Comparative essay between Ransom and Invictus

[GemmaF99]

Please provide some feedback on this comparative essay between Invictus and Ransom
"Compare how ransom and invictus explore the futility of revenge"

The historical fiction “Ransom” and film text “Invictus” both reflect the fruitless nature of retribution whilst conveying the power of forgiveness in striving to achieve unity. Set around the Trojan War of the Iliad, Malouf acknowledges that seeking revenge is not always the answer, and that such reprisal rarely results in a lasting solution for those concerned. Portrayed through the actions of Greek hero Achilles, “Ransom” highlights the dehumanising essence of malevolence, who is maddened by Trojan warrior, Hector’s slaying of his beloved friend Patroclus. Though Achilles avenges the death, desecrating Hector’s body, his soul does not satisfy or assuage his grief, thus accentuating the futility of revenge. In comparison, Clint Eastwood reveals the power of forgiveness and further its strength to bridge gaps whilst a tumultuous time rife with racial disharmony and social upheaval. Eastwood’s “Invictus” highlights the aptitude of the ambitious black South African leader, Nelson Mandela, who believed in uniting his nation, seeking to forgive his oppressors and move forward in the spirit of reconciliation, thus demonstrating the futility of revenge.
As an indistinctive human characteristic, the emotions and actions associated with revenge are neither preventable nor controllable. Ransom and Invictus both exhibit the power of vengeance when striving to obtain reprisal and further accentuate how an individual’s will to violate is detrimental and dehumanising to the soul. The death of Patroclus in the opening scenes of Malouf’s text, “Ransom,” presents the formidable task of incapacitating a soul that is completely dehumanised, thus reflecting the nature of revenge. A soulmate and companion since childhood, Patroclus represents a brother of Achilles with Malouf encapsulating that “he knew every movement of Patroclus’ soul,” (page 16) demonstrating the powerful friendship that existed between both. Set in a time of great division, “Ransom” echoes the disunion of the Greeks and Trojans, immediately creating a pathway for attack and revenge.  A divided atmosphere is further portrayed in Eastwood’s film text, “Invictus,” with its opening scenes illustrating the government’s devised legal segregation system of apartheid used to maintain their white minority rule over the black and disenfranchises majority of South Africa. Eastwood presents Mandela’s public release from prison and subsequent journey to presidency in a stylised montage, comprising enacted moments and documentary footage that highlights the violence and revenge. This sequence provides viewers with a context for Mandela’s future and establishes the deep social divisions that confront Mandela as a president, thus embellishing the height of retribution between the blacks and whites of South Africa. Further employing handheld cameras to convey the tumultuous events and threat of violence, “Invictus” highlights the ferocity of revenge and its damaging effect on a nation brimming with racial discrimination. In coherence, Malouf presents Achilles as a man who “felt his soul change colour,” (page 24) echoing the emotions associated with revenge. Changing the perspectives of the narrative to focus on each of the main characters, the reader is positioned to understand the motivations and actions of each one, further giving a deeper insight into how each individual is governed. Subsequent to Patroclus’ death, Achilles is engulfed and consumed with vengeful notions, as he hunts down Trojan warrior Hector in order to avenge his companion’s early death, “but first he had Patroclus’ killer to deal with in a last encounter out there under the walls of Troy.”(page 21) With a lyrical and sophisticated style, Malouf encapsulates poetic language with careful metaphors and complex imagery to portray Achilles desire to mutilate the body of Hector day after day, “the hip-bones and the shoulder blades of the massive back dashing hard against sharp-edged flinty stones and ridges,” (page 26) thus highlighting his failure to recognise remorse and regret, “feeling nothing.” (page 25) His additional need to inflict harm on Hector’s body indicates that revenge will not bring closure, a sense of loss illustrated as he reflects feeling empty inside, “and still it was not enough, still his grief was not consumed,” (page 33) thus accentuating the fruitless nature of revenge and its dehumanising traits. “Invictus” further explores a world immersed by retribution, portraying similar characteristics to that of “Ransom” as it represents a divided nation, implacable towards their leader. Elected as the first black president in the multiracial democratic elections in South Africa, Nelson Mandela’s role as a leader creates a sense of bitterness by the blacks towards their former oppressors. Eastwood enhances the emotions and actions associated with revenge encapsulating symbolism in the opening scenes of “Invictus,” incorporating a fence separating the blacks and whites, used to further position the viewer in a way that appeals to their sense of fear. Considered a terrorist by the Afrikaners as depicted in the news flashes displaying his release, Mandela’s character in the eyes of the whites’ echoed the words spoken by a coach telling his team, “it is that terrorist, Mandela. They let him out. Remember this day, boys. This is the day our country went to the dogs.” A nation divided by oppression and a society perpetuated under the system of apartheid, “Invictus” heightens the harmful nature of revenge, while “Ransom” perpetrates the futility of performing acts associated with reprisal, exhibiting how an individual’s will to violate is detrimental and dehumanising to the soul.
