Kurtz and Ayesha A Comparison - Literature Essay Samples

On the surface, two novels such as Heart of Darkness and She probably seem drastically different. They are both tales of adventure, however, their plots are extremely contrasting. While Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness creates a somewhat bleak and ominous setting in order to tell a tale of the human psyche in the face of danger, it may seem as though H. Rider Haggard’s She is a complete contrast. Haggard employs elements of the supernatural, creating an exciting and fast paced narrative, while Conrad’s story creeps along slowly and deliberately. After delving deeper into each of these novels, it becomes apparent that under the surface they have more in common than one would have originally thought, namely their main characters. The similarities between these two characters greatly outweighs the thematic differences between the two novels. The characters Ayesha and Kurtz have both completely immersed themselves in the African culture, acquiring the love, respect, and even the fear of the natives along the way. Despite their different plotlines, Ayesha and Kurtz have many similarities when it comes to personality, philosophy and how they treat those around them. Conrad and Haggard both employ these details in an effort to convey to their European audience the extreme differences between the two cultures. The differences in these novels mainly lies in themes and plots. While both are adventure tales, centered on characters venturing into the heart of Africa, the thematic differences are vast. Heart of Darkness focuses greatly on the psychology of the main characters, showing the very dark side of Marlowe’s adventure. She comes across as a slightly more lighthearted, less psychological tale. While She does eventually take a darker tone, it never comes across quite as bleak as Conrad’s tale. If it had not been for the characters or Kurtz and Ayesha, it would be hard to find similarities other than that of the setting. Both Kurtz and Ayesha are mysteries to the audience at the beginning of each of the novels. Kurtz, we learn, is an ambitious ivory agent stationed in Africa. Ayesha, also known as She, is a mysterious and supernatural figure hidden away in the heart of Africa. In Heart of Darkness, the only clues Marlowe is given is when he is told of Kurtz’s importance: â€Å"’He is a prodigy†¦He is an emissary of pity and science and progress, and devil knows what else’† (Conrad 83). The only information Marlowe can gather about Kurtz is that he is immensely successful at gathering ivy and very admired by many within the company. While Marlowe is puzzled over the limited knowledge of Kurtz, in She, Holly and Leo learn a lot about Ayesha through letters from Leo’s father. They learn that Ayesha is â€Å"the mighty Queen of a savage people, a white woman of peculiar loveliness†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Haggard 19). Both characters are enigmas until midway through their r espective novels, when the narrators eventually meet them. Moreover, Kurtz and Ayesha have both immersed themselves in the culture of the native Africans they live amongst. They both have earned the devotion, love and fear of the natives as well. Kurtz had the power to inspire complete devotion in those surrounding him: â€Å"His ascendancy was extraordinary. The camps of these people surrounded the place, and the chiefs came everyday to see him† (Conrad 128). The natives seem to be in awe of Kurtz. Not only do they admire him, but they also respect and listen to him, despite his being from Europe. He has used him charm and power to sway them: â€Å"He had the power to charm or frighten rudimentary souls into an aggravated witch-dance in his honour†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Conrad 118). Ayesha has had a similar effect on her people. She has become the ruler of the natives in her part of Africa and is greatly respected and feared: â€Å"She was obeyed throughout the length and breadth of the land, and to question her command was certain death. She kept a guard, but had no regular army, and to disobey her was to die† (Haggard 86). Ayesha has also earned the respect of the people, but her greatest achievement is that she has become their queen. Both Kurtz and Ayesha have very egotistical personalities. Both seem to love the power they have over these people, and seem to relish in it. It is clear that while neither of them respect or show kindness to the natives, they still expect to receive respect and kindness in return. Kurtz and Ayesha have both lived somewhat solitary lives in Africa, and because of this, they have each developed their own set of beliefs and philosophies that are very much alike. Kurtz, while in Africa has become obsessed with ivory and the power that comes with it: â€Å"I heard him say ‘my intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my- everything belonged to him† (Conrad 115). Kurtz has become so obsessed with his position, that he would do anything to maintain his power, even going so far as to fool the natives, as he describes in his report: â€Å"He began the argument that we whites,†¦must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings-we approach them with the might as of a deity†(Conrad 117). Kurtz does not care about anything other than acquiring the most ivory, and the money that comes with it. Ayesha is very like-minded in that she also believes no one should stand in the way of something she wants. The only difference i s that what Ayesha wants is not an object, but an actual person. When Holly is trying to convince Ayesha to spare Ustane’s life, she states, â€Å"Her sin is that she stands between me and my desire† (Haggard 182). Later, when Ayesha is explaining her philosophy in detail she asks of Holly, â€Å"Is it, then, a crime, oh foolish man, to put away that which stands between us and our ends?