To what extent do you agree with the view that, in Paradise Lost, Milton makes evil seem attractive?

Milton’s epic poem, Paradise Lost, depicts the story of Satan as he successfully causes the Fall of Man- one of many battles in his war against God. Despite the evil and sacrilegious nature of Satan’s transgressions against the Divine, Milton still gives this protagonist many attractive qualities. He is an impressive leader with a very imposing voice, and all of his actions are motivated by very human emotions, such as ambition and envy. However, it is important to remember that these actions are condemnable and utterly despicable. He deceives the other angels into following him to eternal damnation in Hell, incestuously rapes his daughter Sin and causes the Fall of Man out of bitterness for past failings. These are not attractive achievements, and makes the evil of his character much more repulsive.

Initially, it could be argued that Milton makes evil seem attractive by presenting the protagonist, Satan, as an admirable and impressive leader. He is portrayed as an excellent speaker who is able to use ‘bold words’ to spur the other angels into a rebellion against God. His motivating voice causes them to ‘rouse and bestir themselves’, and ‘up they sprung’ following the conclusion of one of Satan’s speeches. Milton describes him as an ‘orator renowned’, which connotes that he is an acclaimed speaker. Satan’s voice is so powerful that he is able to lead a third of heaven’s angels into rebellion against God. This pivotal point in the text parallels the overthrowing of the monarchy during the English Civil War, which Milton actively glorified in his political pamphlets, and may have wished to do the same in this poem. Thus, some may argue that Milton made the evil character of Satan attractive. Satan achieves ‘glory above his peers’, impressing many with his accomplishments as a leader. Shelley even argued that ‘nothing can exceed the energy and magnificence’ of this endearing leader. In fact, many of the romantic poets argued that Milton does make the evil character of Satan very attractive for the reader through his stirring rhetoric. However, his leadership over the other angels is sustained through deception, which makes it much less attractive than first appears. With the help of Beelzebub, who ‘pleaded his devilish counsel’ for him, Satan manipulates the other angels into following his plan to cause the fall of Adam and Eve. Milton later refers to Satan as the ‘artificer of fraud’, which suggests that he is much more deceptive and repulsive than he is an attractive leader. Ultimately, these lies get Satan and the other angels nowhere. At the end of the poem, they are all turned into serpents and eternally imprisoned in Hell. This is not the end result expected from an admirable leader; rather, the ending proves to be a just punishment of a deceptive failure. For many readers, this makes his evil much less attractive. It certainly does not impress.

Nevertheless, Satan’s evil may attract because his motivations are very human: he is more relatable to us than God. Milton follows traditional religious beliefs by presenting God as an ‘almighty’ being who is perfect in every way. He is an ‘omnipotent’ entity who uses his unimaginable powers only for good. Essentially, he is everything humanity aspires to be, but has failed to reach. In juxtaposition with God, Milton portrays Satan as possessing many more human characteristics. He experiences wrath: ‘the hell within him’ is always burning, and even feels envy for the ‘wonder’ of paradise that he is isolated from. Another human quality about him is his resilience. Despite failure in overthrowing God during the first war, Satan still continues to fight against the ‘Omnipotent decree… subdues us’. The evil of Satan’s character may make him a much more attractive character because the evil is motivated by human emotions. He makes the same mistakes, and feels the same as we do, which makes him more relatable and attractive for a reader. However, a much greater reading suggests that he is an utterly abhorrent and monstrous character who behaves inhumanly. Many of his actions are repulsive, such as the incestuous ‘rape’ of his own daughter Sin, which ‘pregnate thee’ to create Death. For many Christian readers, his ‘disobedience’ against God, and his desire to ‘transgress’, is the most despicable and sacrilegious of sins. Whilst he experiences many of the emotions we associate with humanity, it is clear that Milton juxtaposes these profoundly with disgusting acts of evil that are not attractive in the slightest.

Furthermore, Milton portrays this evil protagonist as so ambitious against the moral authority of God that we cannot become attracted to his character. He is portrayed as a character hunting for the ‘glory’ of omnipotent power. Described as an ‘undaunted Fiend’, Milton presents him as a character who strives for the throne of God unconditionally. In his quest to overpower God, he causes the damnation of his fellow angels and the ‘Fall of Man’. These are not very heroic or attractive feats. In fact, his actions cause pain and punishment for those around him, which does not make his evil behaviour admirable at all. His desire to recapture the ‘native seat’ is a monstrous obsession throughout the entire narrative of Paradise Lost, an obsession that does not appeal to the reader. After ‘venturing higher than my Lot’, the consequences of Satan’s actions are for the whole of Hell’s angels to be ‘transformed, alike, to serpents’, and for Adam and Eve to be excommunicated from paradise. How can we as a reader be attracted to these destructive and evil actions? In fact, Milton encourages us to praise the ‘goodness infinite’ of God’s mercy through the future visions shown to Adam in Book 12. This condemnation of Satan’s actions is emphasised to a much greater extent through the physical degradation of his character. In the opening, he was ‘Titanian’ and ‘monstrous in size’. As the poem progresses, and he strays further and further from the goodness of God, Satan deteriorates into a ‘prowling wolfe’, then finds himself ‘squat like a toad’, and finally degenerates into the ‘imp’ of the serpent. Despite Satan’s grand ambitions, which some readers may admire, Milton fails to create any attraction for his evil. As the character causes immense damnation for others, and steadily degrades into his bestial side, he falls further and further from grace. Thus, by the end of the poem, the evil of Satan is not very attractive for the reader.