Forgiveness is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and unexpectedly, unconditioned by the act which provoked it. Malouf’s historical fiction, “Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film text, “Invictus” both capture the fruitful essence of forgiveness, through characters displaying acts of compassion and understanding, which ultimately suppresses the vengeful atmosphere that resides in both. Utilizing the best features of literary storytelling, Malouf focuses on a bare minimum of scenes but takes his time to blend character reflection with almost poetic descriptions of setting. Somax, the carter, characterised as the “common man” in “Ransom,” becomes instrumental in shaping Priam’s ability to “break the knot,” further enabling him to understand the power of forgiveness through Malouf’s lyrical choice of expression. He relays to Priam his sorrowful experiences endured in the past outlining the death of his son, highlighting how his cherished mule had a part to play in his passing, “it was her fault, that little off-side mule I’m so fond of, Beauty.” (page 140) Embellishing the immediate response of reprisal, Somax reveals how his indistinctive retort upon finding his son’s body amongst the reeds was to strike her, “I felt like punching her where she stood,” (pg. 141) yet his inner charisma prevails as he simply embraced her, further highlighting “but what would have been the good of that?” that wouldn’t have brought him back.” Somax’s magnanimous nature is echoed throughout Eastwood’s “Invictus,” with the film encapsulating the importance of forgiveness, demonstrating its strength to bridge the gap between the white and black communities. As the father of the new South Africa, President Nelson Mandela refuses to allow his domain to be tarnished with the discriminatory policies that he and so many others have struggled against for so many years, remaining resolute in his view that, “forgiveness liberates the soul. It removes fear. That is why it is such a powerful weapon.” Eastwood incorporates inclusive language, woven through Mandela’s inspiring speeches directed at “your country” to highlight his ability to forgive, and systematically encourages his citizens to believe they can be “better than they think they can be,” thus highlighting the futility of revenge and the power of reconciliation. Mandela advises against vengeance, instead imploring his people to share his vision, stating “we have to be better than that, we have to surprise them with compassion, with restrain, and generosity,” further echoed through Eastwood’s use of the black bodyguards as symbols to accentuate Mandela’s forbearing ambition of eliminating racial disunity. The enemy he states is “no longer the Afrikaner, they are our fellow South Africana, our partners in democracy.” While Eastwood employs the forbearing nature of Mandela, Somax’s simple acknowledgment of the futility of revenge emboldens Priam’s desire for a peaceful resolution to the pain he is suffering for the death of his son, Hector, at the hands of Achilles. Malouf constructs this strengthened resolution in Priam’s beliefs so that his style of writing complements this character’s preoccupations, juxtaposed with his physical situation, further utilized to perfect each character’s unique perspective. Priam ultimately entreats the killer of his son, pleading with Achilles to return Hector’s body, “I have come to ask you, man to man, as a father, for the body of my son,” (pg. 175) with the transpires ending with Priam on his knees, reaching out to Achilles, in fellow-feeling, enhancing the strength of forgiveness. Malouf incorporates a sense of fatherhood to convey his message, positioning the reader to consider the depth entwined in these emotions as Priam asks Achilles to remember his own son and father, further reminding him of his mortality and striking him to the core. In sharing Priam’s grief, Achilles ultimately recognises the futility of revenge and thus both establish a sense of shared humanity. The poem “Invictus” is emphasized throughout Eastwood’s film, used as a powerful symbol to highlight its source of inspiration and survival, enabling Mandela to seek forgiveness and move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. In coherence with Priam’s emotions, the poem is utilized as a voice-over when the Springboks rugby captain, Francois Pienaar, visualizes Mandela in prison, demonstrating its power in helping him stand when all he wanted “was to lie down.” Furthermore, the lyrical nature woven into the poem is used to highlight Pienaar’s awe of Mandela and his ability to forgive, commenting, “I was thinking about how you spend thirty years in a tiny cell and come out ready to forgive the people who put you there.” As a result, Francois is able to escape the limitations and thwarted worldview he inherits as a white man born into the apartheid system, thus embellishing the strength of forgiveness and its ability to reconcile a nation.
