, a man who saw the incident thought that the monster was harming the girl and aimed a gun at it. The monster was very angry with the man because it did not deserve to be rewarded this way after saving a life. This served to increase the monstrosity building within the creature but it is important to note that the creature is not responsible for its monstrous actions; the actions are motivated by people’s behavior towards it. Immediately after the incident with the gunman, the monster kills the child (Tropp, p. 51). Society heaps blame on the monster but the blame should have gone to Frankenstein because he is the one that created the monster without thinking about the implications of the life that he had created. The monster may have committed several heinous acts in the novel but the person responsible for these monstrous acts is Victor Frankenstein because he created a being, driven by selfish ambition. He wanted to receive glory from human folk for assuming a supernatural status. He did not put into consideration the impact of his creation.

Harold Bloom, in his book titled “The Works of Mary Shelley focuses on the biggest Irony in this book. The biggest irony is that people identify with the creature that is presented as horrible and inhuman and not the creator. The readers understand that the situation of the creature is brought about by the inhumanity and the irresponsibility of the creator. The novel, therefore, creates a strained relationship between a disgruntled creature and a disillusioned creator. The creature does not in any way deserve to be blamed for the violence and the hostility it extends towards society. Victor stands to blame because the creature is an extension of himself. Victor Frankenstein is thus the monster in this Mary Shelley novel. To start with, creating a monster was itself an act of monstrosity. Attempting to destroy it because he was horrified by the hideous nature of the creature was also monstrous. Failing to nurture his creature so that it can assume humane traits led the creature to behave like a monster and the person responsible for the monstrosity of this creature is the creator himself (Bloom, p. 78). The whole mayhem that is presented in this work of art stems from the decision of Victor Frankenstein to assume a Godly position being a creator meaning that he is the cause of all this conflict. Throughout the novel, the monitor is shown to be even more humane than its creator and this is an indication that the true monster was not the creature but Victor Frankenstein, who is later punished for his selfish actions. Had Victor Frankenstein the monster, the devastating acts of the monster would have been avoided. Still, had victor taken responsibility after creating the being, it would have developed into a normal human being.

In conclusion, Frankenstein animates the monster because it’s an extension of himself and as long as he tries to escape from his creature, he remains weak and impotent. The whole conflict in this novel is a result of a disgruntled creature that tries to confront its troubles, troubles caused by the person who created it. That is why the fury of the readers of this novel is directed towards Victor and not the creation he brought into existence.

Works Cited

1. Bloom, Harold. The Works of Mary Shelley. New York: Chelsea House, 1988
2. Hindle, Maurice. The modern Prometheus.NY: Penguin, 2003
3. Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Aerie Books, 1985.
4. Tropp, Martin. Mary Shelley’s Monster. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.

Introduction

Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography is a notable book written by Peter Green. The author is a British novelist and classical scholar, famous for his historical books. The presented work can be considered one of the most significant ones Green has written. Moreover, the book can be seen as one of the most significant biographies of Alexander existing today, as it views the commander both as a complex personality and a single-minded person. In addition to addressing Alexander’s traits from various perspectives, Green offers a highly engaging read, allowing the reader to analyze the king’s character in detail.

In his work, the author presents a story of the great commander’s life and the events associated with it. Green traces Alexander’s life from early childhood through the time he became a king and started his conquests and until his death. He guides the reader through the general’s experiences, desires, and life goals. The book presents many notable events of the commander’s life, including the Battle of the Granicus, the manhunt of Darius III, and the siege of Tyre.

In Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography, Alexander the Great is presented from a non-romanticized perspective, as the author strives to address his traits and actions from a non-biased viewpoint. This aspect of the book is notable because it makes it different from many works about the commander. Green’s book provides valuable insight into his personality and character. It reveals the connection between Alexander’s traits and his relationships with others and outlines the events that happened in the commander’s life, supporting his viewpoint.

The purpose of this book report is to provide a summary of Green’s work, analyzing some of its most significant aspects. The paper addresses the author’s opinion on Alexander and the significant issues Green raises in his book. It presents Green’s perspective on other works in the field, outlining the differences between Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography and other books. The report also reflects on the significance of images, maps, and quotes featured in the paper and outlines their benefits for the reader. It outlines the reasons Green includes them into his book and the ways in which they make the book more informative.

Finally, the paper presents a personal perspective on the book and addresses the quality of the reading experience. It outlines the points that can be noted about the book from a personal viewpoint. This report concludes that Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography is a significant and outstanding work. It can be useful for those wanting to know more not only about the conquests and achievements of the commander, but his personal traits and the factors affecting them.