† (Haggard 182). Ayesha has no qualms about ending another’s life in order to obtain what she wants. This just shows that she has no regard for anyone but herself. Both Kurtz and Ayesha strongly believe that their wants and needs exceed those of anyone else, especially those of the native Africans. The treatment of the natives Africans is very problematic in both Heart of Darkness and She. Both Kurtz and Ayesha see the natives as servants they can order around and that can do their bidding. They are both cruel and ruthless with their punishments. Kurtz feels no respect or kindness towards the natives. Marlowe realizes this when he comes across a disturbing discovery: â€Å"These round knobs were not ornamental but symbolic; they were expressive and puzzling, striking and disturbing† (Conrad 127). What Marlowe had originally thought was some sort of ornamentation turned out to actually be heads on stakes, placed there by Kurtz himself. Rather than earn Marlowe’s respect for this cruel act, Marlowe believes, â€Å"That only showed that Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts† (Conrad 128). Ayesha also shows that she lacks restraint when it comes to her anger: â€Å"Her voice had risen in anger†¦I saw poor Billali†¦a very fe arless person, positively quiver with fear at her words† (Haggard 133). This shows that Ayesha has the power to make even the bravest warriors tremble in fear when faced with her wrath. Ayesha also shows her merciless side when claiming Leo for herself, breaking Ustane’s heart in the process: â€Å"Utterly awed and broken down, the poor creature rose, and,†¦crept from the room sobbing bitterly† (Haggard 186). This shows not only Ayesha’s selfishness, but also her disregard for the feelings of Ustane, who she views as below her. It is clear that both Kurtz and Ayesha rule with cruelty and do not care for the feelings or well-being of the natives over which they reign. Kurtz and Ayesha are both very troubling characters. While they come from completely different novels, with different settings and plots, their similarities are vast. The characters of Kurtz and Ayesha are perhaps what made these novels so revolutionary. These novels and their main characters showed the European audience parts of the world and culture that may have been previously unknown to them. These novels gave insight into different views about cultures other than that of Great Britain, as well as different views on subjects such as colonialism. Without characters as cruel and ruthless as these, both Heart of Darkness and She would not be the classic, groundbreaking adventures stories they are today.

A Case for Umbrellas Examining Practicality in Howards End - Literature Essay Samples

At the end of the Victorian era and into the modern age, everything seemed to be up for debate, including deepest held values. A strong clash was particularly felt between the social and economic classes. The upper class, with the security of wealth, clung to intellectualism and idealistic virtues. The lower classes, without the luxury of financial security, were forced to focus on earning their living. For those in the middle classes, the modern age created an environment of struggle between wanting to improve oneself intellectually but also providing for oneself financially. E.M. Forster wedged his novel Howards End into this age of conflicting values. His characters are forced to grapple with these changing values, particularly the character Leonard Bast, a lower-middle class insurance sales clerk who attempts to better himself. In an encounter with the upper-class Schlegel family, Leonard seeks intellectual stimulation as a way to escape his social and economic disparity. While L eonard may play the part of an intellectual for a short time, in the end, he always returns to practical matters. He cannot evade the survival instinct to keep bread on the table, no matter how wonderful the intellectual world seems. Howards End thus presents a case for practicality. Forster gives space to the seemingly mundane to give it value. Leonard’s character reinstates the value of practical matters behind the veil of intellectualism in the modern period. Leonard is introduced to the novel by means of an object: a seemingly insignificantumbrella. At a performance of Beethoven music, Helen Schlegel accidentally walks off with Leonard’s umbrella. This umbrella may seem like an ordinary object, but for Leonard, it is of the utmost importance. The umbrella represents the world of practicality, Leonard’s world. An umbrella is an ordinary, simple device that protects us from