A unified agreement can prosper only if a peaceful and cohesive environment is maintained. The notion of amity and harmony is mirrored throughout Malouf’s historical fiction “Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film text “Invictus” as both perpetrate the value of conquering accord when emotions of revenge are manifest. Malouf presents the life-cycle of man, contrasting traditional male roles through age, class and status which are evoked by the changing perspectives of young warrior, elderly king and common man to accentuate the importance of concord. Weaving elements of metaphoric language and similes into his poetic statements, Malouf describes Priam’s quest to reclaim the body of his son from the Greek camp as a journey that transforms and ultimately unites two enemies. After decades as king of Troy, Priam’s determination to reinvent how he will be remembered and perceived, as a king who performed an extraordinary act of heroism in order to save his beloved son is highlighted through Malouf’s ability to switch between the primary and secondary characters throughout his text. Upon arrival at the Greek camp, Priam states he has come to Achilles’ home undefended, imploring with the great warrior as a father to another father for the return of his son. The passion intertwined in Priam’s intreats strikes a chord within Achilles, in stating, “no more, don’t speak again, you will have what you came for,” (pg. 187) highlighting how an act of humanity can sway an individual’s perceptions. Ultimately, Achilles is able to reach a state of peace by releasing his immoral intentions as Malouf depicts the transformation from a human who confronted grief with revenge to acceptance and forgiveness thus used to embellish the aptitude of unity. Alike Malouf’s “Ransom,” Eastwood’s film “Invictus” also demonstrates the futility of revenge, portrayed through the events relating to the 1995 Rugby World Cup final, ultimately becoming a tribute to the purity and determination of Mandela’s vision of a united South Africa. By reimagining the Springboks rugby team as a symbol of unity, President Mandela embraces the notion of a harmonious nation, giving all South Africans the opportunity to redefine their relationship to each other and to their country, claiming notoriously “this country is hungry for greatness.” The effectiveness of this ambitious strategy is captured through Eastwood’s ability to depict the transformation of the crowd at the rugby game from a booing mass waving the flag of apartheid, to the cheering fans proudly displaying the flag of unity. Acceptance of the new anthem further illustrates Mandela’s intention of securing a “rainbow nation” and the fruitful nature of unity amongst his country as Eastwood incorporates wide angle camera shots of above South Africa in the final scenes of the film to depict the compliance and recognition of the nation, with the song reverberating around the country. Achieving the difficult task of securing national unity amongst a nation consumed with racial discord is never an easy accomplishment, yet Mandela’s bodily presence becomes a powerful symbol of hope for the future, Eastwood enhancing this completed goal in displaying the rural areas of South Africa celebrating the win of the rugby world cup. The camera shots move from Ellis Park Stadium to a small liquor store in the heart of South Africa’s pastoral areas, both revelling in the essence of greatness, further utilized by Eastwood to portray the strength of Mandela’s goal of a harmonious nation in reaching the grassroot level, thus promoting a safe and innocuous atmosphere for South Africans. The ideals reflected in “Invictus” comply with Priam’s character as a “man remade” (pg. 209) in the final scenes of “Ransom” as the elderly king reflects on his memorable journey and feels as though he is “divinely led as by music” (pg. 211). In coherence, Achilles relishes in a sense of refreshment with Malouf utilizing language techniques that depict both men’s sense of enlightenment, signifying the best answer to revenge is peace. Priam exists the Greek camp in a “state of exultant wellbeing” since his journey has transformed his identity as the text portrays the stream they pass as “gently sloping” and “barely reaching their hocks.” (pg. 210) Furthermore, Achilles “too is visited by a lightness that is both new and a return,” referring to his growth in seeking redemption and overcoming the hatred to form peace with his enemy. The returned lightness reflects the aptitude of achieving unity and symbolises his restoration of sight also echoed through Mandela’s ability to transform a symbol of division and injustice into one of unity and hope. By wearing the Springboks rugby jersey, Mandela perpetrates his support for the team at the world cup as Eastwood depicts it as a defining moment in South African history which highlights its transformation from apartheid to multi-racial democracy.  In claiming “never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world,” Mandela highlights how a nation can only prosper if a peaceful environment is maintained.
David Malouf’s historian fiction “Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film text “Invictus” explore the fruitless nature associated with revenge whilst conveying the faculty of compassion in striving to succeed unity. The concept of reprisal is emphasized throughout both texts as Malouf and Eastwood heighten the circumstances entwined in vengeance portraying it as an indistinctive human characteristic, neither preventable nor controllable. Yet the perception of forgiveness prevails with “Ransom” highlighting Priam and Achilles ability to reach a unanimous decision, while Mandela’s mission to lead his country into the future encapsulates the power of reconciliation. Thus, Malouf and Eastwood depict the futility of revenge in portraying its inability to resolve complications that may seem insurmountable.

