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.

Consider the significance of the role of the Old Man in The Pardoner's Tale

Although the character appears for only a few lines in Chaucer’s The Pardoner’s Tale, the Old Man is a character of great significance to the text. He appears to act as a foil to the other sinful characters in the poem, may symbolise the supernatural idea of death and is presented as an arcane figure that intrigues the reader. It is clear that many of these significant aspects to the Old Man’s role link with elements of the Gothic genre.

  Chaucer presents the Pardoner as an ambiguous, arcane and mysterious character in his poem. We as a reader never truly know anything about him because his name, as well as information with regards to where he has come from or where he is going, are not revealed to us. The most significant mystery about his character is his role in the reveller’s death later in the text. The Old Man sends them up the “croked weye” towards the money and where they ultimately die. Whilst the word “croked” could connote how their “abhominable” behaviour is corrupt and immoral, and that it can only lead to destruction, a much greater significance is its ambiguity. We do not know whether it is their “grisly” behaviour or the Old Man’s intervention that leads to their damnation and death at the end of the tale. There are hints that it could be the Old Man’s sinister plan when he ominously says “in age, if that ye so longe abide”. This appears to strengthen the argument further that the Old Man does intend to send them to their death. Despite this, we still do not truly know for certain. This uncertainty and obscurity about the Old Man’s character may have been used to create tension and unease. We often fear what we do not understand, so Chaucer may have wished to use this absence of information to evoke a thrilling sense of terror and uncertainty from the reader.

  A much greater significance of the Old Man is his role as the antithesis of the corrupt and sinful characters in the text. When we are first introduced to the Old Man, Chaucer presents him as humble, gentle and benign: he is described as “ful mekely” and wishes upon the revellers that “God yow see!” them through their day. This connotes his innate goodness; the Old Man appears to be a welcoming character who treats the revellers with kindness. Chaucer juxtaposes this with other immoral characters in the text, such as The Pardoner who narrates this tale. The Pardoner is the antithesis of the Old Man: he is a “ful vicious man” of “avarice” rather than selflessness. This use of the word “vicious” suggests corruption, wickedness and a decayed sense of morality- qualities the Old Man does not appear to possess. The Pardoner, in contrast, would easily let “children sterve for famine” or take from the “povereste page” to satiate his covetousness. Some would argue that Chaucer does this to highlight how monstrous The Pardoner truly is. The Old Man may act as a foil which highlights why the narrator, whose only intention is to “winne” money, is someone the reader should be utterly repulsed by. The poem appears to be didactic in its message as it presents us with a symbol of virtue, the Old Man, to juxtapose with and condemn the corrupt Pardoner. However, a much stronger reading suggests that Chaucer is not creating revulsion for the Pardoner; rather, he may be highlighting the irony and folly of his Christian role. In Medieval England, the Pardoner and all religious clergymen would have been expected to be a good-natured, holy and moral. Chaucer presents the reader with the complete opposite, subverting our expectations of a religious man. Through the Old Man’s virtues, Chaucer may be choosing to satirise the corruption of the Catholic Church. After all, it is almost comic how a ‘fictional character’ in the Pardoner’s moral tale is actually more virtuous than the preaching narrator himself.

  The greatest significance of the Old Man is his complex relationship with death. He is initially presented as a supernatural character who could be the personification of death itself. Chaucer has lexicalised the description of the Old Man- “forwrapped”; “bones” and “vanisshe”- so that it evokes a sense of decay and withering. The Old Man’s striking physical description is one that appears to symbolise erosion and decay; contextually, it may even represent the Black Death which had plagued Europe. It could be argued Chaucer wished to use him as symbolic of death itself. After all, the revellers do describe him as death’s “espye”. By doing this, Chaucer does appear to be suggesting that the Old Man has greater, otherworldly powers than we first imagined. When the three revellers die at the end, we as readers naturally remember the macabre Old Man who sent them up the “croked weye”. However, a much stronger interpretation does suggest that the Old Man is a character we sympathise with, rather than fear, because he has lost the ability to die. The character is presented as having been cheated of the one quality every human being shares- the ability to die. Instead, he is a “restless kaitif” who is often pleading for his death to come: “leet me in!” to my grave he begs; he is often despondent over the fact “none.. chaunge his youthe for myn age”. The sympathy lies in the fact he has lost something he clearly seeks, but cannot have (even if he travelled from here to India). Death is something everyone has, even the “abhominable” revellers are allowed the right to this very human experience. Yet, the Old Man does not, and this ultimately creates a lot of sympathy for this almost victimised character who is denied the experience he wants the most.

  Chaucer uses the minor character of the Old Man to create a lot of meaning. The ambiguity about him, his juxtapositioning with the Pardoner and his supernatural immortality all appear to have been used to evoke different emotions from the reader. Whilst these evoked emotions could be negative ones, such as fear and unease, it is clear the Old Man represents the virtues and goodness of humanity when juxtaposed with many of the other characters lack in this poem. Thus, a lot of sympathy is created because he is punished to the greatest extent through immortality, whereas morally corrupt characters such as The Pardoner and the revellers do not experience such comeuppance.

"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.

In House of Cards, are the female characters only presented as victims of Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power?

Throughout Frank Underwood’s rise in power, many of the female characters are presented as suffering and as manipulated victims. His ruthless pragmatism and almost inhuman indifference allows him to suppress anyone who stands in his way. Characters such as Heather Dunbar, Rachel Posner and Claire Underwood- to varying extents- suffer attacks on their dignity, power and livelihood. However, there are occurrences throughout the series where these female characters defy what Frank expects of them, thus becoming strong, independent and stoic characters as a result. 

Note, this analysis only considers Seasons 1-3. I have not yet watched the fourth season in its entirety.