Summary and Analysis

It is necessary to start this report by offering a general idea of the contents of Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography. The book is a historical biography of Alexander the Great, the king known for his conquests and battles. Green addresses the commander’s characters, pursuits, and relationships with others. The book consists of ten chapters, each of which addresses significant aspects, helping the reader to understand Alexander’s character better.

The reader learns about Alexander’s father and his life before his son was born, the days when the future commander was a young boy and Aristotle’s student, and his life after Philip’s death. Moreover, Green provides his audience with an opportunity to learn about the battles and conquests of the great commander. The book is a historical one but is written as if it was a novel, with the author using epithets, descriptive language, and addressing his perspective on the events he describes.

It is possible to see that Green’s book is different from many of the ones written by popular historians from the very first chapter. The author wants to challenge the audience’s perceptions of Alexander of Macedon and does not portray him as a romantic figure wanting to share his vision with the world. From some sources, many readers may know that the dream Alexander the Great had was to achieve the brotherhood of men.

Other biographers, on the contrary, tell the audience that Alexander had a high interest in exercising his power. For Green, the commander was one of the historical figures whose idealistic persuasions were imposed on them by later generations (17). Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography shows that Alexander had a complex personality, which may be different from what today’s historians and bibliographers may think of it.

The author contributes to the public understanding of Alexander’s character by humanizing and demystifying him. There is a perspective that Alexander the Great was a significant and superior leader, unlike other ones living in his time. The book shows that the commander was, indeed, a talented and charismatic but flawed leader. For instance, Alexander of Macedon had an excellent ability to predict his opponents’ next moves and implement tactics that would put his enemies under psychological pressure (Green 125).

At the same time, it is possible to say that the commander was a poor government manager, as he rarely tried to improve the administration of the territories he had conquered. For him, it was more significant to gain control of the local leadership rather than consolidate his new holdings. As a result, the empire dissolved shortly after his death. This point reveals that being a good leader for the territories he conquered was not significant for Alexander. Instead, his goal was to proclaim himself as one; he wanted to win battles

Green’s perspective of Alexander the Great and his awareness of the differences of his representation by historians may be considered refreshing. The book shows that the commander was perceived in various ways depending on the time and the culture the writer lived in. For instance, in his time, Alexander of Macedon was perceived as a tyrant and a militant autocrat, which he did not like to hear (Green 146).

At the same time, during the rise of the British and Roman empires, the king was seen as an imperialist striving to enlighten the word through Hellenism. Finally, in the revolutionary period of the early 19th century, Alexander was referred to as a liberator from the monarchy (Green 268). It is possible to say that the author himself depicts the great commander as an excellent, but narcissistic planner and tactician driven by megalomania, which cannot be considered a romanticized perspective.

The point presented above is particularly significant for understanding the personality of Alexander the book tries to convey. Green notes that the audience should perceive the commander’s ruthlessness as the one Stalin or Pol Pot had and understand his internal desire for supremacy (11). The book reveals that Alexander the Great did not have a dreamy personality; he was paranoid about possible conspiracies and obsessional about conquest. In his work, the author addresses other historians’ perspectives specifically, noting that they seek to “modify this grim picture” by stating that the commander’s main goal was achieving permanent Greek-oriental collaboration and union (Green 11).

Notably, the author explains the causes of the differences in biographers’ opinions regarding Alexander’s motivations. For instance, he comments on the case presented above by saying that the commander was desperate to collaborate with nations other than Macedonians because he needed an army (Green 12). This point illustrates that, throughout his work, Green strives not only to introduce his perspective but explain why it may be different from others’ ones and present evidence supporting his viewpoint.

It is notable that the author refers to some of the works about Alexander directly, calling them propaganda. For instance, he addresses the two accounts of the battle at the Granicus, saying that they are irreconcilable (Green 21). It means that one person recording the battle presented a different perspective on it compared to the other one, although both of them were present in the scene. The author notes that the reason for it is that, at the time when Alexander lived, it was crucial to avoid publishing information about his mistakes and faults. Green shows that Alexander of Macedon’s life was surrounded by propaganda and that it is essential to analyze the available evidence critically to distinguish between trusted and potentially false sources. Although it is possible to say that the audience should question the data presented in all sources, Green’s work seems trust-worthy because the author provides much evidence to support his claims.

The book reveals that there are many aspects of Alexander’s personality readers should know about. For example, the author reveals that conquests were not the only interests of the commander; he was also fond of medicine and biology (Green 61). Notably, the king used his knowledge to cure his friends when they were sick and even prescribed them with various treatments. Alexander’s interest in these fields allowed him to have a more flexible mind and the ability to manage all arising problems timely.

