Analyze The Characters essay

Same attitude in two people in real life could make sense and is acceptable but not in a work of art where motifs are differently, purposefully added to give it (the work of art) the captive meaning that is to be drawn out by the reader. This could also be a plus that, maybe, the writer successfully put-forth the reality In his play rather than the romanticizes picture that is accustomed to be portrayed in Television or books.Otherwise the play with nothing romanticizes or exaggerated in it, has no reason to be written as it seldom leaves an impact on the reader and also when it has nothing ‘apparently perceptible’ to be offered to the reader, it becomes baseless to the majority.

I’m not certain of this claim, again. Here’s a quick review of the statements given by the assessing and the poet that confuses the reader to analyze whether what kind of assumptions one could draw from them: In the beginning, the play.Enrich has made the businessman look like an optimist, while the poet as a pessimist, before they started to get to know each other. In the middle of the play, they both switch this particular attitude with each other and thus make it difficult for the reader to decide who actually the optimist/pessimist “In this fog? ” the poet asks. “Oh, this all will go away when the sun goes up.

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own
Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get expert help in mere 10 minutes with:
  • Thesis Statement
  • Structure and Outline
  • Voice and Grammar
  • Conclusion
Get essay help
No paying upfront

… ” The businessman replies with optimism. You forget we are now near the Grand Banks, the home of fog.

The poet assumes. Now, in the situation given below, the businessman played the role of a pessimist while the poet did the contrary: “…

. Lucky for us it’s calm or we would be smashed into pieces. ” (Poet: being the optimist) “… As it is we’ll only freeze to death.

Is that what you mean? ” (Businessman: being the pessimist) From the above given references, one could also make a statement that maybe they both are the two sides of the same coin, flipping heads and tails when/where gotten a chance.Or one could also deduce that both are dynamic. They adopt a change in the middle of an event?a temporary shift of attitude–and then come back to their respective innate nature, in the end. Moving on, if such confusions be neglected, one could assume that the poet is an idealistic realist, as, throughout the play, he kept suggesting the possibilities that could have occurred and were occurring in their lives before this respective event that they were stranded in.

“… It’s better not to expect too much.It only makes disappointment more bitter when it comes. & “If she were ever to hit this mass of ice she would sink before they could lower the boat.

” This explains the fact that he’s trying to assume things before their moment for occurrence. That’s all with the criticism. Now coming to the bright side of it: As stated above, the fact that it’s difficult to locate the difference between the two protagonists, also, at some points suggests that this is how, in real life, the things go/work.The idea being that all human beings are shades Of the Same monochromatic light, they all share many similar attitudes at the root level ND thus it becomes very difficult to find out ‘the wrong one’ and ‘the right one’ which, in fact, is none. I personally defy such classifications due to the fact that everyone holds his own truth and morality; what’s wrong in my perspective could be wrong in someone else’s; the idea being, ‘What is normal for the spider is chaos to the fly”.However, in plays, movies or dramas, it’s distinguishable.

Here lies the difference between cinematic (or any other) art and real life. Depending on what the writer intended to do, one could evaluate the value of art. I’d consider that the writer intended to put the reader into the situation to find out the answers to a lot of questions that go in mind in real life as well as in the play. And he succeeded in doing that. This is, indeed, his art.The tactics to do it are evident from many parts, especially where he introduced the characters by: first voice/second voice and later developed their characters into a dark man/other man and finally into a businessman/poet in the end; here he symbolically used ‘fog’ which was uplifted when they became known to being unknown to each other. Other than that, what is very appreciable in the play is the ending of it where the playwright leaves the play at a point where the reader could deduce anything he wants, depending on what he would have chosen in real life as well as what is logical to be interpreted in the play.

