A Not So Great Britain

A Not So Great Britain

It is ironic that we are called Great Britain. Nothing about the abhorrent society that we live in today is of an exceptional quality that we can be proud of. Unfortunately, extreme levels of nationalism, xenophobia and racism have become accepted. Britain’s democratic decision to leave the European Union appears to have become a justification for hatred towards different ethnicities. However, the British people are not entirely to blame. It is the Vote Leave politicians who pulled the first brick out of the wall of equality. Vote Leave campaigners have made it socially acceptable (for perhaps up to 52% of the electorate) to be intolerant towards those that are not British. Whether it is the European leaders in Brussels or the immigrants travelling here in search of a livelihood, leave campaigners have steadily demonised those that are different to ourselves. This is not “great”, and it is certainly nothing to be proud of.

In Britain’s shameful quest for sovereignty, we have sharply lost all our influence over what happens to the world and our country. One of the key arguments that lay at the heart of the Vote Leave campaign was the concept of control over our own legislation, and how we can “unshackle” ourselves from the rules and restrictions of the European Union. The officials in Brussels have been portrayed by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson as dictators who have an oppressive grasp on our country. This appealed to voters profoundly. They questioned why we cannot have the freedom to create our own laws? Surely we should have the right to create our own legislation without the influence of an external governing body, they pondered. These are all perfectly valid points. Democracy is a valuable system we should never take for granted; in fact, it should be cherished. If 36.9% of the electorate desire for a Conservative government to create our laws, it is perfectly understandable that they would want to break away from the overpowering influence of Brussels.

However, as the seismic consequences of Brexit begin to tear the British economy apart, the evidence appears to suggest that we have become much less sovereign. Our credit rating has decreased, the pound has steeply fallen in value and we are steadily losing the power to prevent Scottish independence in the next decade. Leave voters believed they had chosen to “take back control”, to break the chains of the European officials, who were portrayed as tyrannical and undemocratic. For many xenophobes, the idea of “those European bureaucrats” having influence over our country’s politics appeared too much to endure. It must deeply hurt them to see that we have in fact lost control since we voted Brexit. Defined as the ability to govern ourselves, and to have authority over what happens within our country, it is clear there is nothing sovereign about this post-Brexit Britain. Our markets are suffering, and there is nothing we can do to prevent the tumultuous storm of a recession heading our way. The only choice our parliament can make entirely on their own is when to activate Article 50. Yet, even that decision can be overturned by the House of Lords, who are just as undemocratic and unelected as the European officials that have been demonised. Fortunately for the xenophobes in this country, the House of Lords is mostly comprised of white males, which must make it acceptable for them to have undemocratic control. Ultimately, when Article 50 is activated, we lose our influence in Europe and what happens to our own country forever. It will be they who decide what our future trade deals look like, not us. Thus, for many remain supporters, the country’s decision to leave the EU is embarrassing and appalling. In the quest for more control over our own country and break away from foreign influence, we have lost economic stability, our allies and the once strong union that defined our country. Without these, we are no longer “great”. We are just a little country who tried to augment our own power, but have lost it in the process.

Farage's poster has been highly criticised as racist and
morally disgusting 

Furthermore, many British voters opted for Brexit believing it would lead to greater controls over immigration. To be worried over immigration is a completely legitimate concern. Our public services are under strain. It is understandable why many would want to alleviate the pressure from a struggling NHS by having greater controls over immigration. However, it is repulsive how immigrants have been used as the scapegoats for all of our problems because it is easier than blaming ourselves. Whilst it is true that tighter controls on immigration would take away some of the strain on the over-worked NHS, and to perhaps take away the demand for new homes in this housebuilding crisis, to completely blame immigrants is untrue. It is our Conservative government who have made cuts to NHS funding, who have not created enough jobs or built enough homes to meet demand. Yet, we continually blame the many Europeans who come to live in the UK. Despite the fact they are 43% less likely to take out of the benefit system, instead providing vital skills that over twenty billion pounds to the economy, many British citizens have diabolized them. Many have made them the problem. Since the referendum result, reports of hate crime have risen by 57%. Europeans are being described as “vermin”, as people who the government should “send them home”. Immigrants, who have only come here to work and provide for their family, are being portrayed as a plague that has marred Britain. This portrayal is wrong and morally repugnant. How can we call ourselves “great” Britain when hate speech such as this is taking place? As Michael Keith argues, “the unspeakable became not only speakable, but commonplace”, and it is utterly repellent.  

The most extreme demonisation of Europeans is evident in the manner that the Vote Leave campaign used terrorists and criminals as a weapon of fear. On one of their leaflets, they played upon societal anxieties by highlighting how a country like Turkey, which is planning to join the European Union, is bordered with Syria and Iraq. This is an attempt to label foreign people as the other, as something different and threatening. Shockingly, this worked with a majority of the British electorate. The Vote Leave campaign’s ridiculous warnings that the entire Turkish population of 77 million, described as being full of “murderers, rapists and terrorists”, will move over here as soon as the country joins the EU. For the campaign to make this claim is absurd, for the British electorate to believe it is very worrying indeed. Believing the claim that all of the world’s criminals exist within Turkey and Syria only leads to latent prejudices and hatred rising to the surface. As discussed earlier, many British citizens have taken it upon themselves to tell foreign people to “go back to your own country”, or to “get out”, as the reports of racism have suggested. This hatred towards those who are not British can and will escalate from verbal taunts to violent acts if we do not stop demonising them now. It is almost as if the British electorate have forgotten that MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a British terrorist, or that murderers, rapists and thieves of white nationality do exist also. There is a horrifying ‘us and them’ attitude in this country; we have become divided as we choose to fear those of different nationalities, rather than work with them to create a progressive future. The chasm that splits our country is so profound that to call ourselves the United Kingdom sounds ironic and foolish.

