So I figured I'd do another one of these Section B questions from the list. This one was quite interesting, cheers to whoever came up with it. Would be quite a nice one to come up in the exam actually. As usual, don't assume anything I've said is correct, or that I've chosen the best texts for the question, I tend to just cling to a few texts that I like, hence why I very rarely talk about Adolf, for example. Anyway:
'How do the narratives of 3 writers you have studied challenge morality?'
The Kite Runner: Amir as a protagonist
The use of Amir as a protagonist seems to challenge our morality quite a bit, in that he seems to constantly flit between being presented as moral and immoral, a victim and a perpetrator - he seems to linger in a 'morally grey' area for most of the novel, and, while it could be said that he develops as a person and gets better as he matures, he still does some asshole shit towards the end (like breaking his promise to Sohrab). The use of other characters, namely Hassan and Assef, also seem to highlight how 'morally grey' Amir is - compared to the saint-like Hassan ('he was so goddamn pure, you always felt like a phony around him'), Amir is an asshole, he tricks him with words and then assumes giving him broken toys will make up for it, his inner thoughts often betray his prideful, selfish character (when Hassan critques his story, Amir thinks 'what does he know, that illiterate Hazara...how dare he criticise you?' and on more than one occasion says he doesn't see Hassan as a friend due to their statuses), and he lets his friend/brother get raped as a 'sacrifice' ('the look of the lamb') in order to win Baba's affection. We should hate Amir, but the use of Assef as an antagonist (and can I just say what a shitty antagonist Assef is - honestly, never have I seen such a two-dimensional, under-developed character, with the ridiculous references to Hitler and everything, honestly he's like a shitty pantomime villain) makes Amir seem comparatively good - especially towards the end, where Amir can't stop himself from challenging Assef's asshole behaviour ('What mission is that?..Stoning adulterers? Raping Children?'). Additionally, as we are presented the story from Amir's point of view, we are given the rationale behind all his selfish, morally 'wrong' actions, and this seems to almost justify them a bit - we are told of how much Baba's love means to him, how he feels that the Kite tournament will win his affections ('Was that what it would take?'), and from this we see his asshole behaviour in the alley as slightly more justified. That said, Amir is clearly an asshole in many ways, and I suppose this makes him slightly more interesting as a character - as, rather than a clear-cut 'good guy', our protagonist is someone who frequently acts 'wrongly', and it is this moral dubiousness that drives his quest for redemption.
Browning: Porphyria's Lover
One of my favourite things about this poem is that it challenges our preconceived ideas about morality - this is largely done through the portrayal of death/murder as desirable and an act of love, and the use of the speaker to challenge our idea that an action can be intrinsically 'wrong' or 'right' (Kantian deontology that I don't agree with personally). We've all written about Porphyria's Lover a shitload of times, so I won't go into much detail quotes-wise, but you know the drill; 'no pain felt she', 'darling one wish/utmost wish' - shows that the murder was not done with malice (which is key here, I think) but as an attempt to please/save her, to preserve her beauty forever. He did not do it to be an asshole, and genuinely doesn't think he's done anything wrong, which means, in my opinion, the killing was not immoral as it was done out of love. Additionally, the use of the speaker's delusional tone ('the smiling rosy little head') and his vulnerability ('I listened with heart fit to break', 'when no voice replied, she put my arm around her waist') adds an element of mental illness, likely psychosis to the story. If he is not in a fit mental state, can he really be held accountable for his actions? Even if you feel killing is ALWAYS morally wrong (I disagree, as I'm more utilitarian than deontological, and in fact have an almost nihilist view of morality, but whatever) I'm sure most people would say that, for this reason, the speaker is not 'evil' or 'immoral' - he is unhinged and arguably warped in his mind, but not evil. Additionally, the last line 'And yet God has not said a word!' adds an almost direct challenge to morality - perhaps he is deliberately 'sinning' to provoke a reaction from God? Perhaps he is using the lack of a reaction (though it could be argued that the storm is a sign of God's disapproval of the night's events) as a sign that his actions were morally okay? I think this line shows that he's quite pleased with himself, and thinks he has God on his side, but is also wild and desperate, perhaps betraying his inner fears of being alone - it seems as though he wants validation for his actions, but God isn't giving him anything, he's been forsaken. But regardless, he hasn't been struck down by some sort of divine retribution, so his actions can't be that immoral.