[BridgetT.]

Hey so while you raise some interesting points, your essay is over 2500 words long!! In the exam, you should be aiming for about 1000. I recommend cutting out some less important asides, and using more direct sentences to convey your main ideas. Your essay was interesting to read though

[jonwil]

Hey,
This is my first attempt on writing a comparison essay. Feedback would be amazing as I feel that this section is by far my weakness haha!
Thank God, this is only 1/3 of the exam

Enjoy! Please be nice >.-
p.s I haven't done a grammar check, cos, Im a slow writer and in the exam this is all I'd get down in the 1hr for comparison :/

‘The power of hope to bring change is limitless’. Discuss.
Predicated on crisis’ of the past, both David Malouf’s Ransom and Clint Eastwood’s Invictus focus on the power change brings through individual’s hope in “look[ing] to the future”. Through the lens of South African President Mandela, and Tyrannos King Priam, both texts depict hope as a compelling factor of change. Despite this, through seemingly insignificant characters and particular metaphors, limitless change can be seen through Eastwood and Malouf’s allusion to elements contrasting with hope. In the process, both texts also demonstrate how grief and vengeance limit people’s ability to hope for change. Ultimately demonstrating that life in itself has its moments of triumph and despondency, that are directly proportional to the power hope can bring.

Neither Priam or Mandela restrict themselves to “thinking in the old way”. Rather they see that to “build their nation” they have to attempt something “new and unimaginable”. The state of Troy following the fall of Hector in battle is seen through King Priam’s state of mind where his “grief...for a kingdom ravaged and threatened with extinction” haunts his dreams. Outside his walls stands a man tormented by a “rough haired god”, his mind “darkened”. Suppressed by a “self consuming rage”, Achilles actions instigates the vision of “chance” in Priam from the goddess Iris that gives him hope in the “rough world of men”. Priam’s vision meant that he must escape his “royal sphere” to go against that which was “formal and symbolic”. In doing so, Malouf, demonstrates that Priam’s hope in taking on the “lighter bond of being simply a man”, leads to changes that even his own wise counsel deems as “folly”. Despite this Priam knows that what he must do “is possible because it is not possible”. Likewise in Invictus, Mandela recognises that hope for a better future comes “wrapped in green and gold”. In order to build his “new South Africa”, Mandela had to believe that he could “do better” to accomplish his dreams of making South Africa the “shining light in the world”. Against the wishes of his own people, that would see them only “celebrate petty revenge”, Mandela decides it is better to “surprise [Afrikaners] with compassion”. Despite his incarceration in a “tiny cell for 30 years”, that would justify actions of retribution, it is only in Mandela’s hope to “rebuild the nation” that he can reconcile “all the things they denied”to the black population of South Africa.

Eastwood and Malouf both demonstrate that there are alternatives to hope and the limitless change it brings. Malouf states that sometimes this change, can serve to bring a limitless sadness. At the beginning of Priam’s journey alludes to the King’s utter blindness. As the cart departs from Troy, Jove’s eagle can be seen “sitting high above”. The reference to such a bird famous for its keen sight, serves as a metaphor that represents the blindness of the King in matters of humanity. Despite this, through the course of the journey Somax tutors the “child” Priam on the matters of the “simple pleasures of life”. Slowly the King finds himself “peering through the crack in a door”, the door to his own humanity. But it is through these simple interactions: the “prattling world”, the “fish that came to investigate” and “little griddle cakes”; that Priam learns how distanced he was from the world. It is only through his vicarious experience of intimacy with one’s child, through the stories of Somax’ “violent intimacy”, that Priam begins to feel the loss of Hector in more than just a “formal and symbolic” way. Malouf’s deliberate contrast from the beginning of the journey and the end of the journey, which ironically alludes to the absence of Jove’s eagle, demonstrates the power of storytelling and the experience of the simple through Priam’s newfound humanity. Despite this though, this change leads to a newfound sense of sadness wherein Priam makes “little noises” for his son Hector. In contrast to this Eastwood depicts newfound joy, and a seemingly limitless happiness through the triumph of Mandela’s goals. Upon winning the World Cup, Eastwood shows two distinct shots that represent this triumph and foreshadows a sense of thriving and continuous unity from then on out. The first of which is a close up shot on the cup held by the Springboks. By focusing in only on the cup itself the hands holding the cup can be seen more clearly. The whiter hands of Pienaar with the dark skin of Williams is clear, and through this shot Eastwood demonstrates the unity through the World Cup Mandela has achieved for both blacks and whites. The holding of the cup together alludes to a newfound unity for the country. An even more powerful image is the occurences happening outside the stadium between Sipho, a child of a shanty town, and the police officers. Upon the glorious news of the World Cup win both Sipho and the white officers dance the toi-toi together. Being a political war dance, reserved for native South Africans the dancing of such a dance together represents the antagonistic gulf between blacks and whites closing. It is through these powerful images that Eastwood conveys to the viewer that through Mandela’s willingness to hope, that the “unhappy rift” between the two ethnicities has closed and that a future of happiness is now a reality. Both Ransom and Invictus, depict the power of hope also alluding to significant other factors that cause change, but the ultimate change is also shown as either one of sadness and one of triumph.

