Simultaneously, Torvalds strict adherence to patriarchal ideologies, limits his capacity to empathise with Noras cry for emancipation, evident in the subtext give me pennies of my own. Essentially, Ibsen successfully adopts the doll house metaphor to attack the mores of patriarchy, which forces Nora to compromise her identity and freedom to rigid social ideologies. The superficial institutions of marriage disfigure ones sense of personal identity, justifying Noras cry for liberation from patriarchal ideologies which disempower women of her time. The combination of the stage direction wagging his finger and the patronising tone was little Ms Sweet Tooth naughty? showcases the detriments of social oppression in limiting ones ability to undergo self-actualisation. The diction little connotes Noras submission to Torvalds internalisation of dominant ideologies, mirroring the disempowerment of women in the bourgeoisie.
Moreover, the symbolic Tarantella dress reflects Torvalds idealised perception of Nora as his pretty little thing, reiterating Noras objectification. The power imbalance within the Helmer marriage justifies Noras deceit, evident in the dramatic irony I wouldnt do anything youd disapprove of. This notion is juxtaposed with Noras statement I saved Torvalds life [by] signing my fathers name [and] got the money. Noras deception subverts Torvalds strict adherence to the imposed social ideologies, which Kristine echoes these patriarchal sentiments, a wife cannot borrow money without her husbands permission. The conflict of gender limitations drives the tragic force of the play in Act 1, ending at a climactic moment to heighten the tension in Act 2. In essence, Ibsen successfully generates a greater degree of empathy for Nora, as he mirrors the disempowerment of the social and economic limitations of women in the bourgeoisie. Ibsens rich exploration of the bourgeoisie, inevitably results in Noras detachment from her doll metaphor.
Kristine and Krogstad function as catalysts for Noras transformation, through illuminating the truth of the Helmer marriage, no more lies, tricks¦ they must understand each other. While Krogstad initiates the tragic force of the play through his symbolic letter in Act 2. Ibsen establishes the juxtaposition of the authentic relationship of Krogstad and Kristine to the superficiality of the Helmer marriage, compelling Nora to transcend the limitations of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the parallel of Nora and Krogstad subverts the values of social determinism, as Krogstad elevates himself through the social hierarchy despite being deemed morally sick. Essentially, an unexpected union of the two derives from a compromised understanding, as both characters are criminalised for their acts of personal integrity. Thereby, Ibsen invites the audience to evaluate their personal values, emphasising the importance of self-determinism overriding social conformity.
Ibsen exposes the flawed value system of the bourgeoisie, and forewarns of the detriments of an individuals life being overridden by social morality. The dramatic irony of the Tarantella dance anyoned think your life depended on this dance and Noras statement 31 hours to live foreshadows the impending death of Noras doll metaphor. This is further accentuated through Finneys statement of Noras cry for emancipation from the Tarantella dance, evident in she returns from her frenzied state, back to the role of a wife and mother, only as a springboard from which to emancipate herself. Moreover, Nora evolves from a doll identity in Act 1, evident in Rosenburgs claims Ibsen began with a maltreated stuffed Nora doll to an awakened woman in Act 3. Her transformation demolishes the artificial foundations of the doll house, thus revealing the harsh winter landscape, embodying reality.
Therefore, it is best to go out into the real world, and discover the truth for [herself] and [her] values. Moreover, Ibsens subversion of the well-made play is evident in the final scene of the play, where Nora slams the door and leaves the audience with a climactic ending. Ibsen juxtaposes the beginning and final scene of the play to showcase the disparity of Noras transition throughout the play. Her first appearance connotes her disempowerment in the bourgeoisie lifestyle, which is then contrasted to the final scene, where she puts on the cloak and turns on the lights. The illumination of the truth compels Nora to extricate herself from the illusory deception of the door house, thus abandoning the false union of her superficial marriage and burden of motherhood. In essence, Nora is virtually unrecognisable by the end of Act 3, as Ibsen courageously abandons the doll metaphor, thus emphasising the importance transcending social limitations to maintain an identity.
Mirroring Austens social satire Pride and Prejudice, Weldon grapples with the significance of context and questions of values in her didactic epistolary novel Letters to Alice. Moreover, both composers utilise form as a vehicle to socially critique their contemporaries, thus reinforcing the didactic purpose of invoking ideological change. This is achieved through the examination of the institutions of marriage, moral education, Literature, prejudice gender roles and social stratification. Weldon examines Austens social satire in exploring the changing facets of marriage, thus reshaping our perception of the connection that links the 18th century marriage customs to that of the modern martial practices. The contextualisation of a Georgian woman emphasises the gender injustices prevalent in the 18th century Regency England. Moreover, marriage was depicted as a social contract for economic survival, evident in Charlottes pragmatic characterisation, who married Mr Collins out of practicality rather than general similarity of feelings and taste.
