FREE lectures this September + October | HSC Head Start + Exam Revision: book here | QCE Head Start: book here | VCE Exam Revision: book here

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

September 21, 2019, 02:37:55 pm

Author Topic: Ransom and Invictus Essay: Revenge  (Read 293 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Matthew_Whelan

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +6
Ransom and Invictus Essay: Revenge
« on: August 22, 2019, 11:27:27 pm »
0
Hi so here's a practise essay I've put together, it would be great to get different people's opinion on it. If anyone has suggestions of ideas or evidence that I didn't include then that would also be appreciated. (In particular I always forget to include cinematic/literary features of the texts)

Both Eastwood and Malouf present revenge as a very destructive force. To what extent do you agree?

David Malouf’s iterated novel of the classical myth Iliad, “Ransom”, explores the pernicious nature of revenge through Achilles’ destructive path to avenge his friend Patroclus. Clint Eastwood’s biographical film “Invictus” also shares this conviction but instead focuses on the fear and hostility revenge creates in communities. Conversely, both texts show that choosing to abstain from acts of vengeance is constructive rather than destructive.

The consequences of the characters’ pursuit of vengeance shows that it is a consuming and self-destructive force. Achille’s inability to overcome Patroclus’ death is evident of this. His “soul change[d] colour” shows that he has transformed, and it becomes very noticeable to his own men. He realises that despite his violation and mutilation of Hector’s corpse, he has not been gratified, which only exacerbates his rage as it is “never enough”. Despite his actions of defilement, Achilles “grief was not consumed”. Likewise, in “Invictus”, the fabric of the nation is torn by the black people’s resentment of the Afrikaners and the previous Apartheid regime. This is shown through Mandela’s daughter, Zindzi, viewing Francois as “one of the ones who forced [them] out of [their] home.” Because of this and Mandela’s prison sentence, she had grown estranged from him. Eastwood uses this scene to depict the effect of the hostile status quo on relationships at a personal level, showing that revenge is destructive both in its action and presence. This is similar in Ransom when Achille’s grows distant to his men as he “breaks daily every rule that they [had] been taught to live by.” Like his father Achilles, Neoptolemus is torn apart emotionally after he realises that his slaughter of Priam was wrong. Consequently, this “misery of [the] moment will last forever” showing that not only does revenge not gratify individuals, but it is immutable. While Ransom focuses more on the self-destruction of individuals through their desire for revenge, both texts explore the effects of it on individuals.

While both texts portray the calamity caused by revenge in communities, they do so in different ways with “Ransom” depicting the horrid acts while Invictus focuses on the potential for terror that is imminent. Malouf uses sensory descriptions to describe Achilles “barbaric spectacle” by detailing the corpse as “bloody and unrecognisable” to create a vivid picture of the atrocity of the act. These acts of vengeance show the raw destruction that revenge can cause an individual to perform, turning what many perceived to be a hero into a murderous “jackal”. Similarly, the film “Invictus” depicts the tumultuous scenes showing the instability, high crime rate and turmoil of the four years succeeding Mandela’s release from prison. These scenes highlight the devastation caused by Africans seeking revenge. The scene of the rugby final alludes to the potential for destruction as the bodyguards Jason and Etienne see a plane approaching the stadium, believing it is some “crazy fool who thinks he hears god speaking to him”. While there was no threat, the possibility of somebody deranged seeking revenge would be catastrophic, and viewers can imagine this as the plane is shown flying over the stadium in an overhead shot to encapsulate the enormity of it. Likewise, Jason frequently stresses that Mandela is “much too exposed” due the threat of sports fans that harbour resentment towards him. This cycle of fear and animosity proves to be a destructive force throughout the film, insinuating the threat of hostile Africans of both races. In their portrayal of appalling acts of revenge, each text presents the destructive nature of vengeance and particularly in “Invictus”, the subsequent fear of these acts.