Moreover, the teachings of biology and medicine helped Alexander the Great to minimize possible preconceptions, which was significant for a field-commander (Green 61). The author also reports that the king read much poetry, especially by Homer, and had knowledge in rhetoric, astronomy, and geometry. These points reveal why ordinary Macedonians thought that their leader was different from them; for some, however, the difference was not a positive aspect.

The book allows the reader to see the transformation Alexander of Macedon went through during his short life. As he gains the idea that Zeus was his father, his perspective of self changes drastically. Alexander wants to believe that he is no ordinary man, and expects that others think the same. As his conquests become more and more significant, the commander starts believing that he is superior to Achilles, Heracles, and Dionysus (Green 374).

Such views, along with megalomania, isolate Alexander from his people and allow him to engage in behaviors other Macedonians found humiliating. It means that, contrary to the commander’s expectations, people do not praise him for being a god; they do not trust him because of it. Eventually, these issues challenge his authority and career, which is also notable considering the significance of the historical figure people know today. A modern audience may never know the true perspective people of Alexander’s time had about him, but Green tries to show that some of his contemporaries did not believe in his godly origin and could not accept this idea.

As mentioned above, the book is notable from the very first chapter, as the author introduces not only the events of the life of Alexander the Great but his father, Phillip of Macedon. Such an approach to addressing the life of Alexander is significant, as information about his father can play a crucial role in understanding the commander. Green reports that the story of Alexander of Macedon is closely related to the one of King Phillip II and his country, Macedonia (1).

The reason for it is that Alexander’s father was a remarkable figure whose dominance allowed Macedonia to have a well-centralized military and government. It is possible to say that without Philip, his son would not become the leader he was. Philip made the country’s army stronger and trained the generals that fought for Alexander. He also conquered Greece and left it weakened, helping Alexander to frighten the entire population by leveling Thebes to the ground. Finally, King Philip II asked Aristotle to be his son’s tutor, which affected his development highly (Green 55). The attention the author places on Philip is crucial for understanding Alexander’s character.

It is crucial to mention that the relationships between the great commander and King Philip II were vital in forming Alexander’s personality. The father and the son had love-hate relationships; it was a blend of competitiveness and admiration (Green 40). Alexander strived to excel Philip while following his steps. It is possible to say that, at times, the great commander was even envious of his father. For instance, Green reports that Alexander of Macedon noted that Philip “left no great or brilliant achievement” for him and refused to believe that his father did it for his good (41).

Another fact that reveals the nature of the relationships between the two is that Alexander believed that he had a godly origin and was a son of Zeus. While admiring his mother, he was not fond of his father and enjoyed thinking that he was not his son. This point can be explained by several reasons, including the competition between Philip and Alexander of Macedon. However, one thing one can be sure about is that the relationships and interactions between the father and the son shaped Alexander’s upbringing and self-perceptions crucially.

One of the other notable aspects of the book is the author’s ability to convey the atmosphere of the events he describes. For instance, in How Many Miles to Babylon? chapter, he describes a banquet that was held to celebrate Alexander’s recovery. Green reports that, at the event, Corragus, one of the significant veterans of Macedon, challenged an Athenian boxer Dioxippus to single combat (424). The latter fought completely naked and only had a club with him, while the former was fully armed and had a spear and a sword; Dioxippus won this battle within seconds. Alexander was so angry about it that he had to leave the banquet, as his pride was mortified.

Then, the commander’s followers caused many problems for Dioxippus, which resulted in his suicide (Green 424). Alexander was in remorse, but he could not do anything to change the situation anymore. By providing the details about this situation, the author shows the reader that Alexander could be considered a tyrant; however, he did not have a purely violent nature and regretted his mistakes. Nevertheless, the information about his errors is not as public as the data presenting his victories.

The book is different from some of the other historical works because Green does not assume that his reader is aware of all of the aspects of the time Alexander lived in. For instance, in Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography, he not only tells the audience the story about King II Philip and his life but also addresses the development of Greece and Asia Minor. It is important for the author to discuss the state these lands had been in before they changed due to conquests. This point shows that throughout his book, Green strives to not only show his proficiency in the subject and address debatable issues surrounding Alexander’s figure but also ensure that the reader gains a full understanding of the commander’s life and environment.

Even the conclusion of Green’s work provides significant insight into the commander’s personality, offering historiography of his character and image. He explains why Alexander was viewed as a hero in some periods and as a totalitarian dictator in others. The points Green provides reveal that the king’s character is multifaceted, and it cannot be described only in one way. He was both a hero and a dictator, having the treats one could both admire and despise. The author’s opinion on the commander, however, is clear, as he does not idealize Alexander and tries to describe the events of his life the way they really happened. Such an approach is important for the readers, as Green helps them to see that Alexander the Great was an ordinary human, and his persuasiveness and strong character allowed him to become the person he was.

