The Penelopiad in reshaping The Odyssey - Literature Essay Samples

In the novella â€Å"The Penelopiad† written by Margaret Atwood, Ancient Greek values predominant in â€Å"The Odyssey† are reshaped, including Penelope’s contemporary perspective on justice as one that portrays the maids and suitors as unworthy of losing mortality in a malevolent and inhumane way and desire for a stronger female authority and voice, and abandoning archetypes of women as temptresses and maids, which is contrasted within â€Å"the Odyssey† , where justice is defined as giving divine and omniscient authorities to male citizens and gods, and Odysseus, as a hero, admired through physical values of strength and emotional values of deception and independence. Justice is depicted through Penelope giving the maids omniscience and a sarcastic tone, which questions Odysseus’s character and fulfillment of the archetype of a hero, and her sense of passionate femininity, that challenges the audience to revisit the suppressed identity of women an d how society deems their innocence. This is justified through the elimination of female archetypes, which embody the emotional values of frailty, fidelity, and obedience, which have been the first male orientated in â€Å"The Odyssey†. Therefore, Ancient Greece values of alienating female rights and voice through their low status on the social hierarchy, is subverted, as female figures begin to possess an opinionated stance towards their social expectations and idealized character, which is seductive, alluring and loyal, in contemporary society, through the utilization of literary techniques including repetition, symbolism, and metaphors. The novella challenges the aspect of justice in â€Å"the Odyssey†, as the protagonist violently murders the suitors and maids, conveying valued Greek heroic, masculine traits including authority, deception, and assertiveness, compared to Atwood’s depiction of justice as giving the narrative perspective from the weaker and disadvantaged party. It is evident in â€Å"the Chorus line†, where â€Å"Think of us as real girls, real flesh and blood†, the repetition of â€Å"real†, suggests the maids passionate desire to be perceived through humane and emotional qualities including independence, virtue and honesty, rather than being merely reduced to an object of sexual objectification and that of a lower status between women and laborers in the patriarchal dominated society. In â€Å"greedy for prolonged life and power†, â€Å"greedy† possesses negative connotations including selfishness and egotism, further highlighting Odysseus’s tr agic flaw of obsession for attention and glory and the flawed myth of the protagonist’s triumphant victory in Trojan war. In â€Å"We’re walking behind you, A love song†, Penelope allows the audience to sympathize with the maid’s loss of mortality, by giving them a voice that echoes the brutality of Odysseus, evidently where â€Å"You roped us in, you strung us up, you left us dangling on a clothes line†¦how virtuous you felt, how righteous†, â€Å"a clothes line† represents domestic responsibilities of cleaning. The metaphor compares clothes to the maids, further conveying that women are valued for their appearance and sexual appeal, rather than their talents and wisdom. Being â€Å"roped† signifies physical imprisonment as the loss of hand utilization prevents women from cooking, cleaning, voting and caring for the children, their significance in society diminishes and it threatens their survival, ultimately, resulting in their death and â€Å"roped† hanging. â€Å"How virtuous you felt, how righteous†, is juxtaposed against the villainous act of Odysseus murdering the innocent individuals and positively connotes the idea of losing mortality and subverts against Christian moral attitudes, heightening an atmosphere of fear and sinister nature towards the hero archetype. Thus, the audience is challenged as contemporary values of punishing the individual guilty of a crime is differed with masculine traits of deception, violence, and independence is glorified. Therefore, the desire for justice in alienating feminine stereotypical traits creates the division between contemporary society and the Bronze age Greece society and ultimately, reshapes the significance of traditional values. Similarly, women are presented with a passionate and knowledgeable voice, that subverts their stereotypical submissive nature and traditional expectations of marriage and domestic responsibility. It is evident in â€Å"Heart of Flint†, â€Å"Odysseus told me†¦travels and difficulties the nobler versions, with monsters and goddesses, rather than the sordid ones with the innkeepers and whores†, â€Å"goddesses† symbolizes beauty, luster, and peace, in contrast with â€Å"whores†, which possesses negative connotations including disgust and immorality. The glorious appearance portrayed through the heroic, Greek, masculine values of combating sinister supernatural beings and positive hospitality by beautiful goddesses are contrasted to the reality of Odysseus’s sexual involvement of another woman and violent murders, insulted by Penelope as she claims the loss of moral superiority of her husband. This creates a sense of sympathy for the audience as such dull reality is veiled from Penelope, and is relatable as contemporary values and most religious values condone adultery. Similarly, this is depicted in â€Å"Waiting†, where the protagonist grows confidence and rebels against social norms after the alienation of her husband in the Trojan war. It is evident where â€Å"My policy was to build up the estates†¦ more wealth than when he left more sheep, more cows, more pigs, more field of grains†, the accumulation of animals and edible objects allows the audience to confront the idea of women being stripped physically, consumed and left with no identity like that of an animal, who are