Satan, perhaps the most evil character in Paradise Lost, does possess some attractive and impressive qualities. While being an imposing leader who is able to use his commanding voice to spark a rebellion in heaven, he is also an innately human character. He experiences the envy and drive to succeed that we do, which makes him very relatable to us. Therefore, some readers may find him attractive. However, to a much greater extent, it is clear that Milton makes evil much less attractive through Satan’s actions throughout the narrative. His incestuous relationship with Sin is repulsive and abhorrent, and so is the fact he caused the Fall of Man in the poem’s climax. Through Satan’s horrifying actions, Milton condemns evil by highlighting its most ugly aspects. He does not make evil seem attractive at all; it is often too repulsive to appeal to any reader.

"Macbeth is a play about the nature of evil rather than the nature of ambition". To what extent do you agree with this view of the play?

Shakespeare's Macbeth is a play that initially appears to be about the nature of evil. There are many monstrous and wicked acts committed in this play, such as Duncan's Murder, Lady Macbeth's rejection of her humanity and the slaughter of the Macduff household. It could be argued that Shakespeare explores the nature of these evil acts, and how they affect the characters involved. However, it could also be argued that this play is about the nature of ambition that underlies this evil. With characters such as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, it is often the nature of their aspirations and their desire to transgress beyond limitations that this play examines. Often, their evil behaviour is just a method of appeasing their ambition, rather than a theme the play explores in depth. 
   Through the aftermath of Duncan's murder, Shakespeare could be exploring the horrifying nature of evil. This pivotal moment within the play is presented as a disastrous catastrophe that should never have occurred. It is an event which leaves all the characters in a state of "o horror, horror", and even the setting of the weather appears to be "troubled with man's act". In the night following the murder, the setting is described as "dreadful and strange", which appears to reflect how appalling and abhorrent this act of regicide is. Contextually, this use of setting may reflect a Jacobean audience's response to Duncan's death. It could have been considered to be so evil in nature, and such a challenge to the natural order, that many audiences are left feeling nothing but contempt for Macbeth's crime. Thus, it could be argued that Shakespeare is exploring the horrifying and appalling nature of evil through this pivotal moment in the text. 
   However, a much greater reading suggests that this pivotal scene is actually about the corruptive nature of ambition. At the opening of the play, Macbeth is a "brave", loyal and patriotic soldier who would do anything to protect his king- he was a "sparrow eagle" who fought for his country's safety. Once the Witches tell Macbeth about his future as king, this presentation becomes subverted. Macbeth later decays into a man consumed by his "black and deep desires". His ambition to "o'erleap" Malcolm to the throne takes priority over his morality as he murders the king to satisfy his grand aspirations. Shakespeare, through Macbeth's changing characterisation, appears to be exploring the corruptive nature of ambition, rather than the nature of evil. It is this ambition that the play appears to be about, as it changes Macbeth from a "worthy gentleman" into a "devilish" murderer. 
   Nevertheless, the nature of evil appears to take a greater focus within the play through the presentation of Lady Macbeth. She is portrayed as unscrupulous and wicked when she is first introduced; her nature is filled with "gall". This is a character who shockingly defies all expectations. Rather than protect her children, she reveals that she would "dashed the brains out" of them. This cold statement may startle many audiences because the evil nature of what she is willing to do challenges all expectations for how a mother should behave. It becomes clear that this extreme and shocking character is filled with the "direst cruelty", as well as being completely callous and evil. No humanity appears to remain within her. Thus, it could be argued that Shakespeare is exploring the shocking nature of evil, and how it often challenges societal rules and expectations. However, a much stronger interpretation suggests that her presentation is not about the nature of evil; rather, it appears to explore the ruthless nature of ambition to a much greater extent. Lady Macbeth actually appears to be presented as someone who is willing to do anything to reach her goals and ambitions. Lady Macbeth is portrayed as willing to lose her femininity- "unsex me here"- and even her own humanity as she rids herself of the "compunctious visiting of nature". She seems to view her gender and humanity as set-backs that she is willing to work through in order to achieve her goal of becoming queen. Thus, it appears that Shakespeare has actually written a play about the ruthless nature of ambition, and how someone can be so determined to fulfil their aspirations that they would even "dashed the brains out" of their own child. 
   The scene in which the Macduff family are "savagely slaughtered" appears to be the scene which is most about the nature of ambition. Shakespeare presents Macbeth at his most ambitious as he seeks to defy fate itself. After being told that no man born of woman shall harm him, he boldly exclaims that he has no "need to fear thee [Macduff]". He chooses to ignore the first prophecy telling him to beware Macduff, and it could be argued that this defiance against fate is what leads to the death of the Macduff family. He interprets this "sweet bodement" as an indication that he is capable of cheating death and his fate. Whilst the deaths of the most "diminutive", "poor" and vulnerable victims could be interpreted as a demonstration of the depraved nature of evil, it is clear that the scene explores the recklessness of ambition. Macbeth's aspirations to secure his kingship and safety lead to him acting impulsively- "the firstlings of my heart are the firstlings of my hand". The deaths of the Lady Macduff and her children appears to be a consequence of this instinctive and reckless nature of ambition, rather than Macbeth's evil nature.
   Whilst it could be argued that Shakespeare is exploring the depraved and shocking nature of evil through the murders that take place in the play, it appears that the play has a greater focus on the nature of ambition. Underlying these evil acts of murder is a corruptive, reckless and ruthless ambition. It is this ambition that the play appears to be about, rather than the nature of evil.  
 
    
   

To what extent do you think that gothic literature is characterised by a fascination with death?

Some may argue that gothic writing is characterised by a strong focus on death because of the way it affects the characters in each text. Whether they die themselves, or lose someone else to death, it appears that gothic writing is fascinated with the ways death can affect our psyche or behaviour. However, there are other key themes that many gothic texts appear to be fascinated by, such as ambition, sin and transgression.