Significance of Images, Maps, and Quotes in the Book

Green’s book is notable not only for the details he addresses but for the images and maps he provides to support them. For instance, Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography contains maps of Alexander’s routes Afghanistan and Baluchistan, Central and Eastern Iran, and other travels (Green 298, 352). Moreover, it provides illustrations for some of the battles, including the battles of Issus, Gaugamela, and Chaeronea (Green 73, 225, 291).

The reader can see that the author of the book wants the audience to understand the events that happened during battles and have a clearer image of them. For instance, he provides the plan of Babylon that shows what the city looked like when the commander approached it with his army (Green 301). The use of maps and images is particularly significant for those not knowing much about the way cities and lands looked at the time of Alexander the Great. By introducing images, the author ensures that the reader can understand why a city could not resist Alexander or what tactics the commander used to win his battles.

The utilization of quotes is also crucial, as they serve as evidence about the personalities historical figures presented in the book had or the events they experienced. Notably, Green quotes not only Alexander the Macedon and the philosophers living at his time; he also refers to anecdotes relevant to his life. For instance, the author addresses the story about Alexander and Leonidas, which offers the reader an insight into the commander’s character and the relationships he had with his father (Green 44).

Green wants the audience to understand how Philip and his son interacted with one another because it had a vital contribution to the development of Alexander’s personality. The anecdote shows that the two met rarely, and King Philip II was on campaigns most of the time, and when he was in Pella, he was occupied with diplomatic work and the organization of banquets for visiting ambassadors (Green 45). This knowledge provides the reader with an idea of the situation Alexander grew up in and its possible impact on his personality.

Personal Perspective on the Book

As seen from the analysis above, the book by Green is a notable piece and can be viewed as a crucial source of information for those wanting to learn more about Alexander the Great. The author’s work can be considered particularly significant because it is easy-to-read due to the style of narration he used. The book does not just list the events of Alexander of Macedon’s life; it is a story that unveils with time, allowing the readers to see all parts of the puzzle as they continue reading. There are several impressing points the book presents; they will be discussed below.

One of the insights that Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography has provided is that Alexander might not have been as successful as a commander and conqueror if his father did not help him. It is possible to say that King Philip II was killed after he had arranged everything well, so it was easier for Alexander to develop his authority and become a powerful leader. For example, as mentioned above, he prepared the army for his son, taught Alexander how to be a soldier, and made him a well-educated man of his time by asking Aristotle to be his tutor.

Due to his father’s efforts, Alexander of Macedon was raised believing that he was special and had the desire to pursue a great destiny. The book reveals that his desire to conquer the whole world was not driven by the interest in the brotherhood of men; he genuinely believed that owning the world was his birthright (Green 93). Because of these factors, the commander was able to suppress various cultures and defeat them, which is notable even from the perspective of modern leaders.

It is notable to see that Alexander’s environment and upbringing have contributed to the fact that he achieved success as a commander significantly. Green’s narrative is outstanding because he pays attention to the people that surrounded the commander when he was a young boy and during his adult life. He addresses the dialogues Alexander the Great had with other people, helping the audience to understand the issues that frustrated or motivated him. Moreover, the author does not say that the commander is the only person responsible for his success. He admits that his father, teachers, and followers contributed to his growth and development a lot. This point also benefits the way the book is perceived because it shows that Alexander was an extraordinary figure but would not be able to achieve success without the support of other notable individuals.

Another aspect of the book that affected the reading experience positively is how many details and information about Alexander the Great and his environment it presents. It is surprising that there are so many data available about a historical figure that lived in 356-323 B.C. Notably, the commander himself contributed to the availability of this information for the future generations, bringing historians, botanists, and zoologists with him to note everything they witnessed (Green 61).

It is possible to say that the tutoring of Aristotle affected Alexander’s desire to record his life in such a manner. It resulted in the fact that, to this day, the population of the world can gain evidence about the commander’s life. For a reader, this point is significant because it means that it is possible to learn all aspects of Alexander’s life from one book, without the need to look for more details in other sources.

It is possible to say that the point presented above is one of the most outstanding aspects of Alexander of Macedon. The reasons why he wanted to retrieve evidence about his life and transfer it to future generations is not fully clear. However, it is possible to say that he was highly proud of his achievements and wanted them to become known to people who would live a long time after him. Moreover, he probably perceived his figure as highly significant for the world’s history and, therefore, aimed at conveying the information about his conquests and victories to others. This point is notable for present generations because it makes Alexander of Macedon one of the historical characters today’s individuals can analyze in detail.

Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography has also allowed seeing why Alexander the Great is considered a great commander. Green’s perspective on this historical figure is skeptical, as the author does not romanticize this person. The book reveals that Alexander was not particularly gifted to be a leader, but was rather a skilled manipulator that knew how to achieve his goals. Moreover, the author shows that some of the king’s traits were highly questionable, which means that he should not be perceived as an example of a flawless conqueror and a purely successful ruler. For instance, as mentioned above, Alexander was a megalomaniac; he was thirsty for conquest and glory and wanted to reach his aims at all expenses.

At the same time, the commander knew how to force people to do what he wanted to do and to help him in achieving his goals. He was good at communicating his desires and inspiring people to follow him. The book reveals that being a great leader means knowing how to pursue one’s desires effectively and motivating others to do the same.

It is possible to say that the author tries to analyze the deep motives and drivers the commander had instead of concentrating on military issues solely. Despite its novel-like narrative, Green’s skepticism makes the book trust-worthy. The author knows what words to use to present Alexander in the most realistic way while also showing that people respect him because of the person he was. It is important for Green not to turn his book into praise or critique of Alexander; he wants to abstain from commenting on the commander’s decisions and invites the readers to develop their opinions based on his narrative. For the audience, this point is significant because it makes the book more engaging and enjoyable while being highly informative.

Another aspect that has affected the opinion of the book positively is the sense of wonder it presents despite being a historical work. Green, while not being prone to hyperbole, presents the events of the commander’s life in the manner that they remind the reader of stories about fictional and non-fictional heroes admired by everyone. The author does not admire Alexander, nor does he belittle him. Green addresses Alexander’s life in a calm and a relatively non-biased way, which makes the audience believe that his perspective is close to what actually happened in the times when the commander lived. It is crucial to mention that the author has not chosen to highlight only one, for instance, the political perspective of the commander’s life. Instead, he strives to provide insight into the events from various viewpoints, including cultural and military ones.

It is crucial to provide a critique of the book, too, although the work offers a highly positive experience in general. Green’s piece may be considered an overly complex read for those wanting to gain a brief idea of Alexander the Great’s achievements and the events he is famous for. The reason for it is that, as mentioned above, the author aims at providing a multifaceted perspective on this historical figure, the causes of his actions, and his motivations.

For a reader not interested in Alexander’s background, the book may be not as useful as shorter biographies addressing the facts without adding less significant details. In addition, it is also possible to say that the book provides a controversial view of Alexander the Great because the author does not try to romanticize him. Green’s narrative is different from other historians’ viewpoint, and it is unclear whether his perspective is completely right.

However, Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography can be recommended to anyone who is aware of the commander’s achievements and wants to know the aspects of his personality and conquests in detail. Regardless of the points presented above, the book is suitable for the general audience because Green strives to explain all of the claims he makes. Moreover, the work does not have the purpose of cataloging the events of Alexander’s life, so it is written differently compared to short biographies. The fact that the author does not idealize the commander may be considered beneficial because, in the times when Alexander lived, he was already romanticized. For the modern reader, it may be necessary to understand the real life of Alexander of Macedon, not the information available as a result of propaganda associated with his figure.

In summary, the book has provided significant insight into the personality of Alexander of Macedon. It is fascinating that the commander has become such a great figure in the world’s history and achieved so much in such a short time. The biography is not focused on facts exclusively; instead, it offers the reader an idea about the environment Alexander grew up in, the relationships he had, and the issues that affected the development of his personality. Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography provides exceptional reading experience, as it is written in a simple but intelligent language and is easy-to-understand. The narrative of the book is one of its notable features along with the attention Green pays to Alexander’s character and personality traits.

Conclusion

This book report reveals that Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography is a highly significant piece of literature aimed at presenting the story of the great commander in detail. The work can be considered a highly useful guide for those wanting to learn more about Alexander’s conquests and, most importantly, his personality and the factors that affected it. The author’s perspective on the king’s life can be considered non-biased compared to the views of other historians.

He does not romanticize Alexander and avoids depicting him as a dreamy leader believing in the brotherhood of men. Instead, Green shows the commander as a manipulative and authoritative conqueror believing that the world is his by the birthright. The book is notable for featuring significant details of Alexander and his father’s relationships, which affected the development of his personality highly. The work allows the reader to reflect on the power of ego, persuasiveness, and manipulation in combination with great talent.