preyed on by humans for consumption. A woman loses authority and humane respect after losing chastity to another man and is considered the property of a man, without an occupation and inheritance, at marriage. By directing herself to comply against the rule of building estates for Odysseus, role reversal is highlighted, in that th e protagonist desires to be in a position of authority and higher social status like her male counterparts. Therefore, the novella integrates limited feminine social values apparent in Greek society, including frailty, fidelity and the suppressed female voice. In conclusion, â€Å"The Penelopiad reshapes the value of â€Å"the Odyssey† through the exploration of contemporary justice in a positive light where Penelope and the maids are given a chance to evoke anger against their innocent loss of mortality and subjection of emotional abuse from male counterparts and the portrayal of women as assertive against feminine ideals. Ancient Greece presents justice as the omniscient authority of males who utilize violence and deception against sinister complications including the Cyclops that Odysseus face and the hanging of the maids. It also subverts the lower status of women, which is reflected through their limited authority in decision making, inheritance and ability to be involved outside jobs and hobbies including sewing, nursing children and cooking, and values of familial affection, compassion, and obedience. Therefore, the frail and inferior nature of women with little emotional and physical freedom and materialistic entitlements o f inheritance and ownership of housing is alienated through the contemporary attitudes within the novella.

Ambiguous Utopias in Le Guin’s The Dispossessed - Literature Essay Samples

Societies attempt to create a world which is beneficial for all, in which all individuals are happy and content. A world like this, however, is hard to attain: People have various conceptions of how a perfect world operates, and how to achieve a society that makes every individual satisfied. This type of world is called a utopia, defined as an imaginary state in which everything is perfect. Contrarily, a dystopia is a world in which the society is unfavourable to all. In such a world, people are oppressed and controlled blindly. In Le Guin’s novel The Dispossessed, readers are introduced to two very different worlds: Anarres and Urras. Both worlds contradict each other greatly: Anarres is a world in which governed by no one in particular. Rather, it is an anarchist society in which everyone is considered an equal, without ruling or government. Urras is opposite: They are inhabited by people who seek power, wealth, and reputation. This makes it seem as if Anares is the utopian world, a place where people share and are liberated. However, this novel shows that is not the case. In fact, it shows that there can be no true utopia, because a utopian world depends on a person’s conception of a utopian world, and with human nature intact, it simply cannot exist. The setting in The Dispossessed come to show that dystopian/utopian fiction can, and does indeed, serve a didactic purpose: Namely, it shows that utopias are essentially conceptualized depending on a person’s views (and no one utopia truly exists), how viewpoints can affect government and political ideals, and how morality and social stability varies depending on the society. The novel introduces the readers to the protagonist, Shevek, an Anarasti physicist. He inhabits a world in which government control is non-existent. People work together and hierarchy does not exist in their society. Meanwhile, Urras is a propertarian world, a place that Shevek’s ancestors have fled from in hopes of a better society. In this novel, the chapters alternate, with even numbers set on Anarres and odd chapters set on Urras. The only exception to this rule, however, is the very first and the final chapters. This structure of the novel help illustrate how very different the world of Anarres and Urras are, and how both worlds can essentially be seen as a utopia/dystopia, depending on the character and their perspective. This structure of the novel show that utopias are conceptualized by an individual’s mind, and that idea of a utopia simply depends on the person. Both planets are examined through alternating chapters, emphasizing the differences that exist in bo th worlds. Urras, the planet in which Shevek travels to in order to further his scientific research, is a rich world that supports multiple nations, and is considered a â€Å"propertarian† world in the eyes of Anarrestis. Meanwhile, Anarres is a planet that does not believe in governments, but rather, sharing and societal cooperation. In fact, people of Anarres do not even use possessive pronouns because their world is revolved around sharing, and no one thing truly belongs to anyone. These drastic differences are emphasized through the alternation of the chapters, while Shevek begins to discover more about the new world of Urras and draws comparisons with his home planet. When Shevek reaches Urras, he immediately notices the differences between his home planet and the new one. For one, women are not viewed as equal counterparts as men. When asked about his opinion on women, Shevek explains, â€Å"Men maybe work faster – the big ones – but the women work longer. Often, I have wished I was tough as a woman† (17). Patriarchy exists in Urras, which seems to be an alien concept to Anarrestis such as Shevek. Moreover, people of Urras begin to tell Shevek what is his and what is not. On page 23, the escorts of Urras explain to him that the room of the hotel was â€Å"his,† a term that Shevek is not comfortable with. In the following chapter, set on Anarres, the readers begin to discover that nothing in that planet belongs to anyone. When Shevek says to a woman that the