  It initially appears that The Pardoner’s Tale is fascinated by death due to the ways the protagonist uses death in their rhetoric. The Pardoner is presented as having a great insight into our fear of death, and uses this to extort money from his audience. In his tale, death is personified as an unstoppable supernatural predator: a “privee theef” that takes any life he chooses. Thousands have been “slain” by the opening of the tale, and by the end the three rioters have also died by their own hands. This cyclical structure suggests that this gothic text is fascinated by death, as the Pardoner repeatedly relates to his audience how death “took” anybody at any time. Furthermore, the Pardoner subtly suggests that death is not confined to the tale, and creates a lot of terror, when he hypothetically states that “paraventure hir breke a nekke atwo”. Thus, it appears that The Pardoner’s Tale is characterised by death, and its role with fear and terror. The Pardoner’s message ominously states that if you are not careful, death can easily come- “fallen of a hors”- before your sins are absolved.

  However, this gothic text appears to have a much greater fascination with the gothic concept of sin. The revellers are presented as the epitome of immorality and wickedness: “superfluitee abhominable”; they reside in the “develes temple”. The poem appears to be fascinated with condemning their sins, which is perhaps why they die at the end. Their death may be a punishment for their endless hedonism “dronken… al day and nighte” and how their excess greed (they were “glad of the sighte” of the gold). Whilst the poem does close with death, it appears that the greater focus is on the sins that precede it. Even when The Pardoner mentions the idea of death at the end of the tale, it is immediately followed by an offer of “absolucioun” and help to the “blisse of heaven”. In an innately religious medieval society, where an eternal afterlife in hell was a very real fear, it appears that this text would have been received as having a greater focus on “sinne”.

  Similarly to The Pardoner’s Tale, death in Frankenstein is presented as a punishment for both Frankenstein and the Creature’s crimes. Both commit very horrifying and inhuman deeds. Frankenstein arrogantly usurps the role of God “a new species will bless me as its creator and source”, and the Creature murders many innocent victims, such as the “sweet” William. A contemporary reader would consider the death of a child who was “so gentle” and “innocent”, which connotes vulnerability and being in need of protection, to be the worse crime. In contrast, a reader in the 1800s may have a greater abhorrence for Frankenstein’s transgression. His arrogance as he desires to reach the God-like power of breaking the “ideal bounds” of life and death may have been considered the most horrifying and sacrilegious of all crimes. Death, in this case, is presented as an apt punishment for his transgression and for trying to break beyond his limitations. Whilst it could be argued that this novel is more focused on the ambitious act of transgression itself, a much greater reading suggests that this novel does have a greater fascination with death. It is effectively used to close the novel, creating a satisfying and just conclusion to Frankenstein’s character development. The ending of this gothic text thus appears obsessed with how death can be used to restore the natural order that Frankenstein had so greatly disturbed.

  Many may argue that Macbeth has the greatest fascination with death, for there are excessive amounts of violence and bloodshed.  This play also has a cyclical structure, as the narrative begins with a battle where the protagonist “unseamed” his enemies in order to protect his king, and closes with Macbeth’s “brandished… head on a pole”. The play opens and closes with death, with the rest of the narrative being characterised by Macbeth’s murderous crimes during his rise in power. Furthermore, the play also appears to be fascinated with Macbeth’s relationship with death. During the opening, it takes Macbeth an entire act to become “settled” on murdering Duncan. By the end, he is presented as desensitised and indifferent to it, as the “firstlings of my heart become the firstlings of my hand”. Murdering other soldiers soon becomes reason for him to “smile at”. Thus, it could be argued that Macbeth is fascinated with a killer’s relationship with death, and how one grows accustomed to it with the more murders they commit.

  However, a much greater reading suggests that Shakespeare’s play has a stronger focus on ambition than death. Through the repeated use of asides and soliloquies, we get insight into Macbeth’s “deep desires”. He is presented as a character defined by his “vaulting ambition”, and his desire to “overleap” the established natural order at the time. Every murder he commits is presented as being a way of satisfying this ambition: Duncan’s murder allows him to be crowned, and Banquo’s murder is committed to prevent his kingship becoming “fruitless”, dead and “barren”. Whilst the amount of death in this play is excessive and extreme, it appears that this gothic text is characterised by a fascination with ambition with death.

  Gothic writing initially appears to be characterised by a strong focus on death. Many of the texts examine our complex relationship with death, such as our fear of dying and how we can become desensitised to it over time. However, a much greater reading suggests that gothic writing is not fully characterised or fascinated with the theme of death because it has a much greater focus on themes such as sin and ambition. Whilst death does often appear to be a consequence of these other two gothic themes, it is clear that the focus is still on ambition and sin, and how they may affect different characters throughout the course of the narrative.

“Gothic writing warns of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations”. How far does your reading of gothic writing support this view?

Throughout gothic writing, there are many protagonists who are presented as extremely ambitious; they are characters who aspire beyond the limitations imposed upon them by society and religion. Often, they appear to succeed. They appear to achieve their aims, which could interpreted as an encouragement of such behaviour. However, by the end of each text, it becomes clear that success does not follow their aspirations. In many cases, they are punished for revolting against their restraints, which would lead to the interpretation that gothic writing warns against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations.

   In The Pardoner’s Tale, the eponymous protagonist is presented as aspiring beyond his limitations within the Church system so that he can satiate his extreme greed. Throughout the entire tale, he portrays himself and his role as more important than it actually is: “myn heigh power”; “suffisant pardoner”. He even tells his audience that it is an “honour” to have him there, which connotes how he has elevated his sense of self-worth and importance within the Church. The Pardoner in this text aspires beyond the limitations imposed by the role, as he arrogantly believes he has the “auctoritee” to absolve people of their sins for his own “covetise”. Initially, it appears Chaucer is warning against the Pardoner’s ambitious nature, and highlighting the dangers of what he does to break his limitations. At the end of poem, the Host challenges the Pardoner’s hypocrisy and even threatens to “kutte of” parts of his body. This attack causes the Pardoner to lose his voice- “answerde nat a word”; “no word ne wolde he seye”- which is arguably the most powerful tool he has in the manipulation of his audience. For him to lose his voice, which he has been using to extort money from the “lewed” audience, could be considered a loss of his absolute power, and even a punishment for his actions. Thus, it could be interpreted that Chaucer is warning against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations, for it appears that the Pardoner receives his comeuppance for his aspirations.