rain. But literarily, it reveals the underlying separation of the classes. The upper-class would not give the umbrella any second thought. The Schlegels, as part of the upper class, will focus on intellectual debate rather than practical matters. Why should they spend time worrying about such trivialities as an umbrella? But this simple object becomes the center of Leonard’s fixations. We will see that even as he tries to engage in the â€Å"higher† form of intellectualism, he cannot fully change his focus. The umbrella, the representation of the practical world, will invade his attempts to â€Å"better† himself. Leonard’s attempt to retrieve his umbrella will bring into the open the hidden barriers between the social classes and the philosophical and practical world. Leonard seeks out the Schlegels place of residence to try to retrieve his lost umbrella.What seems like a chance encounter reveals something important to us about Leonard’s character: he does not have the luxury of carelessness. When Leonard finds Margaret, she tells him, â€Å"My sister is so careless† (31). Helen is careless about umbrellas because she can afford to be. She causes this problem for Leonard because she does not check to see if the umbrella she picks up is hers. When Leonard informs Margaret that her sister has taken his umbrella, Margaret is apologetic. Leonard responds, â€Å"It isn’t of any consequence† (30). However, this statement is simply a formality. The narrator reveals that Leonard is â€Å"in truth, a little uneasy about his umbrella† (30). Leonard cannot afford to be careless about his possessions and is naturally uneasy about them. Any member of the upper-class in this situation would buy a new umbrella, not fretting ove r this small loss. But Leonard does not have this option. For him, every small possession is important. To lose an umbrella may mean a large cut in his paycheck. His attempt to retrieve the umbrella sets Leonard apart from the backdrop of the upper-class characters, casting him into a unique space in the novel, one we should give our attention. We see some of Leonard’s situation revealed in the simple action of trying to get hisumbrella back. More of his character is exposed in his conversation with the Schlegels. After the concert, Leonard attempts to engage in an intellectual discussion with the Schlegels. The family discusses Brahms and Beethoven, diving into a heated discussion about the merits of art. Tibby, the person in the family who knows music the best, rattles off a series of questions, â€Å"What is the good of the Arts if they are interchangeable? What is the good of the ear if it tells you the same as the eye?† (32). To Leonard, these assertions sound like a foreign language. The speeches â€Å"fluttered away from the young man like birds† (33). He longs to be able to engage in this conversation, to join the ranks of these upper-class idealists. He wishes, â€Å"If only he could talk like this, he would have caught the world. Oh to acquire culture! Oh, to pronounce names correctly!† (33). Leonard idealizes the Schlegels and sees them as a golden embodiment of culture and knowledge. He sees their discussion as access to â€Å"the world.† He longs to know of music and discuss with them, not for the sake of knowing music itself, but to be able â€Å"to pronounce words correctly.† He wants to have knowledge for the sake of impressing others, for the sake of boosting his cultural identity. Leonard wants to engage in this debate to escape the worries of umbrellas and practicality. But try as he might to join this conversation, Leonard is unable to escape his place inhis community. He cannot focus his attention on art because â€Å"he could not quite forget about his stolen umbrella† (33). Leonard’s umbrella is the â€Å"real trouble. Behind Monet and Debussy the umbrella persisted, with the steady beat of a drum.† Talk of Monet and Debussy seems to be a mask Leonard puts on, but behind it remains his true identity in the world of practicality. He talks of art with the Schlegels, but true thoughts center on his umbrella. This representation of the working sphere invades Leonard’s mind and cannot let him forget his true place in society. He belongs to the class who must worry about umbrellas. At the end of the day, it does not matter if Leonard can pronounce names correctly. He needs his umbrella back. This conversation exposes not only the inner drive towards practicality but also the emptiness of scholarly discussion. The Schlegels devalue art by experiencing it for the purpose of impressing other people. The Schlegels discuss music and recite names of composers, but their conversation does not have any real merit. As readers, we experience the emptiness of their talk. Tibby’s comments, for example, show his knowledge of music but not an appreciation for it. He intentionally asserts his technical knowledge of music for what seems like the purpose of showing off. â€Å"But surely you haven’t forgotten the drum steadily beating on the low C, Aunt Juley?