On the other hand both Ransom and Invictus show that despite the power hope possesses limitless change is not brought to everyone. Upon the ransom being made Achilles is “visited by a lightnesses” and Priam knows that “as a man remade” the “I is different”. Malouf contrasts the Achilles of previous, who was slowly being devoured by a “self consuming rage, with one whose “heels [now] glow”. Malouf’s subtle reference to the anatomical weakness of Achilles that now glows indicates the renewal of the warrior. In that moment Achilles feels that “something in him has freed itself”. Also a result of the hope Priam had to ransom his son and offer the gift greater than gold to Achilles which was forgiveness, Priam dissolves the cycle of vengeance present in Achilles. Nevertheless Malouf’s uses prolapse to depict that this change is not unending. Achilles and Priam witness the “armed Fury” Neoptolemus who avenges Priam through the savagery and to “proclaim...instant night” to Priam. Despite Achilles learning to deal with grief in a manner other than revenge, his son’s actions are analogous to his at the beginning of the novel. The behavior of Neoptolemus’ behaviour echoes the fury and hatred of Achilles. The closing passage that represents the demise of Troy alludes to the continuity of life and demonstrates that change is limited to a single existence and generation. Moreover demonstrates that although people may learn from mistakes, they will always meet death, thus allowing others to repeat those same mistakes again.. Similarly in Invictus, Mandela also shows how one’s blindness can lead to a sense of limitless change in family dynamics. In an indirect manner, Eastwood illustrates the distance between Mandela and his daughter, Zindzi, through the change Mandela works for in South Africa. Through the camera shot that shows Mandela having his photo taken with his grandchildren but also simultaneously showing Zindzi standing off in the doorway hints at dissolution of family. When confronted, Mandela challenges Zindzi stating that her attitude towards the current state of South Africa is merely “selfish thinking…[that] does not serve the nation”. Moreover when he offers Zindzi the bracelet of her mother, she states it was “meant to [be] thrown away”. Through the interaction of father and daughter Eastwood attempts to show his audience that despite Mandela’s hope to “make a change” for the multitudes, he cannot reciprocate it in his own life, ultimately alluding to the fact that change can be limited to type of person it is brought upon.

Both Invictus and Ransom allude to the power of hope, signifying the change it can bring about. Ransom demonstrates the hope is a compelling factor for change in one’s circumstances and brings about the necessary release of tense emotions. Invictus also shows the viewer’s that through one man’s hope a nation was unified. Despite this both texts also hint at hope, and the change it brings, inability to accommodate everybody. Nevertheless the limitations of hope are exceeded by the triumphant results of the successes possessing a strong will has. Eastwood and Malouf clearly illustrate that hope brings limitless change in a variety of manners.

 

[jonwil]

Criticism is welcome.

“But it is never enough. That is what he feels. That is what torments him”. How do Ransom and Invictus explore the idea of vengeance? Compare the texts in your response.
Contention: the exploration of vengeance in each piece is that it is essentially futile.
1. Vengeance is futile
2. Vengeance is a continual cycle where in if one is not liberated you will be consumed
3. There is a better response to vengeance that is ultimately more favourable

Predicted upon the crisis of the past, Eastwood’s Hollywood epic Invictus and Malouf’s reimagination of Homer’s Iliad, Ransom, explores the concept of vengeance. Intrinsically linked with self and the ability to change and conform, vengeance is depicted as a futile prospect. As it resists the ability to change, vengeance only repeats and rebounds upon itself in a cycle of perpetuating violence without cessation. Nevertheless both texts indicate through reconciliation and the beauty of humanity, that the cycle can be broken, demonstrating the liberating effects of forgiveness.