sun is his, the woman explains to him, â€Å"It is not yours. Nothing is yours. It is to share. If you will not share it, you cannot use it† (27). These alte rnating chapters show the drastic differences between the two worlds, and how Shevek comes to discover that these differences are seen as positive or negative, depending on the person. Approaching the end of the novel, when Shevek reaches the Terran Embassy in hopes to return to his home planet, Shevek states his final beliefs on what a utopian society is. He says to Keng:Because there is nothing, nothing on Urras an Anarresti need! We left with empty hands, a hundred and seventy years ago, and we were right. Because there is nothing here but States and their weapons, the rich and their lies, and the poor and their misery. You cannot say good morning without knowing which of you is ‘superior’ to the other, or trying to prove it. There is no freedom†¦ (346). It is obvious from the above quote that the differences between the two worlds has led Shevek to believe that his society is the better, more perfect world due to the fact that his is revolved around sharing and equality, unlike Urras, which revolves around power constructs. He has grown up in a world where people were equal, and the foundation for everyone was the same. Because of the way he was raised, his way of life seemed the most perfect because that was normal for him. Life on Urras, however, was abnormal – he was so used to living in a different world, that he could never become accustomed to the life of an Urrasti. Meanwhile, Keng states the opposite: Urras is the kindliest, most various, most beautiful of all the inhabited worlds. It is the world that comes as close as any could to Paradise. I know it is full of evils, greed waste. But it is also full of good, of beauty, vitality, achievement. It is alive†¦is that not true? (347). From this quote, one can see how these two opposing views are spoken of about the exact same planet, but from different viewpoints. Shevek and Keng hold opposing beliefs of what a true utopian planet is. Keng finds beauty in the power structure, in the world’s landscape, and in the people. Shevek only sees the greed, lies, and restrictions (laws and such). This shows that utopias are ultimately conceptualized by a person, and that a real utopia does not exist because each person has their own standards of what a utopian society is composed of. The alternating chapter structure of the novel emphasize these differences, and show how these differences can be seen in various ways depending on the individual. For example, Keng noticed these contrasts in a positive light, while Shevek viewed it negatively. While the Commander found women being seen equal as men in Anarres ridiculous, Shevek believed otherwise. A utopian society is ultimately decided by the perceiver. On page 41, when teenage Tirin, Bedap, Shevek, and Kvetur are having a conversation over the Northsetting Regional Institute, Tirin points out that people of Urras think Anarres is the moon, while people of Anarres think the opposite. Bedap questions, â€Å"Where, then, is the truth?† (41). Tirin responds, â€Å"In the hill one happens to be sitting on† (41). Through this quote, one notices how the perceiver plays a huge role in deciding what something is or is not, such as what is considered the moon, or what is considered a utopian society. The setting of a utopia/dystopia serves a didactic purpose in other ways. One of these lessons it serves is that utopian settings analyze the fact that human nature will always come into play when creating a utopian/dystopian society, making it virtually impossible to actualize a true utopia. In the planet of Anarres, Shevek lives in a voluntary society in which people volunteer for the jobs they wish to participate in. He believes that there are no power hierarchies, and that everyone is equal – until he discovers the truth. On page 165, Bedap, Shevek’s childhood friend, makes Shevek realize the truth about their so-called utopian society. Their society, which was not supposed to consist of power structures, does indeed have power structures, only hidden. When Shevek was doing his research, he was always under the control of Sabul, his fellow scientist. Bedap states: We have no government, no laws, all right. But as far as I can see, ideas were never controlled on Urras†¦Sabul uses you where he can, and where he can’t, he prevents you from writing, teaching†¦That’s the power structure he’s part of. The unadmitted, inadmissible government that rules the Odonian society by stifling the individual mind (165). Through this passage, Shevek slowly becomes aware of the fact that there is, in fact, a government, and although it is not obvious, it exists. When the Anarresti tried to escape Urras due to suffering, which is physical and can be seen (starvation, for example), the people of Anarresti ironically suffer too, from what Bedap calls â€Å"spiritual suffering† (166). It is in human nature to always find ways to ruin what would seem to be a utopian society because human nature is naturally selfish and seek to gain. There will always be a natural tendency to excel, as Shevek did as a scientist, and things like that brew jealousy, such as that of Sabul. Human nature makes it impossible to attain a utopian society. This passage in the novel with Bedap and Shevek teach readers that there can be political and government ideals, but those ideals cannot always be achieved due to natural human tendencies. Although it may seem that no official government structure means no control or societ al oppression, the truth of the matter is that control can still be rendered, even if secretly. Although in Anarres every person seems to be equal and anarcists, some people still lived better than others (like the researchers who had their own rooms) and ideas were still