   However, a much greater interpretation connotes that the Pardoner is not punished at all. Due to the Knight’s intervention, the Host stops challenging the Pardoner. They “kiste” and ignored what just happened, presumably carrying on as normal as they “riden forth hir weye” towards Canterbury. The Pardoner’s extreme “avarice”, and desire to satiate his “covetise”, appears to have gone unpunished. The only person to challenge him, and bring him some form of retribution, is silenced by the Knight. Thus, it could be argued that Chaucer is not warning of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations- the Pardoner lives on without any penalties, despite doing so. Rather, it appears that Chaucer may actually be reflecting a deteriorating and fallen world. He appears to be satirically highlighting the corruption of the Catholic Church: an inverted religious institution where a desire to “winne” is more important than the “correccion of sinne”, as well as one where no one is willing to challenge the corruption that is so prevalent in society.

  Lady Macbeth is presented as having greater ambitions than the Pardoner when she aspires beyond the societal limitations of a woman in the Jacobean era. She seeks to defy the authority of God as she attempts to change everything which makes her human: “stop up… access to remorse”; “fill me… of direst cruelty”. This is a character who appears unable to accept her humanity, rejecting it in favour of "gall" and evil. Rather than abide by God’s authority and accept who she is, she aspires beyond that. She wants to connect with the “murdering ministers” and lose any human emotion which may affect the ruthless pragmatism she uses to plot Duncan’s murder. Initially, she appears to succeed in doing so, which would allow one to argue that Shakespeare is encouraging her ambitious nature. Before the act of regicide, she is able to use her powerful influence to control Macbeth. Once he was “strong against the deed”, but after being manipulated by his wife, it is clear he has become “settled” on murdering him. Her aspirations appear to have been rewarded in this scene. Aspiring to completely reject her humanity, which is best exemplified when she reveals she would “dashed the brains out” of her own child, has allowed her to be pragmatic and manipulate her husband. She has been rewarded with success and power over her husband, which infers that this text is encouraging a desire to break limitations.

  However, a much greater reading suggests that Shakespeare is not praising her ambitions; rather, he appears to be highlighting the dangers of them. At the end of the play, she is presented as succumbing to a guilt that is destroying her. Her sanity appears to be decaying as she begins sleepwalking, which suggests that she is lacking inner peace and rest. She realises “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten my little hand” or wash away her guilt. Whereas before she believed “a little water clears us of this deed”, her strong character has broken down so that she keeps re-living the “so much blood” from Duncan’s murder. It could be argued that this guilt is a form of punishment for her earlier acts of transgression. Thus, it appears that Shakespeare is warning of the dangers of her aspirations. Whilst she initially appears to be rewarded with the success of being able to overpower Macbeth, it is clear that her aspirations are punished with guilt later in the play.

  Frankenstein, the titular protagonist from Shelley’s novel, is presented as having the greatest desire to pass beyond his limitations. His ambitions are much grander than those of Lady Macbeth and The Pardoner. During the creation of his Creature, he imagines a future where a “new species will bless me as its creator”, when he is the “source” of a new type of life. The use of biblical terms such as “creator” and “source” suggest that Frankenstein is a character aspiring to reach a God-like status, and gain the absolute power associated with that. This extremely ambitious character seeks to break the “ideal bounds” of life and death and discover the “secrets of life”. This arcane knowledge would have been considered by an 1800s reader as only belonging to God. Frankenstein’s aspirations to discover it may have been considered an arrogant usurpation of God’s role, and certainly reaching beyond his limits. Furthermore, he desires to create this being because the “wisest men” from history were unable to do it. Not only does he aspire to a God-like status, he also seeks to become the best of humanity. This extreme ambition appears to be followed by success, which leads to the interpretation that this novel does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations. He creates the Creature, succeeding in his goals. His ambitious “endeavours” have led to the greatest scientific discovery imaginable, and his “ardent” curiosity is satiated as he finally discovers nature’s “secrets”. Thus, it could be argued this gothic novel is encouraging Frankenstein’s aspirations, for he appears to have been rewarded with the success of a God-like status.

  However, a much greater reading would suggest that Frankenstein does not reach this God-like status at all. In what is a complete reversal of the relationship between God and Satan in Paradise Lost, where the creator (God) has power over his creation, Frankenstein is presented as controlled by his own creation. The Creature later labels Frankenstein as a “slave”, and himself the “master”. Despite being Frankenstein’s ‘child’, it is clear the dynamics of this relationship have been inverted so that it is the Creature who “have power” over his maker  The absolute power in this relationship lies with the Creature, and Frankenstein has no choice but to “obey” his demands. Moreover, the Creature’s murderous rampage, which leaves characters such as William and Elizabeth dead, causes much “anguish” for Frankenstein- and Frankenstein is powerless to stop it. It appears that Frankenstein’s ambitions only lead to “slavery” and "anguish", not to the God-like status he sought after. Thus, it could be interpreted that Shelley is warning against aspiring beyond our limitations, for it brings nothing but death and misery to this transgressive protagonist.

