In both Perfume and The Crucible the main theme that revolves around both these pieces of literature is the theme of good versus evil. Although these novels do not have a conventional approach to the theme of good and evil. There are no solely good characters in both Perfume and The Crucible because all characters exemplify evil tendencies one way or another thus making the approach to “Good Versus Evil” unconventional.
In typical good versus evil themes, there is always a good set of characters and an evil set of characters, and either the good characters are introduced first or the evil characters. In the end the evil characters or character is usually stopped by the “good” characters at any cost. In both The Crucible and Perfume there are no good characters that put a stop to the evil characters. For example in Perfume Grenouille was the evil protagonist who had gotten exactly what he wanted and nobody was able to stop him. Grenouille had made the “ultimate perfume” and there was not a single person who could put a stop to him. Once Grenouille had accomplished this perfect scent, he killed himself, and not by the means of some “good” characters like what happens in most conventional approach, but he died on his own terms and nobody else’s. In The Crucible just like Perfume, nobody was able to stop Abigail and all her lies. Abigail got exactly what she wanted.
In most conventional pieces of literature that deal with the theme of “Good Versus Evil,” there is always an evil antagonist that is introduced in a clear way. In Perfume the protagonist happened to be the evilest of characters in the entire novel, and the same goes for The Crucible. It was clear even at the beginning of the novel that Grenouille, the main character in Perfume was going to slowly develop into a cold hearted, relentless and evil character. Through many evil actions it was clear that Grenouille was going down a dark path. In the beginning of the novel Grenouille encountered a special scent from a girl and he just had to kill her. Grenouille had murdered her like it was no big deal at all and had done it for no good reason. This killing was a “spark to his flame,” because eventually Grenouille killed 25 other girls in a similar way in order to make the “ultimate scent.” Similarly in The Crucible, Abigail, the antagonist was clearly an evil character, she got her ways through lies and deceit. Abigail was fully lying about what was going on in the woods. Abigail is always yelling, and she seems to always be in the middle of all the problems. Abigail also framed Elizabeth for stabbing her. Abigail seemed to be pretty happy that the three individuals were hanged to death, which is very “evil-like,” especially considering she knows she’s lying and she knows those people did not deserve to die. Both authors did a good job in clearly portraying the main evil characters.
Just like most conventional approaches have an evil antagonist, most conventional approaches have a solely “good” protagonist that does everything in his or her power to put a stop to the evil character(s). That is entirely not the case with Perfume and The Crucible. In Perfume there are no solely good characters, only seemingly good characters that have evil thoughts and do evil-like actions which in fact make them “lesser-evil” Baldini one of the character in Perfume who at first seems “Good” is a perfect example of this. Baldini was a great perfumer who was about to quit perfuming. Baldini gave Grenouille a chance to prove himself even though there were so many negative factors against Grenouille. Up until this point it is clear that Baldini was a good character who had a heart. Although once Grenouille fell fatally ill, the only thing on Baldini’s mind was his precious business and how if he lost Grenouille his business would plummet. Baldini had taken care of Grenouille well, and never left his side. “Baldini would have loved to throttle him, to club him to death, to beat those precious secrets out of that moribund body.” (Suskind, 107) That exact quote gives the reader a clear indication that Baldini may appear to be “good” but he is in fact “evil.” There is a similar case in The Crucible. John Proctor was portrayed as a good character with no evil tendencies once so ever. Although in some of the scenes John Proctor handled Abigail with such ruthless aggression and anger. He would always throttle her, yell her and almost had absolutely no sympathy for her at all. In the movie in one of the scenes it was pitch black; and the camera was angled in such a way that showed that John Proctor was about to do something so entirely lethal and evil. This was also after Elizabeth was taken away because of Abigail. This clearly shows that even characters that may seem to be 100 percent evil can in fact have evil tendencies that can in fact make them no where near good.
Overall it is clear that there are not really any solely good characters in both Perfume and The Crucible, and the author’s of both novels had an unconventional approach to the theme of “Good Versus Evil.” Justice had not prevailed in either of these two pieces of literature.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
How does film deal with these questions?
