The Kite Runner
The question of good versus evil constantly arises in Khaled Hosseini's novel, The Kite Runner. Initially, Baba, Amir's father, tells Amir that only one sin exists: stealing. All sins and evil actions revolve around stealing. Amir witness the rape of his best friend, Hassan. He knows the act is "evil," yet does nothing to stop it. He grows distant from Hassan, and must live with remorse for the rest of his life. Doing nothing to prevent evil in society often leads to regret and remorse. But, when Rahim Khan calls Amir to come back to Afghanistan many years after Amir has established a new life in California, he says, "There is a way to be good again." Amir can make up for his past sins by returning to Afghanistan and rescue Hassan's son, Sohrab. All evil can be transformed into good, and remorse can forever be abandoned.
The Moon is Down
John Steinbeck's novel, The Moon is Down, deals with an army invading an innocent society to obtain coal. The invaders result to ruthlessness and murder when resistance arises. Like Crime and Punishment, the good and evil in this novel has to do with perspective. The invaders believe their actions are good because it benefits their society. When resistance arises, they feel it is their duty to suppress it in order to prevent more resistance, and to remain in power. They view the resistance as evil. Conversely, the invaded peoples view the invasion as an evil act because the invaders are taking away their freedoms. Their resistance is necessary and good because they are fighting for their individual rights. Steinbeck reveals that resistance is inevitable because no person will easily submit to stolen freedom. The resistance is both good and evil depending on the person describing it. Similarly, the invasion is both good and evil -- good for the invaders, evil for the society being invaded. Good versus evil is merely a game based on perspective.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment is an intricate psychological study of Raskolnikov, and weighs heavily on point of view. Raskolnikov believes that others around him are insane, while other characters in the novel, such as Razumihin, question Raskolnikov's sanity. Good versus evil also deals with point of view. While one person may believe his actions are "good," another may view them as "evil." Seeing the world through Raskolnikov's eyes, the reader can sympathize with his thoughts and actions. But stepping back, and viewing Raskolnikov through the eyes of an onlooker, he can be seen on the verge of insanity. Likewise, Raskolnikov believed his murder of Alyona, the pawnbroker, was to benefit humanity. To him, it was not an evil act, but one of true goodness to aid all mankind. However, most people see murder as an evil, unforgivable act. Therefore, sanity versus insanity, good versus evil, and all extremes in life are based on perspective.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
BIG QUESTION!
What defines good and evil?
Ghosts:
Manders believes it is wrong to insure the orphanage. He fears the town will lose trust in his connection to God and does not want to be viewed as "evil." Manders feels that others create the definition of good and evil. Mrs. Alving, on the other hand, formulates her own opinion on good and evil. She is not concerned about the opinions of others (illustrated by the books on her coffee table). She succumbs to Manders' desire to not insure the orphanage, which is a decision that eventually comes back to haunt them both. Therefore, is it better to trust one's own opinions on the definition of good and evil, rather than to worry about what others think?
Oedipus Rex:
Oedipus honestly desires to do what is best for Thebes. He saves the people from the sphinx, and at the end of the play, he exiles himself. He kept his word, because of his morality and integrity. In Oedipus Rex, the definition of good is this virtuous behavior.
King Henry IV, Part 1:
To a majority of Shakespeare's audience, Hotspur and the rebels are "evil," while Hal, Falstaff and King Henry are "good." Rebellion is generally viewed as an evil act, however, Hal rebels against his father's wishes, as he and Falstaff drink and steal. What makes these two rebellions different? The audience already has an opinion of who is "good," and who is "evil" in this play, before it begins. They know Hal eventually becomes an honorable king, and don't view his actions before he becomes king as evil. He might be mischievous, but he turns around in the end, making him eternally "good." Falstaff provides the comic relief for the play, and is a likable character. Hotspur is not likable, so the audience easily labels as an evil character.
Ghosts:
Manders believes it is wrong to insure the orphanage. He fears the town will lose trust in his connection to God and does not want to be viewed as "evil." Manders feels that others create the definition of good and evil. Mrs. Alving, on the other hand, formulates her own opinion on good and evil. She is not concerned about the opinions of others (illustrated by the books on her coffee table). She succumbs to Manders' desire to not insure the orphanage, which is a decision that eventually comes back to haunt them both. Therefore, is it better to trust one's own opinions on the definition of good and evil, rather than to worry about what others think?
Oedipus Rex:
Oedipus honestly desires to do what is best for Thebes. He saves the people from the sphinx, and at the end of the play, he exiles himself. He kept his word, because of his morality and integrity. In Oedipus Rex, the definition of good is this virtuous behavior.
King Henry IV, Part 1:
To a majority of Shakespeare's audience, Hotspur and the rebels are "evil," while Hal, Falstaff and King Henry are "good." Rebellion is generally viewed as an evil act, however, Hal rebels against his father's wishes, as he and Falstaff drink and steal. What makes these two rebellions different? The audience already has an opinion of who is "good," and who is "evil" in this play, before it begins. They know Hal eventually becomes an honorable king, and don't view his actions before he becomes king as evil. He might be mischievous, but he turns around in the end, making him eternally "good." Falstaff provides the comic relief for the play, and is a likable character. Hotspur is not likable, so the audience easily labels as an evil character.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)