Essay Examples: A Grade Essays (Part Two)

This is definitely the better of my recent A grade essays, being a near-perfect A* grade. Apparently. Anyway, I'm not going to publish it all here as it is stupidly long; I'll pick out some good paragraphs for you :)

How do the playwrights portray characters in hostile worlds through literary and linguistic techniques?

INTRO:

In both Shaffer's 'Equus' and Shakespeare's 'Othello', the protagonists are demonstrated to live in worlds which are hostile to them as individuals. Through contemporary references, dramatic devices and linguistic techniques, both playwrights illustrate this for their audiences, and show this to be the cause of the protagonists; respective crimes: Alan's blinding of the horses and Otehllo's murder of Desdemona, as peripateias in both tragedies.

CONTEXT PARAGRAPHS:

From the beginning, both playwrights present socities which are clearly hostile to outsiders. 'Equus', set in 1970s Britain, presents a conservative society under a Conservative government, which is facing the strain of Cold War, anti-outsider politics. In the second scene, Hesther describes two psychiatrists who can be seen as metaphors for society as a whole and for its treatment of Alan. She uses the phrase "immovably English", with "English" used in this case as a synonym for conservatism and unkind values. The adjective "immovably" premodifies this and allows it to seem harsher than it might have done, adding to the audience's understanding of the way society is likely to treat Alan before he, himself is mentioned by name or seen on stage at all. This is therefore a dramatic device used to set the scene, and is perhaps more poignant to modern audiences than contemporary ones as we are now evidently unfamiliar with the political or societal constraints of the tiem in which it was written.

The same can be said of 'Othello', in which the title character is immediately presented as an outsider because of the way his fellows perceive his race. Although most historians accept that the Elizabethans did not have a concept of 'race', and could therefore not be termed 'racist' for their treatment of Othello, the fact that Shakespeare chooses to refer to him cataphorically throughout, seldom ever allowing a character to refer to him by his name, demonstrates the way in which they all perceive him to be different. This is added to by the fact that he is constantly referred to as "the Moor", as though suggesting his race is an acceptable way of setting him apart. To modern audiences, with our concepts of political correctness, this will seem even harsher; although it can't be doubted that this presentatio of Othello has always seemed to place him in a hostile, foreign environment.

EXAMPLE OF GOOD 'EQUUS' PARAGRAPH:

The control exerted by the fictional character of Equus within Alan himself also plays a large part in Alan's understanding of the world, and consequently in his fear of every day circumstances which contribute to this. Through the use of capitalisation in this section, Shaffer turns "Merciful" and "Kind" into proper nouns, in a way similar to that utilised by the catholic church to illustrate their God as omniscient and forgiving. This turns the character of Equus from an abstract concept illustrated to the audience through Dysart's sue of scientific and psychiatric jargon into a real being in which we can believe, given the references back to the world in which we live. The effect of this is not only to portray hostility in Alan's world but also to allow the audience to draw parallels with the constraints and hostilities they see in their own, allowing them to buy into Alan's fear and comprehend it more readily.

EXAMPLE OF GOOD 'OTHELLO' PARAGRAPH:

Iago's deception - and the audience's understanding of it - builds throughout the play, with the hostile world which finally leads Othello to murder his beloved wife being created by his supposed friend more and more rapidly towards the end of the play. The hostility in the character of Iago is shown through what critics describe as his "complete and unexplainable evil", and through the juxtapositions in what he says about Othello in soliloquy and face-to-face. These ideas juxtapose entirely, and are often oxymoronic, showing the extent of the deception being woven and suggesting to the audience the extent of the traditional tragic fall Othello will face, when it comes. For example, in soliloquy in the first Act of the play, Iago uses the declarative "I hate the Moor", utilising the hyperbolic stative verb "hate", which creates an oxymoron when compared with the stative noun "love" which is utilised in a fyrther declarative by Iago later in the same Act, still in reference to Othello. The way that this deception creates a hostile world is then exacerbated by the way in which Shakespeare weaves the semantic field of jealousy through the whole play, specifically in Iago's lexis, through utterances such as "green eyed", showing the audience how the control exhibited by a character such as Iago then leads Othello to begin to believe in this manipulation, and eventually to make it real.

CONCLUSION:

Ultimately, the hostilities of the worlds around them cannot be wholly responsible for the crimes of Alan or Othello: however in both cases this was a significant factor, perhaps best explained by Dysart in Act Two of 'Equus' - "he is a modern citizen for whom society does not exist".

MARKS:

AO1 - 9 (/10)
AO2 - 10 (/10)
AO3 - 37 (/40)

56/60 = 9?% = A*

Essay Plan: Courage

How do the playwrights use the theme of "courage" to portray individuals in society?

In Shakespeare's 'Othello' and Shaffer's 'Equus', the playwrights use the theme of courage to portray two very different characters: Dysart, who is seen as an individual in his unwillingness to follow social expectations and treat Alan, something which he later over-comes, thus illustrating his courage; and Othello, whose courage is used to describe him from the start so that his tragic fall more rapidly isolates him.