Film deals with these questions similarly to literature; the only difference is that you’re not reading about all these issues, you are watching all these issues, although people usually see things differently after they watch a movie over reading. As everyone always says, “seeing is believing.” For example in the novel “Perfume” there was a movie made for it. The likely story is the book was a lot better than the movie, and the movie may be slightest different, but none the less the ideas on “good” and “evil” were exactly the same and probably didn’t change in the movie. It would be portrayed similarly if not the same.
In movies just like literature; what constitutes a “good” person and an “evil” person is portrayed as completely universal. The movie directors probably try their best to not make it subjective, they want to clearly make their “evil” characters “evil” and they want to clearly make their “good” characters “good.” Although movie writers and directors cannot change the opinion of the movie watchers, they do try their best to influence their thoughts and persuade them to see these characters the way that they intend for them to be seen. In a superhero movie it is clear who the “good” characters are and clear who the “Evil” ones are. The good characters are usually the ones that are trying to put a stop to the “evil” characters and the “evil” characters are trying to wreak havoc and terror in the world, city or where ever it may be.
In most movies there are clearly defined roles, but in some it isn’t so easy to differentiate between the “good” characters and the “evil” ones. In the movie “Hancock” the protagonist who is hancock is portrayed as somebody who may do “good” but his intentions are not always pure and just, and he doesn’t have the city and the people’s interest at heart. Hancock may do “good” things but he is a homeless bum who is always drunk, swears non stop, does unethical things, and creates such a mess when “trying” to save the day. For example in one of the scenes there was this car that was stuck in traffic in the train tracks, and a train was coming. Of course here comes hancock out of nowhere and the smartest thing to do was to just take the car and fly up, but no Hancock has to smash the train and throw the car on top of another one. Of course later on in the film he learns to be a true hero and is portrayed as a full “good” character and doesn’t have a hint of “evil.”
Overall no matter how you look at it, film is quite similar to literature and how they deal with these questions is in fact similar.
In movies just like literature; what constitutes a “good” person and an “evil” person is portrayed as completely universal. The movie directors probably try their best to not make it subjective, they want to clearly make their “evil” characters “evil” and they want to clearly make their “good” characters “good.” Although movie writers and directors cannot change the opinion of the movie watchers, they do try their best to influence their thoughts and persuade them to see these characters the way that they intend for them to be seen. In a superhero movie it is clear who the “good” characters are and clear who the “Evil” ones are. The good characters are usually the ones that are trying to put a stop to the “evil” characters and the “evil” characters are trying to wreak havoc and terror in the world, city or where ever it may be.
In most movies there are clearly defined roles, but in some it isn’t so easy to differentiate between the “good” characters and the “evil” ones. In the movie “Hancock” the protagonist who is hancock is portrayed as somebody who may do “good” but his intentions are not always pure and just, and he doesn’t have the city and the people’s interest at heart. Hancock may do “good” things but he is a homeless bum who is always drunk, swears non stop, does unethical things, and creates such a mess when “trying” to save the day. For example in one of the scenes there was this car that was stuck in traffic in the train tracks, and a train was coming. Of course here comes hancock out of nowhere and the smartest thing to do was to just take the car and fly up, but no Hancock has to smash the train and throw the car on top of another one. Of course later on in the film he learns to be a true hero and is portrayed as a full “good” character and doesn’t have a hint of “evil.”
Overall no matter how you look at it, film is quite similar to literature and how they deal with these questions is in fact similar.
How does Literature deal with these questions?
Literature deals with these questions in a very simple manner. The good characters are always the main characters, and the impression that the author of the book wants the audience to see these characters as “good”. Therefore the author may portray them as a super hero, somebody that does “good” in the world, somebody that puts others before themselves, etc. Also the good characters are usually the ones that try and stop the evil characters from doing evil things. In literature the evil characters are usually heartless, the villain of the story, and usually just cause a lot of unnecessary problems. The evil characters only care about themselves and don’t care about anyone else.
Literature doesn’t usually want the audience or reader to determine whether or not the character is evil or not, so in other words they don’t want it to be subjective, they want it to be a universal truth. Therefore what ever the author wants the characters to be is what the characters are going to be; so they basically make it a universal truth on what the “good” characters are and what the “evil” characters are, even though you may have your own opinion on them and may see them differently. In literature their usually are clearly defined roles; which means there really aren’t any discrepancies to whether or not the character is “good” or “evil.”