   Some gothic protagonists, namely the Pardoner, do escape punishment and retribution for aspiring beyond his limitations, which suggests that gothic writing does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations. However, it is clear that the ambitious characters of these texts are presented as more punished, facing greater retribution for their actions than they do rewards. Their aspirations often lead to mental torment and pain, not success. If these characters face such serious consequences for aspiring beyond their limitations, it can thus be argued that Gothic writing warns against the dangers of such behaviour. With the exception of the Pardoner, ambition is rarely encouraged as it does not lead to rewards or success in gothic writing. 

To what extent do you agree that the presentation of The Pardoner is more terrifying than horrifying?

In Chaucer’s The Pardoner’s Tale, there are many aspects of the eponymous narrator’s presentation that creates terror for the reader. Whether it is his power over the other Pilgrims, his hypocrisy or his sacrilegious behaviour, Chaucer appears to be creating a mysterious terror about The Pardoner. We cannot help but question everything about him. Whilst terror is created from the uncertainty about his character, it is also clear that horror is inspired from what we actually do know, such as his disregard for Church values, selfishness and hypocrisy.

Chaucer presents The Pardoner as the most powerful character in this poem, which may evoke a sense of terror and apprehension from the reader. This narrator’s true power lies in his knowledge and command of language. The Pardoner openly admits to using Latin to “saffron with my predicacioun” as well as biblical allusions “of victories in the Olde testament” to preserve his authority. This knowledge and control of language naturally gives the character a certain superiority; a power over his vulnerable audience. He often describes them as “lewd” and, for one Pilgrim, “noght his propre name”. This infers the idea that knowledge has elevated him above his “doun yset” audience. A sense of terror may be evoked as the reader questions how he came to gain this power and whether there is a limit to his commanding demeanour. However, a contrasting reading suggests that the dominating presentation of the Pardoner evokes much more horror. This feeling of immense horror and abhorrence may stem from his “principal entente”: to exploit. He repeatedly states that “myn entente” is to “winne silver” and become wealthy. The repetition of “myn” and “I” certainly emphasise his egocentric nature, and his sole concern for “myn” wealth is evidenced as he takes advantage of other people’s fears, such as having “doon sinne horrible”, to swindle money. Thus, the reader may be horrified as they realise that The Pardoner’s great power is not used responsibly. In fact, it is used in a repulsively selfish manner that completely defies the societal expectations of a religious preacher in the 1300s, who were expected to live generous lives helping out the poor.

The characterisation of the Pardoner is presented as more horrifying when the hypocrisy about him is fully introduced. His tale is arguably the most moral in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, and the Pardoner even states his theme is “radix malorum est Cupiditas”. This would naturally imply the Pardoner is a self-restrained man who attempts to avoid the temptation of money. The use of apostrophe “o glotonye” initially appears to emphasise his dramatic opposition to the concept of greed, which is “ful of cursedness”. Nevertheless, Chaucer presents him as more like the antithesis of a temperate clergyman. The Pardoner openly admits to the hypocrisy which defines his character: he is “gilty of the sinne”, practicing the “same vice” which he preaches against. His “theme” constantly juxtaposes with his avaricious nature. It does not matter whether someone is the “poverest page” or a vulnerable child about to die of “famine”. The Pardoner “wol have” money from them all, which presents him as extremely greedy, as well as hypocritical. It could be argued that terror is created from these opposing representations of the Pardoner. We as readers may be left in anticipation and thrilled by the fact he continues to get away with it. His hypocrisy could attract our interest as we desire to know whether his greed will be punished. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this hypocrisy inspires horror rather than terror. For a Medieval reader, the hypocritical Pardoner may serve as an abhorrent symbol of the corruption of the Catholic Church in 1300s England. It may horrify, rather than terrify, to see how a Pardoner is capable of using religion dishonestly (not for “correccioun”)  in order to extort “pens and grotes” from the vulnerable in society.

Chaucer’s presentation of the Pardoner is at its most horrifying when his sacrilegious behaviour, and utter dismissal of Church values, become apparent. Despite swearing to a life of celibacy, the Pardoner will have a “joly wenche in every toun”. With fake “bulles of popes”, the Pardoner abuses his position as a Pardoner to make money, when he should have sworn to a life of poverty. He is presented as utterly dismissing all church principles: he cares “nothing for the correccioun of sinne”. His only goal is “but for coveitise”, which further connotes that he is devoid of all religious and moral values. Hell and sin were seen as very real concepts which frightened many readers in Medieval England. Yet, The Pardoner remains indifferent to it so long as he has “wonne” his money. This may create a sense of terror for the reader as we eagerly await whether this corrupt character will ever learn from his moral tale about the “dampnable” company, or from his sermon concerning figures like Stilboun and Attilla. By the end of the poem, we are left unsure as to whether he ever will repent from his self-confessed “avarice”. However, a much stronger reading suggests that his reckless behaviour would horrify many readers. It is appalling to see how he values money in contrast to his own eternal life and humanity. He understands that greed caused humanity to fall from “Paradise to wo” and that it has corrupted many authoritative figures “lasse in reputacioun”. Yet, he is willing to remain ignorant to this insight, as well as all religious values, in order to satisfy his gluttonous “vice”. To “winne silver”. This presents him as excessively greedy and inverted in all his values, and this is where the most horror stems from within his presentation. 

The Pardoner is a character capable of inspiring a thrilling sense of terror. We are left uncertain about many aspects of his character: the limits on his powerful use of language and knowledge; if he can continue to get away with his crimes and whether he finally learn from his own tale by the end of the narrative. However, it is clear that the Pardoner’s presentation is, in fact, more horrifying than terrifying. His exploitative intentions to gain as much money as possible, his hypocrisy and his disregard for Church values all serve to create abhorrence for the reader. Chaucer’s presentation of The Pardoner stimulates more horror as they steadily realise how corrupt and greedy this abhorrent character is.

How far do you agree that Lady Macbeth is presented as a "fiend-like" queen?