Both Ransom and Invictus initially show vengeance to be utterly futile. The futility of vengeance is encapsulated in Eastwood’s montage at the beginning serving as a relapse for the viewer’s of South Africa’s racial tensions. The scenes of civil war and angry black rioters upon Mandela’s release condenses the tumultuous 4 years into a series of short clips that highlight the futility of vengeance. The use of handheld cameras further solidifies the turmoil linked to the vengeful behaviour of the Black South Africans. Specially, pausing at a scene where a black man is seen lying dead with blood pouring from his head, reinforces the notion that vengeance is vanity. The picture of the deceased man as a result of the ANC civil war foreshadows the rest of the film, serving as a bitter reminder of the consequences of revenge. Likewise in Ransom, Malouf’s disparages vengeance through the use of lyrical and poetic phrases. When the “wolf” goes out to “hunt” for the “implacable enemy” Hector, Malouf does not depict Achilles kill as triumphant. Rather that at the moment Achilles “soul changed colour” indicating that his vengeful killing served as no relief to his grief. To assuage is grief, Achilles desperately violates the body of Hector, yet we see that “it [was] never enough”. “What torments him” now is a “rough haired god” that the men feel as “darkened his mind” Malouf’s use of dark imagery serves as reproof for the notion of vengeance, denigrating the cycle of anguish it invites. Eastwood and Malouf both contend that ultimately “revenge begets revenge”, symbolising its futility in that it serves as no reprisal to one’s grief.

Moreover, each text presents vengeance as a main factor to the resistance for change. Eastwood’s use of secondary character’s highlights how “selfish thinking” does not “serve the nation”. Initially Brenda Mazibuko is seen as the one who resists the change Mandela intends to bring about. Only caring for Mandela’s ‘political capital’ she resists his will to challenge the NSC decision to revoke Springbok emblems, stating “the people want this”. Unlike Mandela, Mazibuko is blinded by her apartheid era mindset, that would still see the demise of white Afrikaners following Mandela’s ascension to president. Through Mazibuko’s inherently vengeful thinking, Eastwood demonstrates how the ability to forgive and change is suppressed through her apartheid era thinking. Similarly, Mandela’s daughter Zindzi is unable to accept change, challenging her father in his “shaking hands” with Francois. Zindzi’s distaste for anything related to white South Africans, indicates the impact vengeance instils. Such vengeance against those that ‘took [hers] away” is serious to the point that a disharmony forms within her relationship to her father. A similar notion can be viewed in Ransom where Malouf portrays Achilles as a man denied of his normal comforts due to the “self consuming rage” he had spurred himself into. To the point that Achilles is also denied the pleasures of company, only eating “out of obligation”. Moreover the idea that vengeance resists change is predominantly seen in Achilles distaste for his new second-in- command Automedon, who “reminds him of Patroclus”. The bitterness at the death of his “soulmate” has embittered him against the company of his own men. Malouf utilises this to denigrate revenge in how it causes further disharmony amongst relationships that should blossom, ultimate vengeance can be viewed as a suppressing agent for change and an element that divides family and people.

Despite this, both texts do not conclude that vengeance is unstoppable and incurable, rather they demonstrate that “forgiveness liberates the soul” and counteracts the cycle of violence. Eastwood’s depiction of Mandela, shows the viewer the power of forgiveness. Mandela admonishes the sports council stating that it is no time to “celebrate petty revenge”. Mandela understood that revenge was not the answer and by taking away what the Afrikaner's “treasured”, the “cycle of fear” would only perpetuate. Eastwood illustrates Mandela’s commitment to social change beyond his role as president, even to the point of rejecting the beliefs of his own people. Through Francois, who is so shocked that Mandela could “come out ready to forgive” even after being incarcerated for “30 years in a tiny cell”. This realisation serves as a key to realising Mandela’s dream to liberate and unite the nation through forgiveness despite the hardships of the past. The protagonist in Invictus ultimately is the embodiment of anti-vengeance, lauding the limitless power forgiveness has. On the other hand, Ransom also presents to the readers how the cycle of anguish will come to a cessation through what is “new and unimaginable”. Priam’s vision gives him the chance to “break the knot”. Malouf indicates that his that this “knot” is the perpetuation of vengeance and that through Priam appealing to Achilles “as a father” the “dreamlike spell [can] be broken”. Malouf demonstrates that the ransom of gold is secondary and that Priam’s gift is “greater than gold”. The gift of forgiveness given to Achilles reverses the effects of violence liberating Achilles soul so that his “heels glow”. Malouf illustrates through the “lightness” that visits Achilles how forgiveness has the ability to counteract the most debilitating circumstances. His allusion to Somas, the “simple carter”, who despite his mule killing his child, states that “striking her” would do “no good”. Malouf’s contrast in the stories of Somax and Achilles ultimately give insight into the domineering nature vengeance has. The liberation of various characters in Ransom and Invictus, serves as an impetus to not be restrained by the surpressing nature of vengeance.