Notably, the author addresses the differences in the perceptions of the great commander throughout the years, which also helps the reader to understand Alexander’s personality better. He reveals that the king’s figure has been understood differently according to the times various bibliographers lived in. Moreover, some of the traits of his character have been concealed by historians of the early years because Alexander did not want others to know about his possible failures. The book provides a comprehensive perspective on the great commander, supporting the claims with evidence from situations recorded by the people who surrounded him. This point is highly significant because it shows that the author strives to present a non-biased opinion on Alexander while addressing other historians’ perspectives.

It is possible to conclude that Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography is a highly pleasant and engaging read. Green’s talent of narration allows for imaging all of the events he describes in detail, making the book truly enjoyable. The book is engaging and easy-to-read, which makes it different from some other bibliographies of historical characters. The work is suitable for all readers wanting to know more about the development of Alexander as one of the greatest historical figures of all times, regardless of their level of prior knowledge.

The evidence the author provides and the images, maps, and quotes he introduces to support his story allow the audience to gain a genuine interest and understanding of the commander and his motives. Green does not aim at listing the facts about Alexander the Great and the events of his life; he wants the reader to become aware of the issues affecting them. All in all, Green’s work can be recommended to anyone curious about the peculiarities of Alexander’s life and his achievements.

Work Cited

Green, Peter. Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography. University of California Press, 2013.

The novel was written during the Second World War when many people were going through the aftermath of the war. The writer got the inspiration for the novel from the war. The novel features an important character by the name of Bill whose pilgrim’s tales are narrated. The novel reveals its anti-war nature through the themes presented therein.

One of the themes entails violence. Violence has been vividly described in several scenes throughout the book. The novel contains very ugly scenes and hardships that were experienced by Bill throughout his life (Harold, 2007). By reading the novel, the reader gets to feel the effects and consequences of the Second World War. One of the ways in which the writer describes his anti-war feelings is through his choice of language. A very good example is when he says that whoever seeks glory as well as heroism in the event of a war is very much deluded (Harold, 2007). This statement in itself shows how much he despises those people whose motives for getting involved in the war are as stated. Such statements made by the author in the novel actually lead the readers to think deeply about the statements and to understand the selfish reasons as to why most of the wars in the world take place. As a result of this, readers are empowered and are in a better position to resist any kind of war.

The reader also argues that he is an enemy to any advancement in technology as long as it is a threat to mankind (Thomas, 2002). This means that he opposes the technology that manufactures weapons of mass destruction. In another statement, he warns his sons against working with companies that are involved in making massacre machines, taking part in events of the massacre, or even getting satisfied with news about the massacre. These are some of the novel’s contentious yet helpful issues which can be applied in real life in the event of a war.

Another aspect that reveals the anti-war nature of the novel is the theme of cruelty that is well portrayed in the novel (Thomas, 2002). Nevertheless, the novel is not written in an organized manner in that the events do not follow any particular sequence but rather jump from one event to another. The contents of the novel also portray an anti-war sentiment because most of the readers identify with the real experience of Vonnegut when he was working as a government soldier during the Second World War. His work thus made him come face to face with the war and its devastating effects, particularly on human beings. It is the experience that he went through as he served in the army that initiated his feelings to write the novel (Harold, 2007). Some very nasty scenes in the novel are also very similar to what would really happen in a real war. A very good example is the time that Billy was abducted as well as the bombing he witnessed. All these show the readers what would happen in the event of war thus enabling them to develop anti-war feelings. Apart from instilling anti-war feelings and attitudes in the readers, the novel also empowers them to be able to fight against people who support war as a means of solving problems.

The novel “Slaughterhouse 5” is anti-war because it opposes war vehemently. It also instills in readers negative attitudes towards wars by showing them just how destructive war can be on human lives and physical structures.

Reference List

1. Harold, B. (2007). Kurt Vonnegut’s slaughterhouse-five. Chelsea: Chelsea House.
2. Thomas, F. (2002). Kurt Vonnegut: a critical companion. Greenwood: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Introduction

Katherine and Petruchio are the major characters in Shakespeare’s play The Taming of the Shrew. Katherine is a woman in Padua and she is the shrew in the play. She is a woman that is sharp-tongued and has no respect for the men and insults them. Katherine is also an angry woman and she physically attacks those who enrage her. Padua is a patriarchal society and women are expected to respect men. Therefore, due to Katherine’s nature, she comes across as too rough and men are afraid of her. Gremio says that he would never want to marry her because she is rough and that a man who would marry her would be a fool because doing so would be like marrying hell. Hortensio says that Katherine is a devil and that she is not likely to attract any suitor unless she becomes gentler. Her personality is strong and she confronts things she feels are not right. At one point, she tells her father Baptista not to marry her off to a fool. She is also angry because her father shows favoritism to her younger sister Bianca. We see her dragging Bianca with her hands tied with a rope into a room. This act may show us how she feels about her sister and explains why Katherine behaves the way she does. She says that her sister Bianca is showered with many suitors and yet she has none and is still single. When the father rescues Bianca from Katherine, she tells the father that Bianca is a treasure and she is going to get a husband while Katherine will be humiliated during her sister’s wedding.