As to whether or not evil characters can engender sympathy or not is really up to the author of the story. Most pieces of literature do in fact have evil characters that can in fact engender sympathy, and in others they are pure evil, and don’t engender sympathy even the slightest bit. The same goes for “good” characters; they can in fact engender judgment for being seen as “evil,” but the likely story is that most “good” characters are usually “good” throughout the entire story, and they don’t really show great amounts of evilness.
In the novel “Perfume” at the beginning of the book for the first few chapters this character named Grenouille was seen as neutral, so you couldn’t really tell if he was “Evil” or “good” it was pretty uncertain, although you were given some clues to what was to eventually come. Although in this one scene he kills this poor innocent girl just to inherit her scent, and when he gets back to his closet where he lived, he said that he had never felt happier in his life, he couldn’t even recall what the innocent girl he killed had looked like all he could think about was her scent. It was as if killing this girl was not even an issue, this character literally felt nothing at all. Therefore this “evil” character didn’t engender sympathy at all, which makes him pure evil.
Literature doesn’t usually want the audience or reader to determine whether or not the character is evil or not, so in other words they don’t want it to be subjective, they want it to be a universal truth. Therefore what ever the author wants the characters to be is what the characters are going to be; so they basically make it a universal truth on what the “good” characters are and what the “evil” characters are, even though you may have your own opinion on them and may see them differently. In literature their usually are clearly defined roles; which means there really aren’t any discrepancies to whether or not the character is “good” or “evil.”
As to whether or not evil characters can engender sympathy or not is really up to the author of the story. Most pieces of literature do in fact have evil characters that can in fact engender sympathy, and in others they are pure evil, and don’t engender sympathy even the slightest bit. The same goes for “good” characters; they can in fact engender judgment for being seen as “evil,” but the likely story is that most “good” characters are usually “good” throughout the entire story, and they don’t really show great amounts of evilness.
In the novel “Perfume” at the beginning of the book for the first few chapters this character named Grenouille was seen as neutral, so you couldn’t really tell if he was “Evil” or “good” it was pretty uncertain, although you were given some clues to what was to eventually come. Although in this one scene he kills this poor innocent girl just to inherit her scent, and when he gets back to his closet where he lived, he said that he had never felt happier in his life, he couldn’t even recall what the innocent girl he killed had looked like all he could think about was her scent. It was as if killing this girl was not even an issue, this character literally felt nothing at all. Therefore this “evil” character didn’t engender sympathy at all, which makes him pure evil.
Monday, March 9, 2009
How do various religions/philosophies deal with these questions?
Religions and Philosophies have their very own way of dealing with these various questions. Some philosophers say that we were all born “good,” but somehow along the way while we grew up, we were influenced by things we saw, things we heard and what we experienced as we grew up. On the other hand some philosophers have said the exact opposite. Some say that we were born evil, but somehow along the way while we grew up, we were influenced by things w sat, things we heard, etc which then turned us “good.” Of course with some of us, we were never influenced by these things which are why we either stayed “good” or stayed “evil” depending on which side you are on.
A man named B.F. Skinner said we humans don’t have free will, but in fact we are determined beings. In other words we don’t choose the actions we perform but in fact they are chosen for us due to behaviorism. What B.F. Skinner is basically saying is that we humans do not choose to be “good” and/or “evil.” Our actions are determined by positive and negative reinforcement. For example if you’ve been having a horrible day and absolutely nothing goes your way, like your coffee spills all over you, you lost your wallet, your mom and dad dies in a car accident, your house it caught on fire. The next person that even accidentally bumps into you may just loose their life, but it’s not your fault at all, negative reinforcement compels you too act this way towards this innocent man. The same goes for when you are growing up, if you grow up in an unstable environment with shootings, and crime occurring everyday then there is a chance you may grow to be an evil person, but it isn’t at all your fault it is just where you grew up.