The “cycle of fear” so aptly put by protagonist and president Mandela, is depicted as uncontrollable, yet through the procession of the narratives can be seen to be liberated and broken down through the power forgiveness holds. As a futile prospect, vengeance serves as a suppressing factor of humanity, resisting change. Despite this both Ransom and Invictus ultimately contend that to be liberated from the tumultuousness of uncontrollable rage, one must be ready to challenge convention and attempt the “unthinkable”

[princessofpersia]

Please provide some feedback on this comparative essay between Invictus and Ransom
"Compare how ransom and invictus explore the futility of revenge"

The historical fiction “Ransom” and film text “Invictus” both reflect the fruitless nature of retribution whilst conveying the power of forgiveness in striving to achieve unity. Set around the Trojan War of the Iliad, Malouf acknowledges that seeking revenge is not always the answer, and that such reprisal rarely results in a lasting solution for those concerned. Portrayed through the actions of Greek hero Achilles, “Ransom” highlights the dehumanising essence of malevolence, who is ....

hey there, I'm no guru in English but I did read through some of your English.

[ric0057]

The English exam is over but I just thought that I should post my Ransom and Invictus essay anyway. I got 100% for this topic


‘The power of hope to bring change is limitless.’
Compare the way the two texts explore this idea.


Despite their very different settings and contexts, Clint Eastwood’s Hollywood epic Invictus, and David Malouf’s reimagining of Homer’s Iliad Ransom provide a clear insight into the power of hope to bring about change. Malouf and Eastwood depict societies that are governed by tradition, to where both Troy and South Africa remain divided as a result of past animosity. Despite this however, leaders emerge that are able to defile the conventions of “what is expected” and subsequently, embrace “something new” and unexpected. Through the texts’ depiction of “break[ing] the knot” and “look[ing] to the future”, both authors are able to emphasise the power of emotional strength, all the while suggesting that change is achieved through great personal cost.


Despite the role of tradition, both texts suggest that the power to change is limitless. In Malouf’s Ransom, Priam exists as a “ceremonial figure” and relies primarily on long-held traditions and emotional abstinence to exert his leadership, as showcased through his unfamiliarity to the many “deprivations and shortages” of the agrarian lifestyle.  Additionally, prior to his journey to “ransom” Hector’s body from Achilles, Priam concedes that his “attention was fixed always on what was central. Himself”. As a result, his lack of exposure to the real world has left him crippled of life’s simplest experiences, so much so that Malouf employs Jove’s eagle, a bird famous for its key sight as a means of alluding to the King’s utter blindness in regards to humanity.
As a result, Priam’s notion of breaking away from tradition and abdicating his “royal image” in order to petition for Hector's body, is initially berated by Hecuba and his royal council, as it transgresses the boundaries of convention, allowing Malouf to further accentuate the rote of Priam’s actions. Nevertheless, despite his “new and unheard of” plan, Priam immerses himself into the common life and strips away any “form of royal insignia”, thus enabling the king to emerge as “a man remade” and briefly, relinquish the disunion between Greeks and Trojans”. Similarly, Eastwood’s Invictus showcases Nelson Mandela as adopting the same ideology of “exceeding [one's] own expectations” and trying “something new” and unheard of. Prior to his presidency, the Afrikaners triumphed in all aspects of political, social and economic life, as demonstrated in the first onset, which captures a wide shot of two opposing fields; one stripped bare, while the other appears luscious and immaculate, thus representing the current gulf between blacks and whites. This is further typified through Mandela’s black bodyguards, who remain ambivalent towards the “Special Branch cop”, as captured by their initial encounter, to where both groups adopt confrontational postures with their respective parties clamouring behind them. Regardless of this however, Mandela uses his position to force a societal change, surprising his “new partners in democracy...with compassion”. As a result, he is able to break ”the cycle of fear” and unite South Africa through rugby. This stark contrast with Malouf’s Priam accentuates that, while the role of tradition prevents the king from rectifying society, Eastwood’s Mandela succeeds at breaking this notion, ultimately suggesting that the power to change is limitless.