Beyond the backdrop, before the beginning of the play, and beyond the ending lies a definite social system that is as important to an appreciation of the play as is the action which takes place on the stage in the presence of the audience. This is again O’ Knell’s talent. It is the skill with which the dramatist has made his audience aware Of this larger significance of his theme that lends to O Knell’s drama Its rich, sympathetic tone.It is the social implication that makes his play have a life in the mind of the audience after it has left the theatre and scattered to the quiet of individual thought. My view of the ending is based solely on how I perceived both the characters, which is as follows: The poet from the beginning till the end seemed to be realistic as he spoke of all the things, either hopeful or not, he thought would append in their lives, basing his arguments on the experiences he had gathered from his life (discussed below in the ‘Psyche’ section).While, on the other hand, the businessman seemed quite into the ‘ideas’ of things but not the things itself. Through various events he made himself look like a worldly man, worrying about worldly things and not so much for humanity (discussed below in the ‘Psyche’ section). Looking at his attitude towards the dead child, he verbally expressed grief but what he’s doing along with it is expressing his constant desire for eating the biscuits, he found very abundant in the boat.

I mean, if he really cared about the woman or the dead child, he might have figured out any solution to reduce their misery or he wouldn’t have stood in the boat crying for his life when the poet had made him realize the trouble they could have caused to the other lives when he assumed the lifeboat was going to strike the iceberg. Multiple interpretations which could be drawn from this event are: The poet was indeed a humanist as he defined himself in the beginning. He stood there by his words, depicting the affinity between his actions and words ? the quality that the businessman lacked.He preferred to save others’ lives. This point of the play cleared away many confusions in the personalities by removing the cloud of fog, figuratively speaking. Also, this specific scenario depicted their personalities in general by putting light on the assumptions they had made behind the curtains of fog. Because this intelligent use of fog attempts to highlight the things that a human, in general, perceives of the reality when he’s blindfolded to see the things around; O’ Neil tried to point out the same fact with the help of these characters in his play.

It had left most of the things on their (the characters’) interpretations just like the play itself has offered to us, readers, during the read. What else we observe in the characters is the infirmity/strength in their beliefs. The businessman had weaker beliefs thus he believed the poet’s assumptions much more than the poet depended on his.

Nevertheless, the businessman still, knowing the right and wrong, chose whatever he felt easy for him, let alone the idea of right or wrong.When the poet made him aware of his unconscious attempt of putting others’ lives in danger, he still chose to run or ‘his’ life, neglecting the lives he might have drowned saving his. Here, the choices, in this crucial hour, made by the poet and businessman are also highlighted, helping to analyze their characters. The Psyche of the Poet and the Businessman The Businessman’s Psyche: Reading this play, one realizes how pragmatic, practical and self-centered the businessman is, considering the causes/reasons behind all his acts that he had expressed in the play.He cares too much about his reputation and image (1: he corrected his attire when the officer arrived; 2: when he blew his own Ron of his rank and expressed pity condescendingly at the poet’s living, particularly his occupation). As said earlier, he mostly lived in the ‘ideas’ of things, therefore, his concepts of reality and how the things functioned in reality were very weak in his perception, which eventually got weakened in front of the poet’s; and also, this might be one of the reasons behind his dependence on the poet’s assumptions in the end when they had become known to each other.

This infirmity caused him to learn from the stronger character–the poet, thus, there’s a slight strike of dynamic character seen in IM in between the play where he learns things from him (like, when he confessed in the end that the poet ‘has spoken the exact truth of the matter while he could’ve just remained silent and shrugged off his condescending comment).Nevertheless, this short-spanned dynamic attitude was so insignificant that one can’t say if he actually was dynamic or not, as in the end he goes back to his previous behavior of perceiving things (like when he spoke half of the truth, he could also have spoken the rest of it and proudly have confessed the lacking in his personality but because he felt sheepish in admitting that he was the one crying, he didn’t confess, upon which the poet smiled and decided to lose no energy over explaining himself to the officer, instead, remained with the dead).I’d rather call him flat but not static neither dynamic. Flat, because he remained 1 dimensional (not ‘from’ but) in the beginning and in the end, not throughout.

In the end, he still chooses to prefer saving his life from the humiliation of being revealed as the crying child which the officer had falsely assumed. He confessed the half-truth, thus, trying to save the poet’s as well as his image, nevertheless, not completely. The advantage that the businessman had was that, that owing to his weak roots of perceptions, he had more room for learning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

x

Hi!
I'm Gerard!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out