Shakespeare’s presentation of Lady Macbeth is a very complex one which changes throughout the play. There are many wicked aspects of her character which highlight her fiendish nature. She is capable of great duplicity as she hides her callous behaviour from those around her. Earlier in the play, she is presented as rejective of her humanity and continues to have a lack of remorse for her actions throughout the play. However, there are many redeeming qualities to her character which suggest she is not entirely demonic. Her deceptive nature is not sustained throughout the play, and she does express many human qualities- rather than fiendish ones- such as her compassion, guilt and a supportive disposition towards her husband.

   Earlier in the play, Lady Macbeth is presented as an indifferent, uncaring character with qualities of a “fiend-like” queen. When Macbeth murders King Duncan, she does not comfort her horrified husband who can no longer look at his hands. Rather, she insults his manhood: “infirm of purpose” and describes him as “white” hearted and cowardly. This is a character who appears not to care about the consequences of her actions, and mocks Macbeth for feeling any regret at all. There is a strong sense of apathy about her character as she chooses to focus on framing the servants instead of expressing remorse: “go”, “get”, “carry”. The chain of imperatives in her language highlight her almost mechanical lack of regret as she works to destroy any evidence of their involvement. A Jacobean audience would be particularly shocked at this presentation because regicide was considered the most blasphemous, horrific act to commit. To remain indifferent to this treacherous crime would be considered a very fiendish quality. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does express a non-fiendish, sensitive side. During the same scene as Duncan’s murder, she reveals had Duncan “not resembled my father… I had done’t”. This suggests that she does possess a moral side to her character which prevents her from killing someone similar to her father. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that to frame the two servants, she needed alcohol to “make me bold”. This is not something an innately fiendish or cruel person would need to do. Therefore, it is more plausible that the callous side to Lady Macbeth we are presented with in this scene - “a little water clears us of” guilt-  is a façade. A façade she uses to cover up the immense distress she feels, and one that may be a result of ruthless pragmatism, rather than wickedness.

  Lady Macbeth is later presented as more devilish when she rejects her humanity and femininity. This is an unnatural desire which connects her with the “murdering ministers” and isolates her from God: “tend on mortal thoughts”; “unsex me”; “take my milk for gall”. She appears to shun human nature itself in order to commit this crime. Religion was a very prevalent part of Jacobean society. To have utter disregard for God’s will was considered sacrilegious, and a fiendish desire. No longer does wish she wish to be human: “fill me… of direst cruelty”. The superlative “direst” connoting an extreme level of detachment from humanity and God. However, a much stronger interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does this sacrificially in order to help her husband achieve kingship. The character is presented as wishful and ambitious for her husband’s benefit: she wants him to be “crowned withall!” and fears that he is “too full of the milk of human kindness” to do so. She states that he should “leave all the rest to me” which suggests she is willing to do everything necessary to help her husband. This is a very loving characteristic. Perhaps she is willing to lose her humanity in order to help Macbeth with his rise to the throne. Whilst she does appear to act diabolically by rejecting her humanity, it is clear that Lady Macbeth’s motives for doing so are very human, and not “fiend-like” in nature.

   Lady Macbeth is presented as most “fiend-like” when Shakespeare establishes a duplicity about her character. When in the courtyard of her castle, she is described as “our honoured hostess!” with “fair and noble” qualities by King Duncan. She effectively portrays herself as a an “innocent flower”. This is juxtaposed with the infamous “unsex me” scene when she is presented as a very wicked character who is out of sync with the sacredness of life. In that scene, she would have “dashed the brains out” of her own child and ominously states that Duncan “never shall sun that morrow see!” Through the juxtaposition of the “sweet” and “serpent” like qualities of Lady Macbeth, Shakespeare suggests this is a fiendish character capable of great deceit: “beguile the time, look like the time”. However, a much greater interpretation suggests that this duplicity is not enduring- it dissipates as the play progresses. Later in the play, her guilt over killing Duncan is presented as uncontrollable and impossible to conceal She begins to walk and confess her sins during her sleep: she “write upon’t” a piece of paper, and exclaims that “the old man… had so much blood”. She appears unable to control her abhorrence for her actions: “out, damned spot! Out!” Lady Macbeth is no longer a character who can plot regicide, and then be a “noble” hostess to that very king. This fiendish duplicity is absent from her character later, and suggests that Lady Macbeth is not completely demonic in nature.

  Lady Macbeth is often a character who behaves in a “fiend-like” manner. She callously plots regicide, expresses no regret over Duncan’s murder, rejects her own humanity and is presented as a very deceptive character. All of these are the qualities of a wicked demonic character. However, a much deeper reading shows that there are often very human motives for these actions. Perhaps her lack of remorse over Duncan’s murder is a method of coping with the distress, or the rejection of her humanity was to help her husband achieve kingship. It is clear that Lady Macbeth is a character capable of both wicked and human qualities, but for Malcolm to describe her as an entirely “fiend-like queen” is not apt description for this complex character.

To what extent do you agree with the view that, in Frankenstein, Mary Shelley is exploring “the dark side of the human psyche”?

In Frankenstein, Shelley appears to explore various elements of the dark side within the human psyche; the darkness within our mind and how it is affected by the subconscious. There are many aspects of the human psyche, or mind, that Shelley explores through Frankenstein and the Creature: violent and impulsive instincts within one’s id; an arrogant desire to play God and the effects of guilt. However, it is important to note that Frankenstein is a Gothic novel. Thus it is just as plausible that Shelley may be trying to explore many Gothic themes instead, such as punishment, the dangers of science and the monstrous.