Religion has a great deal to say about good and evil. Religious leaders and sacred texts all encourage believers to live “good” lives. The problem of evil and suffering is one of the commonest reasons people give for not believing in God. There are two types of evil: natural evil and moral (or human) evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by events that have nothing to do with humans like natural disasters. Moral evil is suffering caused by humans acting in a way that is considered morally wrong like bullying, murder, rape, etc. In Christianity some people no longer see evil as a ‘person’ or ‘being’ but they simply see evil as the absence of “good.” Therefore if enough people do good then evil would be removed. Some people also think that evil is a psychological or emotional problem, that no one is inherently evil, but circumstances or as B.F. Skinner would say “negative reinforcement” can lead them to become so. Some people also believe that as a result of Adam and Eve’s first sins, each human is born with a tendency towards evil which is called ‘Original Sin’
As you can see Religion and Philosophies are somewhat related when it comes to dealing with and explaining “good” and “evil”
A man named B.F. Skinner said we humans don’t have free will, but in fact we are determined beings. In other words we don’t choose the actions we perform but in fact they are chosen for us due to behaviorism. What B.F. Skinner is basically saying is that we humans do not choose to be “good” and/or “evil.” Our actions are determined by positive and negative reinforcement. For example if you’ve been having a horrible day and absolutely nothing goes your way, like your coffee spills all over you, you lost your wallet, your mom and dad dies in a car accident, your house it caught on fire. The next person that even accidentally bumps into you may just loose their life, but it’s not your fault at all, negative reinforcement compels you too act this way towards this innocent man. The same goes for when you are growing up, if you grow up in an unstable environment with shootings, and crime occurring everyday then there is a chance you may grow to be an evil person, but it isn’t at all your fault it is just where you grew up.
Religion has a great deal to say about good and evil. Religious leaders and sacred texts all encourage believers to live “good” lives. The problem of evil and suffering is one of the commonest reasons people give for not believing in God. There are two types of evil: natural evil and moral (or human) evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by events that have nothing to do with humans like natural disasters. Moral evil is suffering caused by humans acting in a way that is considered morally wrong like bullying, murder, rape, etc. In Christianity some people no longer see evil as a ‘person’ or ‘being’ but they simply see evil as the absence of “good.” Therefore if enough people do good then evil would be removed. Some people also think that evil is a psychological or emotional problem, that no one is inherently evil, but circumstances or as B.F. Skinner would say “negative reinforcement” can lead them to become so. Some people also believe that as a result of Adam and Eve’s first sins, each human is born with a tendency towards evil which is called ‘Original Sin’
As you can see Religion and Philosophies are somewhat related when it comes to dealing with and explaining “good” and “evil”
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Can good characters engender judgment?
Good characters can in fact engender judgment just like evil characters can engender sympathy; good characters can engender evil behavior. Not everybody is perfect; therefore it isn’t likely that an individual will be all “good” at all times. At least once in your life if not hundreds of times you will have to lie, cheat, or do something “Evil” for whatever reason you have to do it for. Keeping in mind, what one person sees as evil, another person may see it as “good.” What that means is everybody has their reasons for their actions; whether it is “evil” or “good.”
For example as horrible as this sounds; if a young women is faced with an obvious choice to either kill the man that has her new born baby, or too not kill him and too loose her child forever, then it is quite obvious what she is going to choose. Therefore after she shoots him, there really wouldn’t be any witnesses or hard evidence against the “baby snatcher,” therefore this poor women would be seen as a heartless killer who killed a man for no apparent reason, even though she knows what she has done, and why she has done it and so does the baby, if he/she could talk of course. This is one example on how good characters can engender judgment for being evil, even though deep down they are far from it.
“Kill one, save thousands,” that is a common issue/problem/decision that good characters are often forced to choose. Doing something evil like killing a person to save millions of others lives. Whether or not this is considered “evil” is completely subjective, meaning that some would see it as a good thing just to save there sorry tails, and others would see it as pure evil, just because there lives were not on the line. Of course killing an innocent person no matter what the reason is of course evil, and just because you would be saving another oh say thousand lives does not make it justifiable. If this individual knows for a fact that he is saving all these lives and that he knows what he is doing is completely evil and unethical then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. On the other hand if he is only doing it to save himself and doesn’t care about the person that he is killing or the other people that are dying then his actions are pure “Evil,” because his motive is selfish, and unjust.