OTHELLO
- SF courage, Act 2 ("the man commands like a full soldier", "the warlike Moor Othello", context that actually lost Cyprus wars)
- Honourability - "Not I: I must be found", Act One (unexpected of a lascivious Moor)
- Compares his death to former acts of courage, making him seem somewhat redeemed in death (imperatives "Set you down this"; metaphor "the circumcised dog"; context of wars & victory = courage)

DYSART
- Hedges "Maybe" and "possibly" show unease at what has to do (link changing nature of psychiatry and American anti-psychiatry movement) - makes eventual choice more courageous
- Elogy at end (soliloquy reminiscent of Shakespearean epilogue) - shows will do what has to do, despite not wanting to
- Perenthesis - "alright! I'll take it away" - shows pressure & pain at what he has to do

The opposite is then true of their counterparts, arguably the antagonists whom the playwrights present as individuals through their cowardice: Alan, who feels the need to seek revenge against a repressive God, and Iago, who critics argue is a character of pure evil, and this can be seen as cowardly through his easy manipulation and deception of Othello, who is presented as both courageous and vulnerable because of his race.

IAGO
- "I hate the Moor, and it is thought" - audience won't believe, making assertions to provide rationale for the plan only makes him seem more cowardly
- Exploitation of Othello; "O, beware, my Lord, of jealousy"
- Use of soliloquy = inability to admit plans = keeping things hidden = cowardly
- Lies and dramatic irony exacerbate this

ALAN
- Use of jingles = backing away (link // 70s materialism)
- Refusal to speak
- Simple sentences show fear; exclamatories towards the end (link Catholic God)

Remember: much of this exam is pretty contrived, and the theme of courage is especially so. Define your terms and back your points up: in English, you're ability to argue and use terminology is key. You could be completely wrong, but if you assert your argument well you could still be right...

Does that even make sense?

- HistGrrl x

Context: Religion in 'Equus'

Equus as a play is wrought with religious lexis and references, and has, by some critics, been seen as an allegory for and parody of Christianity.

Equus as an allegory
- Alan is confused; he has been brought up memorising Biblical passages, mostly related to horses, and has thus confused Christ with Equus.
- This begins with the first time Alan rides a horse, and continues through until his Father takes the painting of Christ from him, eventually replacing it with a face-on photograph of a horse, showing his replacement of conventional religion with the religion he, himself, has created.
- This is demonstrated through his repeated use of biblical lexis when referring to Equus.

Biblical lexis in reference to the "character" of Equus
- Holy of Holies – the stable, his “temple” (spoken by Dysart, but agreed to by Alan)
- Begat – Alan creates a ‘parody’ of traditional Biblical ‘family tree’ – leading, traditionally, to the birth of Christ
- “Behold, I give you Equus, my only begotten son” – evidently, this would traditionally refer to Jesus; as the Nicene (Roman catholic) creed pronounces “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father” -- it seems likely that this is where Alan received these ideas
- “His last supper” – Dysart seemingly misses this reference to the Bible, asking only “last before what?”; however the way Alan uses this phrase shows his contorted understanding of religion
- While with Equus, many of Alan’s other utterances appear to be contortions of the Nicene creed; for example “I want to be you forever and ever” could be derived from “one God, forever and ever”

Sacrifice
Alan’s reference to the “last supper” links in to what some critics see as Alan’s sacrifice of “his Christ”;

- Christ was sacrificed on the cross to “take away the sins of the world”
- When Alan blinds the horses, already seen to be ‘his Gods’, he is doing so to relieve himself of the sins he has committed in their presence
- “The sadomasochistic act covers his need to obliterate his judge and to crucify his Christ.” – Mitchell Hay

Dora's influence

“The Book of Job. Such a noble passage, you know?”
- use of the tag question suggests that Dora believes everyone to know such biblical passages – demonstrating how Alan has such a detailed knowledge of them (enough so to contort them for his own purposes)
- use of the adjective “noble” shows the extent to which Dora believes the passage, and demonstrates the reverence her family had for horses (“we’ve always been a horsey family”)

“Sex is not just a biological matter. It is spiritual as well”
- Dora uses declarative statements here, demonstrating her clarity in her beliefs, and insinuating that she has passed them on to her son as fact. This contorts Alan’s beliefs and can be seen as having eventually lead to his ‘passion’ for horses.

Parental conflict

Dysart: “If there is any conflict over religion, it should be evident on a Sabbath evening”
- use of the more biblical word ‘Sabbath’ as opposed to ‘Sunday’ shows the strength with which Dysart believed Religion to be a cause of tension; everyone knows that Sunday is the Christian “day of rest”, however it tends to be ignored – those who refer to it as the “Sabbath” are more likely to have stronger religious leanings

Relevance
Religion is also a good way to contextualise easily in 'Equus', where genuine historical context is harder to find and easily relate to the text. Biblical lexis and references can show the restraint placed on characters, for example in line with January 2010's question regarding "Hostile Worlds", where religious repression could be seen in this way - where even Alan's God is hostile towards him.

It can also easily fit into the categories of sexual ethics and parental relationships (see "Dora's influence"), and can be added 'casually' in in many circumstances, as Alan's unique understanding of religion makes him truly an individual in society.

Questions? As ever, ask! :)

- HistGrrl x

'Equus' Synopsis

Equus, by Peter Shaffer, tells the story of a psychiatrist, Martin Dysart, who is asked to treat a particularly disturbed young boy named Alan Strang.

Strang has blinded six horses for no apparent reason, having been a horse lover all his life, and through a investigations into his past, upbringing and family background, Dysart begins to create a picture of what lead to this crime.

Through this, however, he is also lead to doubt the power of his profession: he sees that Alan has more passion in his life than he himself, in an unhappy marriage, has ever had, and knows that it is his duty to take this passion from the boy in order to make him "normal".

Through the play, the audience are lead to consider injustice, the morality of psychiatry, the influence of parents, the power of religion, and, ultimately, what it means to be normal.

Synopsis (c) TheHistoryGrrl 2010

For a more detailed synopsis, see wikipedia.