Conflicting perspectives are an innate corollary of the subjective human experience. Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar' explores disparate representations of events and personalities to give rise to truth and the language in which it is expressed as innately unstable. Moreover, Julius Caesar and Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' offer disparate class perspectives to undermine the possibility of truth as anything but iridescent and personal.
Shakespeare evinces perspectives of situations, events and characters as innately conflicting, as the impossibility of a single and stable objective reality comes to advocate the embrace of truth and meaning as endlessly deferred and enigmatic. The Stoic Brutus' epideictic "not that I loves Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more" positions the twin motivations of a personal allegiance and socially altruistic pursuit of Republicanism as irreconcilable within a system of static moral precepts. Cassius embodies a humanistic subversion of the divine as the epistrophe "Cassius from bondage will deliver Cassius" is contrasted with the ironic anaphora "Therein, ye gods, you make the weak so strong, therein ye gods, you tyrants do defeat" as the stage direction and pathetic fallacy "thunder continues" signifies a violent departure from theocentrism and the subversion of a single stable discourse. Caesar is subject to competing representations; by himself as metaphorically "as constant as the northern star"; by Anthony as benevolent as benevolent through the parralelism "when the poor hath cried, Casesar hath wept"; and as Cassius as undeservedly revered and poignantly mortal, through the dramatic imagery "Help me, Cassius, or I sink". These conflicting perspectives cannot be resolved into a stable and tru...
... middle of paper ...
..., for Shakespeare, as Murellus berates the plebians wildly cheering at Caesar's arrival by objectifying them through the rhetorical iambic pentameter "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things", the same plebians extrajudicially "Tear him {Cinna}, Tear Him!" as Shakespeare contrasts the intellect of the aristocracy with the brute force of the underclass. Hence, divergent viewpoints function as symptoms of complex attitudes to truth and disparate behavioural systems and values.
In conclusion, through an examination of various viewpoints of contentious events, characters and ideologies, Shakespeare and Huxley offer language, meaning and the human experience thenceforth derived to be engendered upon innately unstable linguistic foundations.
Works Cited
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Print.
The play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare showcases many characters and events that go through many significant changes. One particular character that went through unique changes was Julius Caesar. The 16th century work is a lengthy tragedy about the antagonists Brutus and Cassius fighting with the protagonists Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus over the murder of Julius Caesar. Although the play’s main pushing conflict was the murder of Julius Caesar, he is considered a secondary character, but a protagonist. Throughout the theatrical work Julius Caesar’s actions, alliances, character developments, and internal and external conflicts display his diverse changes.
Much of Rome perceives Caesar as a superior being and immortal, but Cassius holds a contrasting perspective of Caesar. There is a point in his story where Caesar is crying for help, “Help me, Cassius, or I sink!” (111). Cassius also reveals a time when Caesar fell ill in Spain and how Caesar was completely taken over by this sudden sickness, “And when the fit was on him, I did mark/ How he did shake-’tis true, this god did shake,” (120-121). Cassius tells of Caesar’s weakest points, exposing moments in which Caesar does not seem godly at all. By illustrating the time in which Caesar fell ill Cassius proves that Caesar is not a celestial because become gods do not become ill, only normal citizens do. Cassius diminishes Caesar’s godly nature by illustrating how this great immortal being, cannot swim or can become terribly ill, just as any other commoner. Cassius, by exposing these moments in Caesar’s life, demonstrates to Brutus that Caesar is not fit to be a leader and is not the god Romans perceive him to be; his actions create a different person than his words. This supports Cassius’ point that Caesar is not fit to be a leader because Caesar is deceiving the people of Rome. Cassius continues to elaborate on his episode when he informs Brutus that he was crying for others to bring him water, “Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans/Mark him, and write his speeches in their books,/Alas it cried, ‘Give me some drink, Titinius” (125-127). The great Caesar, whom others admire and document his words, is now begging for a drink to help him recover from the sudden illness. Cassius emphasizes how Caesar is not divine since he cannot manage sudden, challenging events. He reveals how Caesar whose words can persuade the citizens of Rome is now begging for someone to help him. This diminishes his godly nature because it demonstrates how weak Caesar can become in an instant.