Just like every other question regarding “Good” and “evil,” whether or not good people can be seen as evil or not is completely subjective, and only if their reasons are justifiable will their actions be considered “Good” or not.
For example as horrible as this sounds; if a young women is faced with an obvious choice to either kill the man that has her new born baby, or too not kill him and too loose her child forever, then it is quite obvious what she is going to choose. Therefore after she shoots him, there really wouldn’t be any witnesses or hard evidence against the “baby snatcher,” therefore this poor women would be seen as a heartless killer who killed a man for no apparent reason, even though she knows what she has done, and why she has done it and so does the baby, if he/she could talk of course. This is one example on how good characters can engender judgment for being evil, even though deep down they are far from it.
“Kill one, save thousands,” that is a common issue/problem/decision that good characters are often forced to choose. Doing something evil like killing a person to save millions of others lives. Whether or not this is considered “evil” is completely subjective, meaning that some would see it as a good thing just to save there sorry tails, and others would see it as pure evil, just because there lives were not on the line. Of course killing an innocent person no matter what the reason is of course evil, and just because you would be saving another oh say thousand lives does not make it justifiable. If this individual knows for a fact that he is saving all these lives and that he knows what he is doing is completely evil and unethical then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. On the other hand if he is only doing it to save himself and doesn’t care about the person that he is killing or the other people that are dying then his actions are pure “Evil,” because his motive is selfish, and unjust.
Just like every other question regarding “Good” and “evil,” whether or not good people can be seen as evil or not is completely subjective, and only if their reasons are justifiable will their actions be considered “Good” or not.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Can evil characters engender sympathy?
Evil characters can engender sympathy to a certain extent, because of course not everyone can be pure evil. Everybody has a little good and evil inside them. Engendering sympathy is just in human nature, and it really can’t be avoided. Only somebody like the devil himself could possibly be pure evil, but other than him, even the evilest of characters can engender a certain amount of sympathy depending on how evil they are. Some characters may just perform evil actions but may have evil thoughts, and some characters may just have evil thoughts but may not even be able to perform these sick and evil thoughts.
For example, the same exact character in Heroes who is supposed to be seen as pure evil does in fact show some sympathy towards some of the other characters in the television show. Usually he kills everybody in sight that has powers, but as the show progresses he slows down on his killings, and only kills if necessary, because he finally realizes he is a killer and doesn’t like it. He feels sorry for the innocent people that he has killed therefore eases up on the murdering.
Even though some characters if not all evil characters engender sympathy sometimes that just doesn’t stop them from killing, or hurting who ever or what ever they have to hurt/kill. Usually you hear this evil individual say, “it’s such a shame I have to kill you,” or something like “It is so sad it must end this way.” Some characters just say that too really show how evil they are, and others really do In fact feel for who ever they are killing/hurting. But they have to do what they have to do. Sympathy is a natural human emotion, and you really can’t get rid of it, because some philosophers have said that we are all born “good” therefore we’re all born with sympathetic emotions, happiness, good thoughts, freedom. Although when we take advantage of this freedom and power we have, we begin to turn evil, although an emotion like sympathy will always stay with us which is why some evil characters are in fact capable of engendering sympathy. In the book "Perfume," the book is about a killer who just kills people for their scent, as crazy as that sounds he doesn't just kill them for the sake of killing, he has a purpose. Therefore he must feel sympathetic that these innocent people must die for his supposed "greater good," as sad as that sounds.
In conclusion, even if a character doesn't show how sympathetic towards others they are, most of them truly do feel sympathetic deep down inside. Characters who have a reason to do "evil," are really the ones that feel sympathetic where the ones that just find joy in killing and hurting people would probably not engender that much sympathy. One would have to be literally heartless to not engender sympathy.
For example, the same exact character in Heroes who is supposed to be seen as pure evil does in fact show some sympathy towards some of the other characters in the television show. Usually he kills everybody in sight that has powers, but as the show progresses he slows down on his killings, and only kills if necessary, because he finally realizes he is a killer and doesn’t like it. He feels sorry for the innocent people that he has killed therefore eases up on the murdering.