being controlled. It is a great political ideal to have, but it is impossible to follow through. Likewise, in Urras, human nature causes their â€Å"utopian† world to crash down as well. Even though they have the wealth, the riches, the beautiful land, there is still a lot they lack in other areas. On top of greed, people do not treat each other equally and the world has become worse off because of it. Keng states, â€Å"My world is a ruin. A planet spoiled by the human species. The air is grey, the sky is grey. We failed as a species†¦a social species† (348). From this quote, one can notice how Keng’s utopian world is not at all truly utopian. Human nature has caused their world to deteriorate from a seemingly perfect society, to one that is full of flaws – essentially, a dystopia. Ultimately, human nature makes it virtually impossible for utopias to exist, even if the government or political viewpoints of the society seem perfect or ideal. It is in the human nature to be selfish, and to want the best for oneself – this in itself is alre ady a cause for destruction of an imagined utopia. These instances teaches the readers that a utopia can be sought, but will perpetually be out of reach. In the words of Bedap, â€Å"We forgot the will to dominance is as central in human beings as the impulse to mutual aid is, and has to be trained in each individual, in each new generation† (167-168). Le Guin also attempts to demonstrate through the setting that people place a lot of effort in order to reach the truth or revolutionize, but morality and social stability will always simply depend on the society. During Shevek’s journey, he learns what it is like to be free. The people of Anarres seem to be free due to the lack of government control, and lack of rules or regulation. However, this proves to be false later on in the novel. Shevek and his people are not truly liberated, as Bedap points out, because their ideas are controlled and he cannot have a say when the other people do not believe what he believes in. The people of Urras are not free either because they are controlled by the upper class, or the upper class are essentially â€Å"controlled† by money. By using the setting of utopias/dystopias, one can see how no one is truly free in either society; in any society, no one will ever be truly free, no matter how hard one tries to attain liberation. This n ovel attempts to explore political ideals and freedom, but discovers that ultimately both cannot be achieved, at least not â€Å"perfect† political ideals nor perfect, full freedom. Urras believes that they have ultimately achieved freedom and that they are socially stable as opposed to Anarres. However, Shevek states towards the end of the novel, â€Å"You don’t understand what time is. You say the past is gone, the future is not real, there is no change, no hope. So there is nothing but the present, this Urras, the rich, real, stable present, the moment now. But it is not real, you know. It is not stable, not solid – nothing is. Things change† (349). Through this quote, he is stating that nothing stays the same. Everything is in a constant state of flux. This is an argument against Urras, a capitalist world that depends on money. He is stating that there is no real security in a capitalist society since things are always changing. Even though the people of Urras may feel safe within their blanket of capitalism, they will always be at risk – it is not exactly a utopia. On top of that, the morals and values differ between two worlds, making it ambigious as to what world is exactly the utopia (or if they are both, in fact, dystopias). On page 219, Shevek states that his world has morals, and that they attempt to moralize at all times. Without laws, they can choose between good and evil. Vea replies back that people are stuck inside their consciences, and that Anarrestis aren’t really free. After all, there are â€Å"Queen Teaea’s† inside of people telling people what to do (219). If there were a real queen/ruler, then at least people would be able to rebel against that leader, unlike the leader in one’s mind. Through Vea, Shevek learns about gender in the world of Urras, and how it differs from his own. He sees Vea as a â€Å"body profiteer,† offering her body as if a commodity (213). Women a re viewed differently in Urras than from Anarres. The fact that Vea dresses a certain way shows how the society of Urras is shaped, one that sees women as a commodity and showing that Urras is indeed a planet that operates on patriarchal ideals. Ultimately, the morals and social stability is different in both planets, allowing Le Guin to demonstrate that people can have conflicting morals/social standards but still see their own world as the utopia and another as a dystopia. In conclusion, it is important to note that The Dispossessed uses the utopian/dystopian setting to remind the readers that utopias are often ambiguous and may not even exist. In this novel, one can see how utopias are normally conceptualized depending on the person, and one person’s view of an utotpia may not be another’s view of a utopia, such as that of Shevek and Keng. While Shevek believed his planet to be the most ideal, Keng saw his planet as dead while hers was alive. Viewpoints can ultimately affect how a person sees an ‘ideal’ government or political stances, but this, too, is ambiguous. Hence, Le Guin used the setting of this novel to promote the didactic purpose of informing readers that utopias are not all that they are made out to seem. Ultimately, Shevek helps illustrate the point that utopias are very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, because varying individuals have conflicting views of what is ideal, as seen by the worlds of Anarre s and Urras. References Le Guin, Ursula. The Dispossessed. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. 387. Print.