'Evolution or Revolution' - Recurring ideas in Ibsen, O'Neill and Shepard

Brian Robinson from “Hatchet” by Gary Paulsen, is a thirteen-year old boy from New York City. This novel essentially deals with the matter of man and nature alongside, of self-cognizant. On his way to visit his father, his plane crashes leaving him alone in the middle of the Canadian wilderness. The story mainly progresses through Brian's experiences existing alone in the wilderness and the struggle to survive with nothing but a hatchet his mother gave him as a gift. Thus, he is primarily the only paramount character. Throughout his survival in the woods, Brian develops notion of how things work for survival and alters his thoughts and action based on the environment he is positioned. The character demonstrates several psychological stages he undergoes to survive based on his prior knowledge and contemporary challenges.

In Crane Brinton’s historical classic Anatomy of Revolution Brinton tries to explain the similarities and the difference between what he calls the four major revolutions in history. For this task he uses The English Revolution (1642-1651), The French Revolution (1789-1799), The American Revolution (1775-1783) and The Russian Revolution (1917). However with the Russian Revolution he states is still too near to us to be regarded by professional historians as capable of the kind of treatment the guide gives. The hope of Anatomy of Revolution is to show how these four major revolutions share the same core principles and how these revolutions changed the climate of the nations in which they took place. Brinton claims to

King Lear and Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, are two plays that reveal similar thematic elements, yet possess fundamentally different plot structures. Driven by the suffering and rage of two complementary characters, both plays suggest injustice through ‘good’, but ultimately flawed characters. This shared overarching theme is, however, conveyed differently within each of the works, as one employs two mainly disparate plot threads, while the other relies more heavily on the interaction between the two central plots. Yet the ultimate purpose of this dualism remains the same within both King Lear and Hamlet, in that Shakespeare’s use of the double plot illuminates the tragic elements within both plays, emphasizing core injustices through

No society remains immobile, even if some human beings resist changes. The advances in technology and the emergence of new beliefs allow people to have a broader imagination. Thus, numerous new interpretations of ancient works, whether they are plays, folktales, or poems, permeate around the world. These renditions re-tell the original stories in contexts that adjust to modern world. What was regarded serious in the past becomes mockery nowadays. William Shakespeare, one of the greatest English play writers, has a profound influence upon different societies globally since the fifteenth century, for his plays inspire many contemporary artists to present new scopes reflecting their societies. Considered as one of Shakespeare’s greatest

Throughout the twentieth century, numerous dramas that were written in the United States presented ideas and situations that had the purpose of changing a reader’s attitude towards a specific subject. This is the case of the play “Inherit the Wind”, a piece written by the playwrights Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. Throughout the years, many literary scholars have argued whether or not “freedom of thought” has stood as a predominant theme in the play. While this issue may bring about countless debates, my respect towards others’ viewpoints has allowed me to pick a side and to defend it with textual evidence from the play itself. From my perspective, the main theme in Inherit the Wind is freedom of thought.

A spider becomes caught in it’s own web. This is an example of an attempted manipulation that went awry. Hedda Gabler, by Henrik Ibsen, is a work about a woman who manipulates the fates of others in order to fulfill her own desires. The title character is a woman who has recently returned from a six month “honeymoon” with her groom, Tesman, a man whom she does not love. She yearns for freedom, but she feels as if she cannot leave her marriage. To occupy her time, she manipulates the lives of everyone around her. Hedda kills herself after becoming engorged in her own manipulations. Through the use of theme, setting, and then-current affairs, Ibsen produces a work

Rothman expresses that “Freud thought that prudery and denial had for centuries prevented critics from acknowledging the play’s propulsive undercurrent, which, he believed, the new psychoanalytic vocabulary made it possible to acknowledge. “The conflict in ‘Hamlet’ is so effectively concealed,” he wrote, “that it was left to me to unearth it” (Rothman 5). However, it is important to note that although this literary analysis and theology is a valid breakthrough in how one views and acknowledges Hamlet, it is by no means an all-explanatory guide to the soul existence that is Hamlet. Rothman mistakes the Oedipus Complex (Freud theology regarding Hamlet) as the root of the play, arguing “the Oedipus complex provides the definitive interpretation of ‘Hamlet”. It is naive and arrogant to assume one definitive analysis technique (in this case psychoanalysis) as the majority of the play; in reality, it is the infinite number of analyzations spoken about by an infinite number of critics that make up the true meaning of Hamlet. In simpler terms, the true meaning is the decades of diversely collective thoughts, analysis, and ideas presented as the play’s

When we look into the interior history of the literary works Hamlet, Candide, and Popol Vuh, we see how diverse each culture was. They were created in different times and had their own trials and tribulations, but at the same time had a connectedness to us now. We get an inside look of how the societies functioned, people lived, and what they valued the most. Most importantly, the significance of how each text unfolded every characters truth, helped the reader to capture the essence of how and why the text made us feel a certain way. While the authors reflect on the characters stories, the reader’s purpose is to dissect the meaningful life lessons portrayed.

In Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler, the author reveals the oppressive qualities of minority groups who seek to express individuality rather than conformity. The most critical population that Ibsen chooses to address in the play are women living in Western Europe during the Victorian era. When considering Norwegian culture during the 1800s, Ibsen refers to his surrounding society as an environment where women are unable to look forward to anything other than marriage and motherhood (Lyons 164). Ibsen’s country is inclusive of issues relating to alcoholism, prostitution, exploitation, and poverty (Lyons 128). As a result, the only respectable lifestyle for many women is domestication. To confront these issues,

This essay will discuss several literary criticisms of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. After skimming through several articles, I ended up with four peer-reviewed journal articles, each a different critical perspectives of the play: feminist, psychoanalytical/freudian, moral, and new historicism. My previous studies of Hamlet, as well as my rereading of the play this semester, has collectively given me a general knowledge of the text. My familiarity of the play made it easier for me to decipher the academic journals and see the connections each critic made with the play.

The reflection of women in literature during the late eighteen-hundreds often features a submissive and less complex character than the usual male counterpart, however Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler features a women who confines herself to the conformities that women were to endure during that time period but separates herself from other female characters by using her intelligence and overall deviousness to manipulate the men in her life and take a dominant presence throughout the play. Hedda challenges the normal female identity of the time period by leaving the stereotype of the “quiet, subservient housewife” through her snide and condescending remarks as well as her overall spoiled aristocratic demeanor.

At least six or seven years pass after the writing of Midsummer Night’s Dream before we find Shakespeare engaged on Hamlet, the second of the great plays with an important Supernatural element, and, in the opinion of many, the greatest tragedy ever penned. What a profound change has come over his attitude towards the Unseen! No longer does he handle it in . . . [a] cheerful,

Boucicault offers his perspective in The Octoroon from a distance, choosing to weave his message through the action of the play. Zoe’s text, specifically, provides ample context in which Boucicault can introduce the audience to his then-counterculture, abolitionist morality. Zoe reveals his stance on illegitimate slave children, for

Evolution Within a People in A Doll's House and An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen

There is a huge difference in the judgments that are made in the moral system and the behaviors and the character trait the characters possess. This play is mainly written because Ibsen feels angry that people suffer from repression and are deprived of joy. He is surely optimistic to break free of society and to having the courage to be yourself and mainly to have ‘livesklegn’ and factors like class and gender should not determine. Soren Kierkegaard is one that understands Ibsen, ‘Boredom is root of all evil-the despairing refusal to be oneself’, just like all his other quotes it summarize the things that mattered to Ibsen. Society in Norway is one that militates against self-realization. You could have never been a complete individual in the 19ths century in