Some may argue that Heather Dunbar is presented as a victim of Frank’s ruthlessness as he attempts to sustain his power and the presidency. During her first debate, she is forced to endure sly and cunning personal attacks, from both Frank and Jackie Sharp, as they use her gender as a weapon. They try to portray her as a “bad mother” who abandons her children, and even as a “sexist” who only looks after herself, rather than the whole of America’s female population. This assault on her character increases in intensity when they try to use her actions in the past, such as sending her children to public school or her lack of a “record to defend”, in order to diminish her credibility and humiliate her. To some extent, it does appear that this attack on her character and her past victimises her, for she loses the first caucus in Iowa, thus suggesting that her public image has decreased in popularity. However, to a greater extent, it appears that Dunbar is actually Frank’s strongest obstacle in his pursuit of the presidency, and perhaps one of the most powerful female character in this television series. Throughout the third season, Frank “trails” behind her in the polls. Rather than someone victimised by Frank’s ruthlessness, Dunbar is portrayed as a formidable opponent that Frank struggles to overcome. Even when he humiliates her during the debate, labelling her a “bad mother”, she swiftly responds in an calm and human way “do I want the best for my kids? Yes I do!” Frank’s attempts to humiliate her are quickly halted by her strong and defiant demeanour as she refuses to fall to his depraved level of politics. Thus, it appears that not all female characters are presented as victims of Frank’s pursuit of power. Dunbar, a “symbol” for the power that women can have in politics, proves to be one of the strongest and most controlled characters in the series, and certainly a very worthy candidate for president that Frank will struggle to defeat in the later seasons.

Rachel Posner is portrayed as a greater of a victim of Frank’s ruthless pursuit of power. During the first season, she is essentially a pawn which Frank uses to progress through his plan to the vice-presidency. Her value never increases above this- Frank does not even meet her due to her lack of significance to him. Yet he still does what he pleases with her, using Doug to take complete control of her life. She is paid to keep silent about her sexual encounter with Peter Russo, and then to seduce him later in the season. Each time Frank needs her silenced with regards to what she knows, she is forced to “move again”, despite her pleas that she has “finally made a life for myself”. Furthermore, during her last appearance in the series structurally, she is presented as utterly humiliated and powerless. She is kidnapped by Doug- bound and gagged by a rope which appears to symbolise the oppressing constraints of Frank’s power. She is even forced to urinate all over herself “back there” in the van, which is incredibly degrading and suggests she is considered as below human by both Doug and Frank. She is repeatedly told to never “overestimate yourself”, as it steadily becomes clear for the audience that she is a victim of Frank’s abusive manipulation of her. Whilst some may argue that many of her actions suggest she is not victimised by Frank, such as the way she overcomes and escapes Doug, or the way she creates a new identity for herself as Cassie Lockhart off-screen, it is clear that all of this is meaningless. Many consider her storyline with Doug to be extra-baggage and unimportant, which is entirely the point. Other than being a minor hindrance to Doug, she is never allowed to accomplish anything substantial. As the series progresses beyond season four and beyond, her horrific, unfortunate and untimely death will steadily be forgotten by the other characters. Other than as a puppet for Frank to use in his pursuit of power, she serves no purpose. She dies as an unfortunate victim of his manipulation.

Nevertheless, women are not presented only as victims in Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power, for Claire Underwood could be interpreted as one of the most influential and powerful characters in the entire series. Her impact on other character’s decisions is incredibly substantial. For many voters in this fictionalised version of America, she is the only reason that people vote for Frank in the first place- “people like Claire”, and are persuaded to vote by what she says. During the third season, Claire even acknowledges this fact “I should have never made you president”. The use of the word “made” offers a lot of insight into the amount of power she has, for it suggests that Frank would have achieved nothing without the authority she has in this corrupt world of politics. Furthermore, her role as CEO of Clean Water Initiative would have proven very effective in getting the environmental bill to pass through Congress, if she actually decided to used her high-ranking position. She chooses not to though, and this causes a lot of delay in Frank’s pursuit of the presidency. Thus, it appears that Claire Underwood is a character who makes a substantial impact, someone who is certainly not victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power. However, a much deeper reading suggests that her authority within the show is superficial- an illusion that never becomes a reality. Ironically, as Claire becomes First Lady of the United States, she finally comes to realise that every bit of control she had over her life has been manipulated by Frank. Her business, her influence on voters and even her role as First Lady have all been for his benefit- not hers. President Petrov even observes that Frank simply “pimps” Claire out; every action she takes in the show contributes to Frank’s plans, rather than for her own benefit. Dunbar manages to get the role of solicitor general and builds a successful campaign for president alone, but Claire has nothing unless Frank gets it also. He oppressively tells her that “without me you are nothing”, suggesting how any power she had has been completely usurped and absorbed by Frank. Now she is victimised by him, feeling utterly “weak and small”. Whilst it could be argued that she is portrayed as one of the most commanding and authoritative characters in the series, her influence in events is presented as much more superficial than it is genuine. In fact, many argue that she is presented as being the most victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power, and his lack of respect for her as a person.

The female characters in this series could considered strong, defiant and powerful in the face of Frank’s ruthless pragmatism. Many of the women in this series fight for what they want and what they believe in, such as their own life, or to progress further up the political ladder. However, it soon becomes clear that this battle against Frank is often fruitless. Women are unfortunately presented as victimised by, and suffering from, Frank’s merciless desire to become the president. Often their own plans and goals are ravaged, exploited and ruined because Frank’s ambitions always come first throughout the entire show. Whilst there are occurrences where it appears that women are triumphant in their own aspirations despite Frank’s plans, it soon becomes clear that it is always the protagonist who succeeds in what they set out to do, and that women are often left victimised as a result.

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.

“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.