Through the doubling of Frankenstein and the Creature, Shelley could be exploring the dark, violent and impulsive tendencies within the id of the human psyche. After his own framed tale, the Creature is presented as very barbaric and fierce. He is often described as a “wild beast” and as “monster” which connotes how he has lost his human characteristics and that he has become more bestial. Much like an animal, the Creature appears out of control in his rampage: he “glutted” himself in violence and allowed himself to be “borne away” by murder. This frenzied representation of the Creature mirrors the presentation of the protagonist, Frankenstein, later in the narrative. He also becomes full of “fury” and a vengeance which “moulded my feelings”. Through a paralleling structure, the Creature is thus presented as Frankenstein’s doppelganger. Furthermore, both of them are linked by an allusion to Satan in Paradise Lost- each of them “bore a hell” within. The Creature, as his double, appears to symbolise the repressed instincts within Frankenstein’s own mind, his id. Nevertheless, these subconscious elements begin to seep into his own consciousness (or superego) after the loss of his entire family. Frankenstein begins to act on the repressed instincts that his creature represents. Thus it could be argued that Shelley is exploring the ‘breaking point’ of a person, where the lines between id and ego collapse in the psyche. However, a much greater reading infers that Shelley is exploring the gothic theme of punishment. By having Frankenstein deteriorate from a passionate young student who wants to satisfy his “thirst for knowledge” to a “hellish” monster hell-bent on revenge, Shelley appears to be presenting him as damned, or ‘sentenced’ for his crimes. The character’s many sins, such as creating the Creature, appear to be condemned through Frankenstein’s declining sanity. Thus, it is a much more plausible that Shelley is exploring the idea of punishment rather than the dark side of the human psyche.

Shelley appears to be exploring more of the human psyche’s dark side, such as ambition and arrogance, through Frankenstein’s characterisation. In the novel’s opening, Frankenstein is presented as utterly obsessed, devoted and addicted to the creation of his being: it has an “irresistible hold” on him. His “heart and soul, in one pursuit”- this connotes how he is more than a man of “enthusiasm”. He is portrayed as being in “slavery” to his passion, implying that he has lost all control to this addictive obsession. It could be argued that this “ardent desire” stems from a subconscious yearning to play God. He wants to find the “hidden secrets of nature”, to “penetrate” the mystery of life. Contextually, these secrets are what a reader from the 1800s would associate with as arcane and only belonging to God. To try and find these secrets would have been considered an abhorrent usurpation of God’s role. Shelley appears to be exploring the hubris integrated within the dark recesses of the human mind, and possibly highlighting how it leads to the “emaciation” of mind and body. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Shelley is examining the dangers of science instead. Frankenstein is characterised as devoted to scientific research and the “secrets of life”. This appears to be criticised by Shelley, who was writing during the rise of Galvanism and the Age of Enlightenment. Science appears to lead Frankenstein to “ruin” and decaying into a “lifeless” thing. Furthermore, the product of this scientific pursuit is a “daemon” who rampages through the rest of the novel, leaving only a trail of deaths. Thus, it is much more plausible that Shelley is instead analysing the dangers of science and not the dark side of the human psyche.

Shelley is at her most probing of the dark side of the human psyche when she explores the guilt of Frankenstein. In response to Justine’s impending execution, Frankenstein is presented as remorseful and sorry: he is in a state of “living torture” and “horrid anguish”. He appears to be devastated that someone full of “joy” could be blamed for the crime committed by his creation. It could be argued that, through Frankenstein, Shelley is exploring another dark element of the human mind: destructive guilt. After all, “remorse pressed upon” the heart of this remorseful character, and it appears that the rest of the narrative hinges upon his desire to destroy the Creature and redeem himself. However, a much stronger reading suggests how Shelley is not exploring the guilt within Frankenstein’s psyche. Would a regretful character let the “innocent”, “most grateful little creature in the world” be executed for crimes they did not commit? They would not, which connotes how he does not feel guilt at all. Rather, Frankenstein is actually presented as egocentric and indifferent towards Justine. Following Justine’s execution, the words “I” and “my” are repeated often, which connotes his lack of consideration for her suffering. His only concern is for “my pain”, and this is chilling for the reader. Shelley appears to be exploring how monstrous and desensitized to death Frankenstein has become, possibly following the practice of grave-robbing. Rather than examining the dark, guilty side of the human psyche, Shelley appears to be presenting Frankenstein as monstrously indifferent. As readers, we are left wondering whether this egocentric protagonist truly has anything ‘human’ to be explored.

It is clear that Shelley does slightly delve into the dark side of the human psyche, examining many aspects such as the impulsive instincts within the id, a hubris that leads to the usurpation of God’s authority and remorse. However, it is clear that these are not Shelley’s primary concerns, as a writer of the Gothic genre. There appears to be more of a focus on themes such as punishment, the dangers of science and the monstrous. Whilst it is still an integral part of the narrative, the dark side of the human psyche appears not to be a primary point of exploration for Shelley in her classic novel.

Macbeth (2015) Review

Kurzel’s adaptation of Macbeth is a skilful film that utilises many techniques to answer the key questions raised within the source material. Who is at fault for Macbeth’s violent crimes? How much sympathy can we as an audience truly feel for this flawed protagonist? The answers to these questions appear to be the impetus of this well-made adaptation. Film techniques such as the use of colour saturation, slow-motion and the restructuring of the plot all serve to alter our ability to show compassion for the protagonist as he begins to “stepped so far” into a world of death and brutality.