The name of our country completely juxtaposes with the negative ideals that we are currently holding. We are a country who shuns the political influence of Brussel’s officials, yet would be the first to accept their help when the disastrous consequences of Brexit arrive. Our economy cannot survive without immigration, yet we continue to portray it as a plague that will eventually destroy us. And finally, we are a country that uses criminals from different countries as bogeymen to instil fear, whilst ignoring the atrocities that British people have committed themselves. This post-Brexit Britain is appalling and disgusting. Xenophobia has swiftly become commonplace in this depraved society that we now live in. It is ironic that national pride was used by the Vote Leave campaign to attract votes, because there is nothing about Little England that we can be proud of anymore.

"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.  
 
    
   

Explore some of the ways in which Mary Shelley uses different settings to contribute to the gothic effects of the novel

Shelley uses settings to create many gothic effects for the reader, such as isolation, horror and a dark insight into the human psyche. However, there are often more effective narrative methods that Shelley uses to create the gothic tone of the novel, such as structure and characterisation.

  Shelley appears to use the Orkney Islands to evoke a sense of gothic alienation. The use of the superlative “remotest” connotes how this is the most isolated place that Victor can reside in; there is nowhere more “vacant” and empty. The setting is “barren” and lifeless, as well as the perfect place for Victor to create the female creature in “solitude”. This “remote spot” appears to have been used to evoke a gothic sense of isolation for the reader. It really emphasises how removed from society Victor has become- he is utterly “alone” on this island. However, Shelley’s use of structure proves to be more effective at creating this gothic tone of the novel. This novel is told in a framed narrative; Victor’s narration is being told to Walton rather than narrated to the reader directly. This more effective at creating this sense of isolation about Victor because we are distanced from him. Everything he tells us is filtered through the character we are structurally closest with: Walton. Furthermore, Victor never replies to the letters from his “dearest Elizabeth”, which highlights how alienated this character is from his own family. Whilst settings are used to create the gothic effect of isolation and alienation, it is clear that the use of the novel’s structure is more effective.

  Pathetic fallacy may have been used to evoke a sense of horror and misery from the reader. When Frankenstein’s creature comes to life, the weather appears to reflect the atrocity of his crime. The setting is described as a “dreary night”, and the rain “pattered dismally”. This lexicalisation of synonyms of misery and depression serves to emphasise the horror of what Frankenstein has done. His laboratory is shrouded in darkness- “half-extinguished light”, “candle was nearly burnt out”- as well as this melancholic use of weather. The setting appears to reflect how an 1800s reader may have interpreted Victor’s creation: a monstrous and sacrilegious act against God. The darkness and the despairing weather appear to symbolise the horrifying nature of his arrogance as he tries to become a divine figure: “a new species will bless me as its creator”. It may have been received as an utterly abhorrent usurpation of God’s by a reader in the 1800s, and the setting may be a catalyst for these gothic effects. However, a much more effective narrative method for creating horror is Victor’s characterisation. He describes his creation as a “catastrophe” which suggests that it is completely wrong and should never have happened. He is presented as filled with “disgust” and “breathless horror”, as well as completely repulsed by what he has done. Shelley appears to be using Victor’s role as narrator to evoke a sense of horror from the reader. His point of view is that this is a “horrid” abomination, and we as readers may be influenced by his perception because it is through his eyes that we see the novel. Thus, the use of Victor’s characterisation proves to be a more effective source of horror and despair than the use of setting.

  In fact, natural settings in Frankenstein are most effective at creating romantic effects in the novel, rather than a gothic tone. Shelley presents nature as romantically sublime, after possibly being influenced by the romantics, who were her contemporaries. Natural settings have many positive and beneficial effects on the narrator: it “elevated my spirits”; “greatest consolation” and subdued his pain. Nature is presented as a source of relief and treatment in this novel. It is presented as healing and soothing, which is the antithesis of what is considered to be a gothic effect. It “tranquilised” pain rather than provoke more horror and despair. Whilst some may argue that the “terrific” and “violent” weather, apparent when Victor first meets the Creature, may symbolise the darkness and turbulence of his psyche, this is not the primary use of nature. Shelley appears to use natural settings in this novel to contribute to a sense of sublime beauty and the healing powers of our world, rather than to reflect the horrifying and gothic aspects of our psyche.

  Whilst it does appear that Shelley uses settings to create a gothic tone to her novel, developing many of the gothic themes such as isolation, horror and the darkness of the human psyche, setting is not the most effective method Shelley uses to evoke these effects. Often, narrative devices such as characterisation and the novel’s structure appear to be much more successful at contributing to the gothic effects of her classic novel.

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.