How valuable is the protection of individuality? In a society dominated by falsified, scientifically manufactured happiness, individuality proves a rarity. Aldous Huxley’s speculative novel, Brave New World, demonstrates the consequences of this type of impassive society. Bernard, Helmholtz, and John are all unique from their peers, and they think individually as a result. Because of their individuality, the group is ultimately banned from civilization and sent to a remote location. Being segregated because of appearance or mental capacity and not subject to society’s influences stimulates individuality; however, the knowledge and truth correlating with individuality comes at a price, in this case, happiness.
Huxley observes in his work, Brave New World that the modern world revolves around technological development. The aspirations and morals of modern society do not entirely rely on social issues such as love, family, and success but rather on industrial progress and social development. According to Huxley, technological improvement and growth are critical factors that shape the operation and activities in modern society. So far, community members need to observe the world as technologically oriented and collective social setting. Instead of being interested in individual social development, modern society is focusing its attention on merging technological transformation and their impact in modern success. In his observation, Huxley states that modern society is quickly surrendering its culture to emerging technological development. Contemporary culture is mainly being characterised by socio-technological status (Huxley 7). Therefore, based on the novels content, it is clear that Huxley’s writing is a dangerous prophesy of technology’s ability to control modern social operations.
Lately, it would be difficult to find a person who speaks in the elaborate way that nearly all of Shakespeare’s characters do; we do not describe “fortune” as “outrageous” or describe our obstacles as “slings and arrows,” neither in an outward soliloquy or even in our heads. Lately, people do not declare their goals in the grandiose fashion that members of royal family of Thebes proclaim their opposing intentions: Antigone’s to honor her brother and Kreon’s to uphold his decree. Lately, people do not all speak in one unified dialect, especially not one that belongs specifically to the British upper class; Jack and Algernon’s dialogue is virtually identical, excepting content. Unlike the indistinguishably grandiose, elaborate, fancy way characters speak in Shakespeare’s plays, Antigone, The Importance of Being Earnest, and other plays written before the turn of the twentieth century, more recently written plays contain dialogue that is more unique to its speaker. This unique dialogue indicates a change in the sort of characters which drama focuses on which came with a newly developed openness to those who are different from us. Moving away from recounting tales of nobility, royalty or deities brought the lives of a common, heterogeneous populace to the stage and, with these everyday stories, more varied speech patterns.
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is an intimate portrayal of the famed assassination of Julius Caesar and the complex inner workings of the men who committed the crime. In one particularly revealing scene, two of the men closest to Caesar, one a conspirator in his murder and one his second-in command, give orations for the deceased. Despite being simple in appearance, these two speeches do much of the work in developing and exposing the two characters in question. Though both have a love for Caesar, Mark Antony's is mixed with a selfish desire for power, while Brutus' is pure in nature, brought to a screeching halt by his overpowering stoicism. These starkly-contrasted personalities influence the whole of the play, leading to its tragic-but-inevitable end.
In the beginning of the Book Cassius uses anecdotes of Caesar’s weakness and faults, argumentum ad antiquatum, and ethos on Brutus to persuade him to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar, this works on Brutus and shows that anyone, even people as stoic as Brutus, can be persuaded by appealing to their motivations. Cassius, a very suspicious character thru ought the play tells Brutus to “be not jealous on me” (827), in the quote he tells Brutus to not be suspicious of him because he is just a friend who genuinely cares. Cassius does this to put himself on Brutus’ side and not seem like a distant person, this allows him to criticize Caesar and suggest that he is a bad influence on Rome which appeals to Brutus’ desire to keeping Rome safe. After setting himself up as a friend to Brutus, Cassius uses harsh anecdotes on the weakness of Caesar to show that he isn’t fit to rule Rome. Cassius recollects on a time when he and Caesar went swimming in the river Tiber and Caesar screamed “Help me, Cassius or I sink” (828) to de...