Tennyson: The Lotos Eaters and Choric Song
This is another poem where I really like the message of it (particularly the Choric Song part). I think the way that this one 'challenges morality' is that it glorifies escapism and the abandoning of social responsibility, while challenging the ideas that being ambitious and working hard are things to be valued. You could also say that it glorifies drug-taking, which I think is true, but I wouldn't limit it to that - I think there's a huge range of stuff that people use as an escape from reality, even things like watching TV, but I digress. Anyway, the choric song is presented like a defensive argument, a justification for the lotos-mariners' desire to stay on the island - showing us that their actions are not immoral and they shouldn't be judged harshly by us. We're told that fruit and nature and shit just sort of goes with the flow and doesn't worry or work; it 'Ripens and fades, and falls, and hath no toil' - so why should humans, 'who are the first of things', spend all their life in toil? Why should life all labour be? It almost makes it sound unfair, the nature of our lives. Why should we bother to work? We are the 'highest' creatures, and yet we're the ones who suffer and work and worry? And for what? Death comes in the end anyway. Surely it isn't immoral to want to just relax and give it all up? The lotos-mariners, however, could be criticised for ditching their families and stuff, perhaps considered selfish for this, but they have a response to this accusation too - they would 'come like ghosts to trouble joy', 'let what is broken so remain'. This almost makes going back seem like the selfish thing to do; their families have got used to the loss and moved on, if they went back they would only disturb things - what's done is done, there is no need for them to go back and interfere. Even more evidence for the 'goodness' of their choice to escape from reality is presented in the final stanza, where they compare themselves to Gods. The Gods are 'careless of mankind' and 'lie beside their nectar' (in the same way that the lotos-mariners want to live surrounded by the lotos on the island) - all the lotos-mariners want to do is copy the behaviour of the Gods; they don't worry about all the awful shit happening to mankind, they just relax and enjoy themselves, ignoring the harshness of reality - surely if the Gods can behave in such a way, it cannot be immoral to abandon social responsibilities?
Lawrence: Odour of Chrysanthemums
I know some people might prefer to go for something like the Rocking Horse Winner here, but, given the word 'challenge' in the question, I'd be more inclined to go for Odour. What I think is interesting in this one, and what 'challenges morality' is that, despite the obviously flawed behaviour of Walter, it is actually Elizabeth who is just as morally wrong, if not worse. I think this is something you notice much more on the second time you read it - the first time, much like Elizabeth, I think we focus a lot on Walter's wrongdoings 'Oh isn't he an asshole, he's late home, his wife's made dinner for him and he's just letting it ruin, he's going to the pub, he's neglecting his family, what a wanker etc', and then we are hit with a similar epiphany to Elizabeth at the end; she was a wanker as well, and 'had fought in the dark' (one of my favourite quotes of the whole thing) with him - painting herself as the poor victim wife of a drunken, awful husband, but in fact doing nothing to try and fix the relationship and instead being bitter and focusing on all his flaws, so much so that she never knew the real him and 'denied him' who he was. After this realisation, however, when you read it a second time you pick up on more stuff, I think - how she seems to say everything 'bitterly', how she's overly bothered and made angry by everything, always assuming the worst, exaggerating the bad behaviour of her husband and her role as the 'victim', and (in the same way that she knew her husband in 'darkness') it seems she is distant also from her kids, like, their faces keep being physically hidden from her in darkness, which she is happy to let happen, despite John asking her to turn the sodding light on or light a fire or something. The bit at the end really emphasises her wrongdoing though - it wasn't just Walter that was the problem; 'he was no more responsible than she', 'She had been wrong. She had said he was something he was not'. Because of this, she looks at his body 'in fear and shame' realising, all too late, that she was part of the problem too. 'She had denied him what he was - she saw it now...her heart was bursting with grief and pity for him'. She realises that she has done wrong in demonising him so, and our previous judgement that 'oh he's an asshole his poor wife' is proved wrong; she wasn't without blame, and was an asshole too.
No comments:
Post a Comment