Despite the trappings of society, both texts suggest that the power to achieve hope ultimately prevails through emotional strength. Set in a time of absolute monarchy, “King Priam” is frequently denied the opportunity to engage in “ordinary desires” and as a consequence remains sheltered from anything outside his “royal sphere”. Despite this, however, Priam’s obstinate determination to “ransom” the body of his son enables him to muster the courage and embrace the concept of “chance”, a motif that is considered revolutionary in the face of “what it [could] lead to, the violence”. Regardless, despite the resistance bore by his royal council, further emphasising the tie to convention as showcased through Eastwood’s Brenda, Priam’s ability to “entreat the killer of his son” and accept Achilles’ hand accentuates that it takes great emotional strength to “break the knot”, and bring about change. Dissimilarly, the “most unpredictable of the Greeks”, Achilles “break... every rule [that a Trojan warrior has] been taught to live by” through his gratuitous violence performed towards Hector’s body. This is further exemplified through Malouf’s employment of animal imagery, to which Hecuba, in a state of fury, describes Achilles’ as a “jackal [and a] wolf”, thus allowing the text to illustrate the “fighter’s” primal emotions in their rawest form. As a result, despite Achilles’ desire to be “rocked and comforted” by his mother, his reputation as a “fighter” permits him from “betray[ing] to others what he [really feels], to the point where he is denied the pleasures of company and eats only “out of obligation”. Contrastingly, Eastwood’s Mandela remains imbued with the desire to create a shared identity under the “one team one nation” banner, and hence, continues to jettison his strong opposition’s belief that “[the] country [has gone] to the dogs”. Seemingly impervious to pain, Mandela is not only able to “come out ready to forgive the people who put [him in prison]”, but continue to deprecate the idea of “petty revenge”, mirroring Malouf’s firm belief that retaliation is never the answer. Likewise, this profound strength inspires Pienaar to “be the master of [his] fate”, and, through his use of inclusive language, he is able to coax his teammates to “be better than they think they can be”, thereby suggesting that change is always obtainable through great strength and unwavering courage.


Both texts, however, suggest that, while change is obtainable, it does come at a great personal cost. In Ransom, Priam’s reputation as an “imposing figure” denies him the opportunity to form a personal bond with his “offspring” and, as a result, he remains “saved” from true mourning after the death of Hector, as compared to Hecuba, who “sits stunned with grief”. This is further exemplified through Priam’s interaction with Somax, to where, when the “cart man” sniffles, the King describes it as an “odd habit”, demonstrating Priam’s lack of insight in regards to true loss. In addition, his regal life has left him incredibly isolated from the “real world” to where he “takes no part in the physical business” and rather, lives vicariously through his “herald Ideaus” Furthermore, Malouf’s employment of childish traits, to where Priam is characterized as an “obedient toddler”, is contrasted with his “old and frail age”, thereby allowing the text to typify the King’s lack of exposure to life’s simplest experiences. Nevertheless, Somax’s tenderness towards his family propels Priam to ruminate on the true extent of his relationships, to where, by the end of the text, he makes “small sounds” and regains his role as a father. This is contrasted to Eastwood’s Mandela who remains isolated from his children. Like Priam, Invictus’ President Mandela is committed to his “very big family [of] forty-two million people”, and, as a consequence, he is denied the opportunity to embrace fatherhood. This is further established through Eastwood’s arrangement of Zindzi, to where she remains framed by the doorway as she exits the living room, thus demonstrating her absence in Mandela’s life. Likewise, the story of Winnie Mandela is limited to a single artefact, the bracelet, seemingly abandoned in a drawer and later discarded by her daughter.
As a result, despite Mandela’s attempt to share his life with her, it is unsurprisingly meet with great animosity, signifying her reluctance to forgive her father and ultimately, preventing the President from acquiring a relationship with his family.

Both Ransom and Invictus allude to the power of change to achieve unity and subsequently, surpass convention. While the role of tradition seemingly hinders the texts’ ability to achieve coherence, both leaders develop a precocious talent for “trying something new and unimaginable”. Despite the personal losses suffered by both Priam and Mandela, ultimately, the texts’ suggest that hope acts as an essential element to attaining unity and embracing the “unthinkable”.