† (32). Tibby’s knowledge does not seem to have a use besides inserting itself into conversation. The Schlegels’ conversation is empty, intellectual talk. The center of the plot and the action rests not on the concert and their talk about it but on the stolen umbrella. The umbrella drives the plot, and by centering attention on it, Forster both reveals the uselessness of inflated intellectualism and gives value to the mundane. Meaningless chatter is not the only way to devalue art. Leonard devalues art by treating it like a to-do list. Leonard wishes he could â€Å"catch up† with the Schlegels and their knowledge. He wishes:Oh to be well informed, discoursing at ease on every subject the lady started! But it would take one years. With an hour at lunch and a few shattered hours in the evening, how was it possible to catch up with leisured women, who had been steadily reading from childhood? (33) But Leonard does not really want to understand great artists; he just wants to able to say their names and impress others. Leonard feels he has to know certain names in order to be properly cultured. But this kind of thinking robs art of any merit. Art and scholarly debate do have a place, but Forster shows us they are not the ultimate reality. Many people do not have the luxury of epitomizing intellectualism. We cannot give our full attention to idealism because in doing so, we lose our umbrellas. We lose our sense of practicality. What seems trivial has worth. The Leonard Basts of the world and their umbrellas have as much value as the Schlegels. Both art and practicality must be in their proper place to receive full value. Leonard encounters the struggle between arts and practicality at the beginning of the text. In the end, he stops trying to gain footing in the philosophical world because he sees the value of practical matters. Towards the end of the novel, Leonard and Helen argue about what matters most in life. Leonard has lost his job and is forced to focus closely on his financial affairs. He tells Helen, â€Å"I can imagine that with regular work we should settle down again† (200). Helen is offended for she wants Leonard to continue to pursue beauty. â€Å"And that’s to be life!† she says. â€Å"How can you, with all the beautiful things to see and do— with music— with walking at night—† (200). Helen is still transfixed with the philosophical world. But Leonard asserts, â€Å"My books are back again, thanks to you, but they’ll never be the same to me again, and I shan’t ever again think walking in the woods is wonderful. . . Because I see one must have money† (200). Leonard is right to make this statement. In intellectual circles, we want to deny our need for money and pursue â€Å"higher† causes. But the need to put bread on the table will always be there. Helen, like many of us, wants to argue with Leonard and says he is wrong. He says to her, â€Å"I wish I was wrong. . . the real thing’s money and the rest is all a dream† (200). Perhaps Leonard takes his argument too far. Helen seeks the beautiful things of the world, and this is a good thing. The rest is not â€Å"all a dream,† but we can understand Leonard’s sentiment. We can certainly make â€Å"the rest† a dream by devaluing art and robbing it of its substance. If we seek beauty for the sake of impressing others and not for the experience itself, we miss the point. We still must give Leonard’s side of things some credit. Helen is upset that â€Å"settling down† is â€Å"to be life,† but it is a part of life, one we cannot deny (200). Leonard sees that though his â€Å"books are back,† he still has to focus on earning a living. Books are of little use when one is out of a job. This is not a welcomed statement in the i ntellectual community, but it is still true. All the books in the world will not make a decent wage for us. Both books and money must have their proper place. The umbrellas come back to haunt Leonard once again in this scene with Helen: Leonard looked at her wondering, and had the sense of great things sweeping out of the shrouded night. But he could not receive them, because his heart was full of little things. As the lost umbrella had spoilt the concert at Queen’s Hall, so the lost situation was obscuring the diviner harmonies now. (201) The narrator comments here that the â€Å"little things† Leonard focuses on take up too much space in his mind for the â€Å"diviner harmonies† to fit. But perhaps the little things take up space because they do matter. The â€Å"little things† demand attention from Leonard because they are important too. Leonard is upset that he cannot focus on what seems to be higher, but he forgets the value of little things. What seems to be trivial demands its own importance in our lives. If we give our trivialities proper attention, then perhaps we can fit the â€Å"diviner† things into the space of our lives as well. Forster gives unusual attention to â€Å"little things,† to umbrellas and to the character of Leonard Bast. The space taken by the seemingly mundane my puzzle readers, but Forster draws our attention to them to once again give them value. We cannot forget the mundane, ordinary things of life. Howards End becomes a voice for people like Leonard, for the middle class struggling in the awkward, in-between place of philosophy and practicality. Somewhere there is a balance between these two worlds. Forster’s characters never seem to find it, but perhaps we can. As readers we can seek intellectual stimulation, but we must not forget about our umbrellas.