Through characters such as Priam and Nelson Mandela refraining from virulence and producing positive outcomes, it is implicitly shown that revenge is a destructive force.  Instead of using his position of presidency as a tool of revenge, Mandela seeks to “build [their] nation” and advocates for “compassion, restraint and generosity” towards the Afrikaners. Despite the adverse response from many Africans, Mandela persists to reconcile the animosity between blacks and whites. Eastwood highlights this in the scene when the bodyguards play rugby together as Mandela asks Brenda “still think I’m wasting my time.” Malouf correspondingly reveals that seeking to not act in vengeance results in a more constructive approach to gratifying oneself. Priam shows that in order to attain his son’s body for burial rites, he must allow his feelings of resentment to subside. This can be contrasted to Achilles inability to refrain from his “buried rage”, and consequently is “drowned in oblivion” because of his actions. Malouf also uses Somax to inadvertently show that revenge is futile by forbearing from “punching [Beauty] where she stood” by realising that it would not ameliorate his grief. Mandela also displays similar restraint by choosing forgiveness over “petty revenge” and teaches this to Jason and Linga. Through characters like Priam, Achilles and Mandela, both texts create a dichotomy between the constructiveness of forgiveness as opposed to the destructiveness of revenge.

Malouf’s and Eastwood’s shared conviction that revenge is ruinous can be shown throughout both texts by it being self-consuming, detrimental to society and it does not gratify people’s indignation. While the two texts approach this differently through their plots and style of text, revenge is depicted as an unequivocally destructive force.
2018: Psychology
2019: English, Methods, Chemistry, Biology, Physics

DBA-144

  • MOTM: APR 19
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +31
Re: Ransom and Invictus Essay: Revenge
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2019, 07:43:09 am »
+2
Disclaimer: I have little knowledge about this texts so that's why some comments might not make sense.

Hi so here's a practise essay I've put together, it would be great to get different people's opinion on it. If anyone has suggestions of ideas or evidence that I didn't include then that would also be appreciated. (In particular I always forget to include cinematic/literary features of the texts)

Both Eastwood and Malouf present revenge as a very destructive force. To what extent do you agree?

David Malouf’s iterated novel of the classical myth Iliad, “Ransom”, explores the pernicious nature of revenge through Achilles’ destructive path to avenge his friend Patroclus. Clint Eastwood’s biographical film “Invictus” also shares this conviction but instead focuses on the fear and hostility revenge creates in communities. Conversely, both texts show that choosing to abstain from acts of vengeance is constructive rather than destructive. Do you think it is good or bad? Can't tell from your intro

The consequences of the characters’ pursuit of vengeance shows that it is a consuming and self-destructive force.Perhaps try to be a bit more specific with this eg. Linking it into a particular text or using a character as an example Achille’s inability to overcome Patroclus’ death is evident of this. His “soul change[d] colour” shows that he has transformed, and it becomes very noticeable to his own menGood evidence quote can be embedded better tho. He realises that despite his violation and mutilation of Hector’s corpse, he has not been gratified, which only exacerbates his rage as it is “never enough”. Despite his actions of defilement, Achilles “grief was not consumed”. So? I don't really think that this contributes enough Likewise, in “Invictus”, the fabric of the nation is torn by the black people’s resentment of the Afrikaners and the previous Apartheid regime. This is shown through Mandela’s daughter, Zindzi, viewing Francois as “one of the ones who forced [them] out of [their] home.” Can word this a little better (show how they are used together to highlight the effect of both of these things on herBecause of this and Mandela’s prison sentence, she had grown estranged from him. Eastwood uses this scene to depict the effect of the hostile status quo on relationships at a personal level, showing that revenge is destructive both in its action and presence. This is similar in Ransom when Achille’s grows distant to his men as he “breaks daily every rule that they [had] been taught to live by.” Like his father Achilles, Neoptolemus is torn apart emotionally after he realises that his slaughter of Priam was wrong. Consequently, this “misery of [the] moment will last forever” showing that not only does revenge not gratify individualsverbose, but it is immutable. While Ransom focuses more on the self-destruction of individuals through their desire for revenge, both texts explore the effects of it on individuals. Good comparison towards the end

