Power and control are both dependent on perception. If people don’t perceive the leader a certain way, then there is no respect. These perceptions could suggest that the leader holds certain characteristics, such as compassion, good faith, integrity, kindness, and religiousness (Machiavelli). The perception that a leader personifies some or all of these traits keeps him or her popular with the people. If the the majority of the people like the leader, then the leader has power because the people will follow him or her. Even if the leader doesn’t exemplify any of the five features, the perception that they do is what keeps the populace in behind the leader, and the leader in power. A revenger must have all three of these things to successfully carry out his/her revenge plan. People have to like the revenger, so he/she can have power over them, and control the situation. These two things are only achieved through the perception of who the revenger is.
0 Comments
Over the weekend, Dr. Holt told us to read and commonplace on part of Machiavelli's The Prince. Below are some pictures of my commonplace book. While reading The Prince, I recorded some of the key points within the text. Then at the end, I reflected on how this reading applies to our class theme. Above are my quick thoughts on how The Prince applies to revenge. I thought how Machiavelli's guidelines for princes could pertain to a revenger. A prince must keep power over his people in order to succeed, much like a revenger must keep power of the people around him/her. Both parties contain a certain manipulative vibe about them. They have to choose the right allies, send others to do less favorable work, gain the love of the populace or the most powerful group, and appear to have (but not actually posses) the good qualities of compassion, faith, integrity, kindness, and religion. A prince, as well as revenger, should always be thinking about his or her needs. Only take advice when you want it, don't honor your word if it puts you at a disadvantage, and it is better to be feared than loved because people love on their own accord, but fear when the prince/revenger pleases.
Today in class, we considered the question "Is the purpose of revenge literature to challenge the readers' opinions?" and decided that literary representations of revenge might do so but might have other goals as well. What is the most important function of representing revenge in literary texts? Sure, revenge is entertaining, that’s why some people read revenge texts (or watch movies with a a revenge theme). Events in a revenge text may also change, challenge, or shape a reader’s opinions. However, the most important function of representing renege in literary texts is the discussion or inner reflection that enfolds after experiencing the text. This discussion often covers the morals of revenge. This could be asked in the simple question “What the frick was so and so thinking when they decided to kill whatshername,” or the more sophisticated phrasing of “What actions motivated so and so to take revenge on whatshername?” From the morals of revenge, one often delves deeper into the ethics of revenge. What sort of guidelines or rules (unspoken or not) suggested that the protagonist should take action? Of course, this sort of discourse would lead to perhaps one of the bigger, more essential questions of a revenge text: Was the revenge a form of justice? Did person A bring person B to justice or gain closure for themselves? Do person A’s actions need to be justified/can they be?
Perhaps taking a step back further, revenge in literary texts could give us insight to human nature. Does the presence of all these stories and lack of morals (or ambiguity of morals) reflect a sort of dark side to the human species? Do we write about vengeful actions to satiate a need for bloody entertainment? Is reading about revenge some way of satisfying a need to enact revenge? In conclusion, revenge exists within literature to spark discussion or inner reflection about it’s implications and applications to modern times as well as it’s use within the text. Reflections holds more power than simply the words within the text. One really thinks about the why of the aggressor or the victim. In addition, reflection helps us, as the reader, discover things about ourselves as well as human nature. Within my first semester of English 12, our class attempted to answer big questions such as: Why do people write revenge stories? What motivates revenge? What are common themes or personalities of the story or characters? Where does gender fit in? Is revenge a form of justice? Can revenge be justified? Who/what validates revenge? Is there a difference between revenge and punishment? What characters usually take on the role or revenger, the role of the victim? Dr. Holt had us read Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Euripides’s Medea, Seneca’s Medea, and Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy to help get us thinking about these questions and conversing with one another. Below are some pictures of what my commonplace book. During class, I selected five of what I believe to be pivotal moments within my train of thought/this semester. I chose this first moment in my CPB because I never really thought of revenge stemming from a misunderstanding instead of an act of violence. Usually when people would mention revenge I would think Shakespeare or one of the Kill Bill movies. However, Ovid’s stories about the gods taking revenge on each other or other mortals purely based bad assumptions or fear got me thinking about the different types of motivation for revenge. Perhaps the revenger doesn’t need bloodshed, but the idea of something bad happening to them or someone they love. The second picture got me thinking about the relationship between justice and revenge. In the photo above I attempted to answer the question “How does much justice is replaced and does that lead to revenge?” As you can see from my chicken scratch, I do belive justice is and isn’t misplaced all the time and revenge is soon to follow. Taking a second look at this moment, I also like the follow up question “what is justice?” I wrote down two sort of “definitions,” however at this point I would have to go with my definition of justice of individuals as the definition of justice. I do not think society as whole can define what is just and unjust. No matter what the majority decides as just, there will always be a minority (or some disappointed a**hole who can’t get their head out of their butt and let other people get on with their lives). That unhappy person, or group of people, will then go out and attempt to bring about their own justice among those they see as unjust. People are selfish and only care about themselves. (It’s a sad, sad world) This third moment in my CPB builds on the previous image. Our class brought up the idea of punishment versus revenge and if they could both be considered a form of justice. We tossed around the idea that punishment occurred between higher and lower beings, such as gods vs. mortals, and revenge took place between equal levels, such as mortal vs. mortal or god vs. god. This whole discussion got me thinking not only about revenge, justice, and punishment, but also the place of gender. Where is the line between a higher being and lower being. Was it gender? Are females considered the lower being and males the higher being? I would say no. Juno was a pretty nasty piece of work when it came to taking revenge on Jupiter’s mistresses, and it’s not Actaeon couldn’t do much when Diana decided to curse him. So what does draw the line? Is there even a line to be drawn, or is higher vs. lower simply decided on who has more power? At the bottom of this image I also wrote a little about who has the power to decide if an action is revenge or if an action is justified. Reviewing what I wrote, I believe it to be a combination of the bard as well as the reader. A bard hold their power the way they choose to tell a story: point of view, tone, speaker, structure, and details. The audience has the power to interpret what the bard means. The reader could explicate the text just as the author intended, they could totally botch up the poor writer’s hard work, or simply choose not to believe the words on the page. Now, I’ve just talked about where power resides outside the text. There is also a whole other power struggle within the text, but I’ll save that for another day. This discussion dove deeper into the psyche of the revenger and their relationship to the system. Our class noted how some revengers use their power and deceit to take their revenge. They’re viewed as “not good.” I would agree with this statement because taking revenge on people isn’t morally right (even if the revenger believes it to be) Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves We also talked about the relationship between the protagonist and the system. Our class was able to discern that when the system was “unable” to give justice, an individual would take it upon themselves to dish out this justice, kind of like Batman. These individual actions would usually stem from societal issues, such as wealth. The protagonist might feel the need to act because they want to restore their honor. However, they revenger do not stop to consider the collateral damage (i.e. unsuspecting victims). Does that make the revenger a hero or a villain? Are they serving justice, taking revenge, or acting to punish? This last picture depicts a moment where I began to make bigger connections. While reading The Spanish Tragedy I began to notice that Hieronimo was acting a little bit crazy in his quest to avenge his son’s death. This reminded me a lot of Hamlet. After this realization I started thinking more about overlapping characteristics within revenge tragedy’s. I think in all revenge texts the revenger kind of goes crazy. They may not go completely crazy, but some come pretty close. For example, Juno becomes paranoid, Medea and Procne kill their own kids, and Hieronimo starts acting like Hamlet.
|
AuthorA freelance writer who hasn't done anything of mentionable significance. Archives
May 2017
Categories |