Mrs Bennet also reinforces these sentiments, as the business of her life was to get her daughters married, therefore, Mrs Bennet and Charlottes strict adherence to social conventions of marriage reinforces its idealistic prospect of being the only honourable provision. Weldon justifies the Georgian womans outlook of marriage through the statistics only 30% of women married and asserts Alice you must understand the world in which Austen was born in. Thereby, the modern audience is able to grapple with the significance assigned to marriage in Austens world, through Weldons insight. In essence, Austen satirises the flawed value system regarding the institutions of marriage through her adoption of caricatures and irony. Weldon acts as a facilitator for the modern audience to gain a holistic understanding of P+P, through her examination of the gender injustices prevalent in Austens era. Patriarchy prevailed in the 18th century, meaning life was founded on the basis of marriage, as women were limited to the narrow confines of work, womens trade millinery, embroidery, prostitution¦ or you could get married.
Weldons satirical comment reveals the prejudice gender roles in disempowerment women in the 18th century, thus asserting it was a horrible time to be alive. This is further accentuated through Charlottes pragmatism, who does not think highly of men or matrimony and sacrifices every feeling of worldly advantage to accepting Mr Collins marriage proposal for financial security and social elevation. Moreover, Weldons satirical comment juxtaposed the perceptions of marriage in the 18th century to that of the modern context, the stuff in our womens magazine, but it was the stuff of their life. The elevation of gender roles in the modern context emphasises the adversities women faced in Austens world, and this is achieved through the contrast of character foils Elizabeth and Charlotte.
In essence, Weldon positions the audience to gain an appreciation for the transformation of gender roles in changing contexts, empowering women to become great contributors to society. Weldons hybridity employs Aunt Faye as a mouthpiece to examine the institutions of Literature in P+P and LTA. The emphasis of Literatures value in society is evident in the hyperbole very essence of civilisation. According to Weldons didacticism, Literature should not be deemed as just books, as it embodies complex and dynamic concepts of the human condition. In essence, Weldon refers to Literature with a capital L and books by the sophistication of their characters, whose struggles in their fictional lives resonate to our own. Moreover, the use of imperatives you must read Alice, before it is too late reinforces Weldons didactic purpose of Literature catalysing self-actualisation. Comparably, an accomplished Georgian woman has a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing and dancing.
Austen however satirises this limited perception of good education as it is ineffectual to foster independence and intelligence in women. Lady Catherines patronising tone in addressing Elizabeth as an unfeeling, selfish girl demonstrates her lack of moral education despite her aristocratic stature. It is Elizabeth however, who epitomises good education with her wit and independence, thus undergoing self-awakening, til this moment I never knew myself. In contrast, Weldon employs the extended metaphor of the City of Invention to promote connections, where writers can cohabit and collaborate with their Houses of Imagination. Moreover, our carvings on the Rock of Eternity symbolises our shared experiences and values, linking the past, present and future together. Thus, Weldon invites the audience to reach out to posterity, much like Austen through her canonical Literature. The City also enables connections between reader and writer, for us to understand ourselves and each other, thus gaining empathy through Literature.
Weldons re-examination of P+P showcases the fundamental values predominant in classic texts, thus transcending their era of composition, and emphasising the importance of Literature in catalysing ones sense of spiritual awakening. The underlying value prevalent in both texts of social stratification is enhanced by the contextualisation of fundamental values in both texts. Austen asserts the stability and order enforced through conformity to rigid social class structures, and family being a primary factor to determining ones social standing, and consequently ones chance of marriage.
This is evident in Lady Catherines caricature, as she forewarns of the detriments of an individuals subversion of the social class system, youll be slighted and despised¦ your alliance will be a disgrace. Simultaneously, Austen introduces the unorthodox union of Darcy and Elizabeth to challenge the social class system because their relationship is founded on mutual respect and compatibility, thus invoking a positive change in the rigid social structure. Weldon accounts for Darcys decision to marry where he loved, and not where he ought, as Elizabeth brought neither land nor money but she brought vigour, intelligence and honesty. In essence, Austen exposes the superficiality of the institutions of social stratification, and emphasises the importance of personal integrity overriding social morality.