While both texts portray the calamity caused by revenge in communities, they do so in different ways with “Ransom” depicting the horrid actshorrid acts of...? be a bit mroe specific here while Invictus focuses on the potential for terror that is imminentmake it more concise by saying imminent potential for terror. Malouf uses sensory descriptions to describe Achilles “barbaric spectacle” by detailing the corpse as “bloody and unrecognisable” to create a vivid picture of the atrocity of the act. These acts of vengeance show the raw destruction that revenge can cause an individual to perform, turning what many perceived to be a hero into a murderous “jackal”.Need to be more specific imo. what are you saying is similar?? Similarly, the film “Invictus” depicts the tumultuous scenes showing the instability, high crime rate and turmoil of the four years succeeding Mandela’s release from prison. These scenes highlight the devastation caused by Africans seeking revenge. Kinda seems like a redundant sentence to me, seeing as you haven't exactly said which scenes do this. Also, how do you know that its africans seeking revenge? Why can't it be africans seeking redemption?The scene of the rugby final alludes to the potential for destruction as the bodyguards Jason and Etienne see a plane approaching the stadium, believing it is some “crazy fool who thinks he hears god speaking to him”. While there was no threat, the possibility of somebody deranged seeking revenge would be catastrophic, and viewers can imagine this as the plane is shown flying over the stadium in an overhead shot to encapsulate the enormity of it. Likewise, Jason frequently stresses that Mandela is “much too exposed” due the threat of sports fans that harbour resentment towards him. This cycle of fear and animosity proves to be a destructive force throughout the film, insinuating the threat of hostile Africans of both races. In their portrayal of appalling acts of revenge, each text presents the destructive nature of vengeance and particularly in “Invictus”, the subsequent fear of these acts.

The paragraph overall is quite good, but imo could do with some better, more precise planning

Through characters such as Priam and Nelson Mandela refraining from virulence and producing positive outcomes, it is implicitly shown that revenge is a destructive force.  Instead of using his position of presidency as a tool of revenge, Mandela seeks to “build [their] nation” and advocates for “compassion, restraint and generosity” towards the Afrikaners. Despite the adverse response from many Africans, Mandela persists to reconcile the animosity between blacks and whites. Eastwood highlights this in the scene when the bodyguards play rugby together as Mandela asks Brenda “still think I’m wasting my time.” Malouf correspondingly reveals that seeking to not act in vengeancewordy results in a more constructive approach to gratifying oneself. I haven't read these texts but if you are transitioning between two texts, you need to make this more obvious. Priam shows that in order to attain his son’s body for burial rites, he must allow his feelings of resentment to subside. This can be contrasted to Achilles inability to refrain from his “buried rage”, and consequently is “drowned in oblivion” because of his actions. Malouf also uses Somax to inadvertently show that revenge is futile by forbearing from “punching [Beauty] where she stood” by realising that it would not ameliorate his grief. Mandela also displays similar restraint by choosing forgiveness over “petty revenge” and teaches this to Jason and Linga. Through characters like Priam, Achilles and Mandela, both texts create a dichotomy between the constructiveness of forgiveness as opposed to the destructiveness of revenge. 

Where is the comparison in this pargraph? I must have missed it :P

Malouf’s and Eastwood’s shared conviction that revenge is ruinous can be shown throughout both texts by it being self-consuming, detrimental to society and it does not gratify people’s indignation. While the two texts approach this differently through their plots and style of text, revenge is depicted as an unequivocally destructive force.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 01:33:46 pm by DBA-144 »

happydays2

  • South Australian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Norwood high
Re: Ransom and Invictus Essay: Revenge
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2019, 02:04:39 pm »
+2
You show some me good knowledge of the text on the first bp. Perhaps it is useful to define what revenge is, or what causes the need for revenge eg the division in the self. Revenge is destructive but how - to the individual Achilles caught in a cycle, a knot’. You then should perhaps get into how revenge may be alleviated- through understanding the stories of the other - Priams ‘curiosity’ and ‘interest’ in somax’s stories :?Mandela’s ‘political’ interest in rugby. By creating a narrative that all can share and take a part in, however fleeting the destructive nature of revenge can be mitigated - both within the individual as in Achilles and without- as in the 43 mill South Africans, both hands holding the cup etc.
thinking about the topic and the ‘implications’ of the topic can help - and in your topic it was probably asking for a yes but answer than a total yes.
Some good writing though.