Even though some characters if not all evil characters engender sympathy sometimes that just doesn’t stop them from killing, or hurting who ever or what ever they have to hurt/kill. Usually you hear this evil individual say, “it’s such a shame I have to kill you,” or something like “It is so sad it must end this way.” Some characters just say that too really show how evil they are, and others really do In fact feel for who ever they are killing/hurting. But they have to do what they have to do. Sympathy is a natural human emotion, and you really can’t get rid of it, because some philosophers have said that we are all born “good” therefore we’re all born with sympathetic emotions, happiness, good thoughts, freedom. Although when we take advantage of this freedom and power we have, we begin to turn evil, although an emotion like sympathy will always stay with us which is why some evil characters are in fact capable of engendering sympathy. In the book "Perfume," the book is about a killer who just kills people for their scent, as crazy as that sounds he doesn't just kill them for the sake of killing, he has a purpose. Therefore he must feel sympathetic that these innocent people must die for his supposed "greater good," as sad as that sounds.
In conclusion, even if a character doesn't show how sympathetic towards others they are, most of them truly do feel sympathetic deep down inside. Characters who have a reason to do "evil," are really the ones that feel sympathetic where the ones that just find joy in killing and hurting people would probably not engender that much sympathy. One would have to be literally heartless to not engender sympathy.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Are there clearly defined roles?
There are never clearly defined roles; which pretty much means that good people can sometimes do evil things, and evil people can in fact do good things. What differentiates between what makes a person good or evil is their intent. Even if an evil person does something good, we may not know if their intentions are pure or not. The same thing goes for somebody “good,” even though they may do something which would be considered “evil,” they may have a good reason and their intent may be pure, as evil as their actions may be. For example if we found out that this lady kills a man we would automatically think, “oh my god she’s EVIL!” but then later on if we found she killed this man because he had a knife to her babies neck, then the story would change completely.
It is in fact pretty difficult to see somebody that is pure “evil” and somebody that is pure “good,” it is almost impossible. Evil people can have their good moments and good people can show their “Dark” side every once in a while because nobody is perfect. Also considering “good” and “evil” is strictly subjective; not everybody would see somebody as evil, and not everybody would see the same person as good. One person may see him/her as evil while another may see him/her as good. Some people may even just want to put on an act; meaning they may just want everyone to see them as evil or they may just want everyone to see them as good. Most people obviously want to be seen as good rather than evil. Somebody may say or do bad things but deep down they may not even mean to do everything that they do, which probably wouldn’t make them entirely evil. The same goes for somebody trying to be good; just because they act “good” doesn’t make them good, because they may have impure motives and intents. For example in the show heroes; there was this character that from the start was introduced as pure evil because he always killed everyone in sight for their “powers,” and this character was portrayed as evil. Although later on in the series, we found that this character wasn’t evil at all, he did in fact have at least half a heart because he had gone good for quite sometime. This just proves that roles aren’t clearly defined, or else this character would be evil throughout the entire show.
Overall, being seen as evil doesn’t make you evil, and being seen as good doesn’t make you “good.” No characters are exclusively good and/or evil.
It is in fact pretty difficult to see somebody that is pure “evil” and somebody that is pure “good,” it is almost impossible. Evil people can have their good moments and good people can show their “Dark” side every once in a while because nobody is perfect. Also considering “good” and “evil” is strictly subjective; not everybody would see somebody as evil, and not everybody would see the same person as good. One person may see him/her as evil while another may see him/her as good. Some people may even just want to put on an act; meaning they may just want everyone to see them as evil or they may just want everyone to see them as good. Most people obviously want to be seen as good rather than evil. Somebody may say or do bad things but deep down they may not even mean to do everything that they do, which probably wouldn’t make them entirely evil. The same goes for somebody trying to be good; just because they act “good” doesn’t make them good, because they may have impure motives and intents. For example in the show heroes; there was this character that from the start was introduced as pure evil because he always killed everyone in sight for their “powers,” and this character was portrayed as evil. Although later on in the series, we found that this character wasn’t evil at all, he did in fact have at least half a heart because he had gone good for quite sometime. This just proves that roles aren’t clearly defined, or else this character would be evil throughout the entire show.
Overall, being seen as evil doesn’t make you evil, and being seen as good doesn’t make you “good.” No characters are exclusively good and/or evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