Shakespeares adaptation of Plutarchs histories Julius Caesar utilises tragic form to exhibit the subjective nature of conflicting perspectives. Moreover, the linguistic techniques elicited through the power play of orations subvert the audiences views of personalities, events and situations. Shakespeare presents multitude perspectives to explore the power vacuum and political machinations prevalent in Elizabethan England. In essence, the audience is positioned to accept the ambiguity of conflicting perspectives, through Shakespeares exploration of the volatility and temporary nature of power, political imperatives and the validity of truth. Similarly, Buttroses feature article Et tu Julia employs Julius Caesar as a historical framework to explore the dynamics of politics and represent the subjectivity of conflicting perspectives.
Thereby, Buttrose grapples with the tension between the drive for altruistic and political imperatives, thus leading to the audiences questioning of Gillards legitimacy as PM. Shakespeares construction of conflicting portraitures forewarns of the dangers of political machination superseding ones capacity for objectivity and truth. Mirroring the political machinations of Elizabethan England, Shakespeare explores the dynamics of political imperatives at the expense of Brutus honour. Caesars deification as constant as the northern star and repetition of third person accentuates his hubris, through the establishment of the artificial distance between himself and his mortality.
Through various representations, Shakespeare illuminates the fallacy inherent in Caesars noble character, leading to his tragic demise, thus revealing the fragility of power. The audience is able to recognise Caesars vulnerability through the act of political machination of Cassius compelling Brutus to conspire against Caesar, as crowned, how that might change his nature. Shakespeares juxtaposition of Caesars thrasonical assertions opposed to Cassius anecdotes of Caesars fragility help me Cassius, or I sink generates polarised perspectives of Caesars personality. Moreover, the combination of the extended metaphor ambitions ladder and the biblical allusion of serpents egg¦ if hatchd would grow mischievous, leads to the audiences questioning of Caesars ambition. Ultimately, this robs Brutus of his foresight, compelling him to extricate the satanic creature to prevent a potentially despotic reign, ironically defying the natural order. Essentially, Shakespeare explores the dynamics of political machinations overriding ones noble perspective, thus stimulating conflicting ideologies in questions of truth.
Simultaneously, Buttroses intertextuality Et tu Julia examines the justification of Gillards political machinations and the speculation of her credibility of her political machination. The condition clause we have to see whether Julia Caesar is a reforming republican or imperial stooge historically alludes to Caesars assassination, raising questions of ethics in the conspiracy. Buttrose mirrors Shakespeares criticism of the conspiracy, evident in the hyperbole the political murder of Kevin Rudd coupled with the violent imagery, the coup came, the plotters bludgeoned. Essentially, the Labour party is represented as despotic and immoral, leading to the audiences questioning of Rudds dismissal and Gillards instatement, thus generating a greater degree of empathy for the fallen PM.
Moreover, his support for Rudd is further accentuated through the use of idiosyncratic Australian colloquialism [Rudd] wanted to buy back the farms from mining interests, elevating his political stature through emphasising his altruistic imperatives for public good. Mirroring Antonys assertions of Caesars benevolence, Buttrose similarly presents an anecdote of Rudds claims to improve health services, education and housing. Comparably, Buttrose represents a polarised perspective of Gillards legitimacy for her acts of political machination for the welfare of the Labour party. This is evident in denigrating Rudds credibility as PM through the slogan Rudd the Dud¦ not to be trusted coupled with the polling statistics losing electoral appeal and Liberal party lead of 9%. Essentially reinforcing Gillards credibility as leader, the political jargon appeals to the audiences logos, positioning them to accept the act of Rudds dismissal as a necessity for the Labour party. In essence, Buttrose represents the subjectivity of conflicting perspectives conditioned in the dynamics of politics.
Shakespeare challenges the audience to postulate on the existence of truth through illuminating the power of rhetoric to influence meaning within different representations of perspectives. Political machinations are explored in Brutus and Antonys orations, epitomising conflicting perspectives to the climax of Caesars assassination in Act 3. Brutus antithesis not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more appeals to the Plebians patriotism, and the disjunction but enables the audience to recognise Brutus moral sacrifice for the betterment of Rome. This is further accentuated through the anacoenosis have Caesar live and die all slaves, than Caesar die to live all free men? coupled with the strong affirmation Caesar was ambition, so I slew him, appealing to the audiences logos, thus positioning to accept the necessity of Caesars assassination.
Brutus instils fear of Caesars inherent tyranny in the Plebians through the diction of slave. Comparably, Shakespeare presents an alternative perspective of Caesars personality through Antonys oration. Antony exploits the power of rhetoric through the condition clauses, if Caesar was ambitious to question the validity of Brutus claims. This is further negated through the recollection of memories he thrice refused [the crown], leading the audience to question their personal truths in determining the credibility of Brutus justification of his political imperatives. Fundamentally, Shakespeare exploits the power of representations through the power of rhetoric to manipulate truths, thus leading to conflicting ideologies.