The use of slow-motion during the opening proves very effective at developing the gothic themes of the source material. From the eager shaking of Macbeth’s sword as he waits for the battle to begin, through to its climactic conclusion, Kurzel chooses to reduce the film’s pace significantly. As a result, every single detail of this bloody battle can be savoured by the audience. Every brutal attack that Macbeth and Banquo execute upon their enemies can almost be felt, as the scenes play out slow enough for us to become more involved with every stab, kick and slice. Kurzel appears to be using this slow-motion technique to glorify and stylise the violence, which may reflect the characterisation of Duncan and his lords within the play itself. Both Macbeth and Banquo are praised as “worthy gentleman!” for their savage fighting style; they are “honoured” and “valiant”. Duncan’s speech is filled with a chain of positive adjectives to emphasise how respected Macbeth is for his actions- “brave Macbeth, well he deserves that name”. This attitude to the protagonist’s heroic efforts is reflected by the use of slow-motion, which presents their patriotic desire to protect their country as impressive, magnificent and extravagant. However, a more effective use of this slow-motion is how it infers the powerful influence of the Witches in this play. In a short segment of the battle sequence, the pace returns to real-time for the soldiers who continue to participate in the combat. This is juxtaposed with the shots featuring the eponymous protagonist and the Witches, who remain in slow-motion. For the audience, this effectively emphasises the influence they have upon Macbeth. Only he can see them, and his focus is on these arcane figures rather than the bloody battle as it continues around him. Kurzel’s use of slow-motion thus serves to isolate Macbeth as a protagonist who is no longer of the temporal world. From this moment on, Macbeth appears to be under the supernatural influence of the Witches.

However, Kurzel appears to spend the rest of the film disputing the assertion that Macbeth is under the influence of overwhelming supernatural forces. In the play, the Witches are otherworldly beings with the sole goal of “draw him [Macbeth] onto his confusion”. The plot is slightly altered in this adaption so that Lady Macbeth sees these mysterious characters. Whilst it may appear to be a small adjustment, this heavily influences the audience’s response to the question at the heart of this play: ‘who is to blame for Macbeth’s actions?’ In the play, it is ambiguous and unclear. This adaptation makes the mistake of eliminating the uncertainty that makes the play the timeless classic that it is. For Lady Macbeth to meet the Witches, Kurzel inadvertently diminishes the integrity of their mysterious representation as paranormal beings. In fact, there is very little makeup or effects (if any) used on these characters, which serves to present them as more human than “juggling fiend”. Rather than “vanish” completely after their meeting with Macbeth, they simply walk off into the fog. Kurzel appears to be creating a very realistic and grounded version of this classic gothic play. Furthermore, the famous dagger scene is adapted so that it is a young boy in a dream who offers the weapon to Macbeth. In the play, the origins of this dagger are much more obscure. We never truly know whether it is Macbeth’s “heat-oppressed” mind that hallucinates this image, or the Witches tempting him down a road of violence and death. Kurzel’s adaption does not preserve this mystery: the Witches are much less supernatural and arcane in this film, as the ambiguity which made them so interesting in the play is stripped away. This also makes it very difficult to blame Macbeth’s transgressive murders throughout the play on the overpowering influence on the Witches. Whilst the use of slow-motion earlier did appear to suggest that Macbeth was completely enchanted by their power, it is clear that the true fault for Macbeth’s actions lies with the protagonist himself.

In fact, Kurzel and Fassbender’s presentation of Macbeth appears to deliberately restrict our sympathies for the protagonist. During the film, the domination and command of Lady Macbeth is almost entirely omitted. Cotillard’s performance is very subtle as her character seduces Macbeth into committing regicide, rather than completely overpowering him. When Macbeth cowardly asks “if we should fail,-” in the film, it appears to stem from a fear of disappointing his wife for not being masculine enough. In the play, it is Lady Macbeth who uses his manhood and his pride as weapons in order to convince Macbeth. The film does not utilise this key concept within the play, for the delivery of Cotillard’s lines are too quiet for us to interpret her as the commanding partner of this relationship. In fact, much of the dialogue in the play has been cut from the film’s screenplay. Following Duncan’s murder, the use of imperatives and insults in her language- such as “infirm of purpose”; “white” hearted and “go get”- is absent from Kurzel’s adaptation. Similarly to the Witches’ presentation, her influence has been stripped to its core so that there is very little of it. This serves to increase the blame of Macbeth’s actions upon the titular protagonist himself.

Furthermore, Kurzel presents Macbeth as worthy of the titles “butcher” and “devilish Macbeth” during the act of regicide itself. In Shakespeare’s source narrative, the murder is completely omitted. It takes place off-stage, which may initially infer that Macbeth feels so much guilt for his crime that he cannot process it. He runs and hides immediately, refusing to go back to the “sorry sight”. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this crime is actually more abhorrent for the audience, hence why it is absent from the narrative. There is a suggestion that the crime is too horrific to be imagined. Kurzel appears to be adapting the play so that it coincides with the latter interpretation. He chooses to include Duncan’s murder within the film, and directs it in a perfectly chilling way. In what is one of the most accomplished scenes in the film, the audience is left repulsed by the violent, barbaric and bloody murder that Macbeth commits. It is the repeated stabbings, and the uncontrollable burst of ferocity, that presents Macbeth as so cold, and so indifferent. Thus, it could be interpreted that Kurzel is deliberately restricting our sympathies for the protagonist. Whereas the play included a duality about his character, which made him both sympathetic and morally revolting, the film does not portray Macbeth as someone we should feel sorry for. Even the film’s colour saturation, so that the scene appears orange and red during the final battle sequence, serves to distance us from Macbeth. We struggle to feel sympathy for the character because the colour saturation obscures him from view; all we can see is the ‘red’ that symbolises his bloody and violent path to power.

Whilst this film is flawed in its lack of ambiguity or mystery, there are many elements of the source material that Kurzel translates to screen faultlessly. He masterly reflects the glorification of violence in the play through stylised and stunning visual storytelling, and he cleverly restructures the story to open up original interpretations on how we as an audience should respond to Macbeth’s character. It is an impressive film that proves to be a faithful adaptation of this 400 year old play, whilst also having its own fresh, innovative and modern flair.