Katherine

Katherine has a negative attitude towards society. Society alienates her because it does not understand her. She behaves the way she does because she feels alienated. Her way of expressing her feelings of unhappiness is through domineering and this makes the society further alienate itself from her. This makes her grow lonely, as she cannot find a man to marry and a man who will compliment her temperament. She is scared of becoming an old maid in her father’s house. However, her independence makes her insult suitors who come because she is not willing to compromise on the kind of a man she wants. She also knows that at one point she will have to become flexible or she will never fulfill the role the society expects her to play which is to marry and become an obedient woman. These frustrations make Katherine antisocial.

Petruchio

On the other hand, is Petruchio. He is the man who marries Katherine the shrew. He is materialistic and is willing to marry Katherine even if she is a shrew as long as she comes with a good fortune. Her dowry is sizable to convince Petruchio to marry her because he is money-minded. To him, love is not an important thing in marriage. His friend Hortensio says that a man would marry Katherine with all her faults because she comes with money.

Petruchio has an equally strong personality as Katherine and he seems like an equal to her. He is not cowered by Katherine’s strong personality and he makes it his mission to marry her. He tells her that he will marry her whether she agrees or not. This is because he is a boastful man who is selfish. He does not care whether Katherine wants to marry him or not as long as he fulfills his objective of wealthy marrying. He is also a domineering male chauvinist. He intends to dominate his wife and make her become a submissive wife as was expected in the Elizabethan society at that time. He starts his domination by turning up for his wedding late dressed like a clown. Katherine has no option but to marry him even if he is dressed inappropriately. Thus, he has his way in the wedding ceremony and this shows that he will make Katherine obey what he wants.

The plot

Petruchio aims to tame his wife and make her fit her societal role. He starts his taming by coming late for the wedding ceremony. During the ceremony, he behaves badly and even slaps the priest. Katherine puts up with his unacceptable behavior because she wants a husband. After the ceremony is over, he forces Katherine to go to his house before the wedding reception is over. Once there he does not give her food or allow her to sleep claiming nothing is good enough for his wife. This shows that Petruchio has started taming Katherine and she will do as he wills.

Katherine is tamed by Petruchio because when they plan to go back to Padua to attend her sister’s wedding, he promises her a new wedding gown made by a tailor. When she goes to try it on, she loves it very much. However, Petruchio says the material is not good enough, she has to wear one of her old clothes, and she obeys her husband. This means that Petruchio is succeeding in taming his wife.

On their way to the wedding in Padua, Petruchio tames Katherine’s language. He asks her to call objects and people what they are not. For example, he tells her to say the sun is the moon and the old man is a young virgin. She agrees with him even though it is absurd. “Sun it is not when you say it is not, And the moon changes even as your mind: What you will have it named, even that it is, And so it shall be so for Katherine” (Shakespeare Act 4 Scene5). In this scenario, Katherine does not defy her husband and agrees with everything he says. She has realized things are better this way this is because she has learned her husband’s games and decides to play along. She also plays his games when he calls her names for instance he calls her cake, cat, hawk in a bid to tame her by objectifying her. He says she is his property and thus he can do whatever he wants with her. She, on the other hand, calls him names and compares him to a crab and a turtle. These two play these games but in the end, Petruchio wins by taming Kate.

At Bianca’s wedding reception, Petruchio boasts to his friends, that he has tamed his wife. The other men at the wedding know Katherine for her shrewdness and get into an argument and they decide to settle the argument with a wager. Petruchio is confident that his wife will obey him because he knows he has tamed her. The contest is between Petruchio, Lucientio, and Hortensio. The bet is to call their wives and whoever’s wife comes wins the wager. Only Petruchio’s wife comes and thus wins him the wager. The other wives do not heed their husband’s call. This shows that Petruchio has completely tamed his wife. Her father Baptista is shocked that his once untamable daughter has been tamed and he offers to give Petruchio additional dowry. In addition, Kate’s speech at the wedding reception about how women should respect and obey their husbands shows that Petruchio has tamed his wife and everyone at the reception becomes a witness to this Katherine is no longer shrew but now confines to the societal image of a dutiful wife.

