|
This is an analysis on love and its effect on lovers. My reasoning for doing this is twofold. First, I wish to prove myself capable and not worthless. The second is to preserve as well as improve my writing. My analysis has been in the past characterized as vague and incomplete, at times. If at any point there is anything that you feel is left out, I will try to clarify it as best as possible. If none of this is of any interest to you, then do not feel obligated to continue reading.
The first point is contradictory to the serene image of love given to us. Looking at the phrase “all is fair in love and war,” demonstrates the justifications given for love. Love is savage. Its subsequent effect on lovers can be shameful if not outright damning. Charles Stewart Parnell is recognized as a pivotal figure in Irish history and was the first Irishman capable of giving freedom to Ireland. All of his support vanished once his affair with Katharine O’Shea was revealed. Her divorce and remarriage to Parnell did not court the favor of the Catholic Irish. Ireland’s home rule and chance for peaceful independence died with Parnell. He risked the fate of an entire nation for her.
The horrific deeds of Claudius, in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, could be attributed to his desire for the kingship of Denmark. Yet as pointed out by my teacher the evidence for Gertrude’s hand is present. When Claudius explains his motivations he includes Gertrude as well as his kingdom, but the former is typically forgotten. After Hamlet’s slaying of Polonius, Claudius chose to send him to England. He avoided displeasing Gertrude, but something had to be done about Hamlet. His actions warrant punishment from the king. He sent him away, in order to keep Gertrude from discovering Hamlet’s death, which was sealed by a letter carried with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He had the power and justification for Hamlet’s immediate death, but chose England for the sake of his queen. At the conclusion of the play, Gertrude’s death leaves Claudius nearly speechless. His lines are reduced and her death or imminent death becomes his main concern. There is evidence of Claudius’ desire for Gertrude and his crimes of both fratricide and regicide confirm the lengths one would go to for love.
Another contradiction is the idea illumination of love. My favorite example is from The Little Prince. Our protagonist loves his flower and goes through many trials to please her. He complimented her and fetched a glass dome to protect her, but never understood her. Part of this can be blamed on the flower. Her obstinacy and vanity would not permit her to admit her faults before it was too late. Even after recounting her faults, she forces him to leave. What else can our protagonist do in such a predicament? He runs away in order to discover the importance of his flower.
There are no established images of love. At once it can be the recognized sweetness or the cause for alarm. At once it can be the clarification of life or the crisis of a soul. Love and lovers are unpredictable.
Edit. Formatting
  
|
You sound like me when I was in highschool. Go get a blow job or two. Become their platonic friends. Write about love again when you have more perspectives to ground your belief.
|
Uhhh...
I had to reread lots of parts and all of your paragraphs many times.
I feel like you should clarify and even reiterate the points you are trying to make as everything gets lost when you start going into detail with each of your examples.
I'm also wondering what your point/findings are, especially with your conclusion? and why you decided to use fiction and an example of lust to discuss love?
|
Since when did you come from Monaco. =/
Interesting read anyhow, especially on Hamlet. As you said, most high school kids learn about corruption of Claudius for power and not much about his lust (or love) for Gertrude. Majority of the play is focused on Hamlet's inability to act or choose.
Anyhow did you write this because Roffles went emo on TS? lol
|
The point about Parnell is a bit short. I tried to incorporate his importance to the Irish cause without having to go through the entirety of Irish history. His presence was not felt since the days of Wolfe Tone and his chance of freedom would not be grasped until the days of Michael Collins. If I started to explain the importance of Tone and Collins, I would be tempted to ramble about Irish history. I think the length of it is already off-putting enough, without a retelling of Irish history.
As for Claudius, I thought the universality of Hamlet extended to characters not named Hamlet. Claudius is an effective ruler as demonstrated by avoiding war with Norway. Yet he would never have been given the chance, since he was the younger sibling. While the evidence for lust was there, his actions demonstrate a kinder approach to Gertrude.
The Little Prince was far more personal. I wanted to know how many people would understand it. The book itself is littered with little truths.
As for a reason, I'm not sure. Perhaps it was the idea of contradictions.
And no, this was in progress before his explosion.
Yes that really is all that matters Mr. "stephenkingfan", but what else could one expect from a "stephenking" fan?
|
the Dagon Knight4000 Posts
On June 07 2011 03:32 Kamille wrote:
Yes that really is all that matters Mr. "stephenkingfan", but what else could one expect from a "stephenking" fan?
Wow, as much as your whole post is driving at some understanding of what it means to be loved, this belies a really snobbish attitude.
In love as in reasonable conversation, a little niceness goes a long way, chief.
|
I'm not sure why you're belittling my ID. Stephen King is a master of prose. While you may disagree with his genre, his writing abilities are idolized by many.
And since you seem so captured by Shakespeare, go read some Romeo + Juliet and laugh with me at your irony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