In William Shakespeare's play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, two speeches are given to the people of Rome about Caesar's death. In Act 3, Scene 2 of this play Brutus and Antony both try to sway the minds of the Romans toward their views. Brutus tried to make the people believe he killed Caesar for a noble cause. Antony tried to persuade the people that the conspirators committed an act of brutality toward Caesar and were traitors. The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of both Antony's and Brutus's speech to the people are conveyed through tone and rhetorical devices.
...re about Cassius through the things he does, such as persuading others in the direction of things that go towards what he wants. However, Brutus’ character can be more closely examined by the dialogues of others. As a result of all of this, Shakespeare’s audience has a negative attitude towards Cassius and a positive attitude towards Brutus.
A dystopian novel, such as Brave New World, is usually centered on the conflict between man and society. In this case, Aldous Huxley tells three compelling viewpoint from John the Savage, Bernard, and Helmholtz. Though each is distinct in their upbringing, each share the same path. While in the World State, each try to reach a level of satisfaction by their standards. Helmholtz, an intellectually superior Alpha, hopes to create compelling works of literature and spread his wisdom, whereas Bernard merely seeks social acceptance. And John the Savage, having been shunned by his community at the savage reservation and mother, aspires to find a sense of belonging in the new world. Each, however, meet the same fate; failure.
Throughout this play, readers see what the motives of Cassius, Brutus, and Antony drive each of them to do, and how this affects their outcomes. Though these motives did not lead to a tragic downfall for each of these characters, motives are often taken too far. They prove to be so strong that they blind characters from making educated decisions and having a sense of rationality. The many deaths in this play all started out with one person being motivated to do something, and one things leads to another. Motivation fueled by loyalty can be just as dangerous as motivation fueled by hatred. The strength of that motivation is what can really make it dangerous, and cause lives to be lost.
In Hamlet’s speech, Shakespeare’s efforts to target his Elizabethan audience develop the theme of the frailty of man. Shakespeare conveys this underlying theme of the play by subt...
There were quite a few changes made from Aldous Huxley’s, Brave New World to turn it into a “made for TV” movie. The first major change most people noticed was Bernard Marx’s attitude. In the book he was very shy and timid toward the opposite sex, he was also very cynical about their utopian lifestyle. In the movie Bernard was a regular Casanova. He had no shyness towards anyone. A second major deviation the movie made form the book was when Bernard exposed the existing director of Hatcheries and Conditioning, Bernard himself was moved up to this position. In the book the author doesn’t even mention who takes over the position. The biggest change between the two was Lenina, Bernard’s girlfriend becomes pregnant and has the baby. The screenwriters must have made this up because the author doesn’t even mention it. The differences between the book and the movie both helped it and hurt it.
In the famed author William Shakespeare’s playwright Julius Caesar, we are introduced to an extraordinary plot of a powerful ruler, Julius Caesar, who gained power through astonishing victories and remarkable strategies but fell victim to betrayal. The betrayal that led to his demise was led by some of the very people that surrounded him the most, even some people that he considered as friends. The theme of betrayal and the notion of friendship and its validity are both topics that are worth examining but perhaps the most prevalent topic that drives this plot is the image of Caesar. Caesar ascended into power after a long period in Rome where the rise of tyranny had been fought systematically and physically. He had to not only be a powerful leader but also a wise politician when it came to his decisions. His image tarnishes more and more as his power increases and he too chases after it. He becomes so ambitious over power that he begins to feel immortal and free from danger. His conspirators do not just want him out of power for the simple sake of it but because some of them, either persuaded or not, earnestly believed that Julius Caesar’s death would save Rome not hurt it. What makes this playwright’s so extraordinary is not the dynamic drama alone, but also the depiction of Julius Caesar and how even in the monstrosity of his murder, his image was still arguable causing division amongst men. Although William Shakespeare has, for a very long time now, been known for his great writings it is clear that he himself depicted a ruler that would win favor in the eyes of the great Italian political philosopher and writer Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli but not the profound Italian writer Baldassare Castiglione. Both writers wrote ab...
Aldous Huxley called the essay “a literary device for saying almost everything about almost anything.”