Conversely, we may say that Katherine tamed Petruchio by agreeing with whatever he demanded. She does this because she has discovered this is the only way to have a good marriage. She may not necessarily be tamed but she could have duped her husband into believing she was yet in reality, she is the one who tames Petruchio. This is because we even see him defending her and saying she is not a shrew and he changes other people’s perception of her by changing her reputation. However, Petruchio has a bigger influence on her and brings out a change in Katherine’s behavior.

The shrew in the play is Katherine but one may also say that Petruchio is the shrew of the play. This is because he treats Katherine cruelly in his attempts to tame her. He has become worse than she was and he denies her even basic things like food and sleep. He also forces her to wear old clothes to create an image of an obedient woman. He also becomes a shrew to his servants and beats them up or screams at them when they do something wrong. Therefore, due to his behavior, we can say he was a shrew too.

Conclusion

The play lives up to its title and Katherine is tamed by Petruchio. The once wild Kate becomes obedient and envious of society. Petruchio has done a good job in taming her and his friend Hortensio says that other men could learn from him how to tame their wives and equates his home to a taming school.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew. 2010.

Introduction

The poem is about an inward struggle of the speaker between enjoying a triumph and empathizing with the prey. The speaker has just caught a fish that apparently has managed to break free from the hooks of many fishermen. However, the speaker is unable to enjoy his triumph as he develops feelings of empathy for the fish evidenced by the detailed description of various aspects about the fish. The feelings of triumph are quickly replaced by feelings of appreciation towards the beauty and the strength of the fish and then later by feelings of empathy. Tracing back from the title, it is easy to realize that the poem is about the fish not in terms of being caught and turned into a meal, but in terms of being appreciated and finally being let go. It is not easy for the speaker to just let go of such a big fish that many fishermen would have loved to catch but the speaker does exactly that. A considerable portion of the poem has actually been dedicated to provide a detailed description of the fish. The speaker describes the color and the body of the fish. This helps the speaker to generate appreciation towards the fish. It is as if the speaker regrets catching the fish and by trying to study the fish in detail the speaker seeks to justify the final decision to let go of the fish. From the beginning it is observable that the speaker has no intention of killing the fish because no predator catches a prey and begins to build an attachment with it. The speaker makes the decision of not killing the fish immediately after retrieving it from the water. However, because the speaker is a fisherman and perhaps the boat has been rented and letting go of the fish just like that would be a total loss, the speaker decides to build emotional attachment with the fish that soon emanates to empathy. This provides the speaker with grounds enough to release the fish.

Analysis of the Poem

The poem is about the unlikely attachment that exists between a predator and the prey. However, we can only realize the existent of this attachment from the eyes and words of the predator. The prey is hapless after being caught by the trap of the predator. It is the predator who develops the feelings of empathy towards the prey that soon leads him to let go of his catch. However, one does not fail to question the reason why the prey does not even struggle after being caught but looks at the predator with eyes empty of any emotions. Perhaps the predator has over the years realized that most fishermen have soft spots that could be manipulated and that could make the fishermen let go. This is evidenced by the fact that the speaker observed five other hooks that had been embedded in the mouth of the fish. The speaker refers to the hooks as medals, perhaps appreciating the hooks that the fish has broken free from. However, from the speaker’s description it is understandable that the fish does not struggle or fight back, but rather takes the predator through a guilt trip. The speaker catches the fish enjoys victory but finally lets the fish go. This presents an unlikely situation due to the fact that instead of the speaker going on to catch other fish, he indulges himself in describing the fish. The fish has developed understanding of the predator and has therefore built a defense mechanism that has ensured its continual survival. The fish does not struggle when caught, puts on a stage shoe to evoke empathy from the predator and the predator finally gives n and releases the fish.

Conclusion

The personification of the fish in the poem shows how intelligent the fish has become. The speaker describes the feelings of the fish as if he were describing a human being. Both the speaker and the fish are finally content. The fisherman realizes that by letting the fish go he has rid himself of all the guilt and his conscience is clear. On the other hand the fish goes back to the water to continue with its life. The fish has become wise enough to realize that by struggling it would only make the fisherman more eager to kill it. Furthermore, by struggling the hook will continue to cut into the flesh and would not give the fisherman time to study its beauty and perhaps build emotional attachment. From the time the fisherman catches the fish; he studies it and describes it. We only get to know very few details concerning the fisherman. The details we learn about him, is that he is emotionally weak, his priorities are misplaced and he is not wise. A wise fisherman would not have been drawn into the traps of the fish and would have immediately killed his catch and proceeded to look for other fish. Considering that the boat was rented and that the fisherman would have to pay for it eventually shows that the fisherman does not understand what his priorities are. The poem is a case of a prey that has outsmarted the predator not through brawl but through brains.