What’s Eating Gilbert Grape is a memorable story of desire colliding with responsibility. Gilbert Grape must look after Arnie 24/7, but also stop himself from becoming like his father, with no hopes or needs. This fine line is sliced by his relationship with Betty Carver, who has her own problems or desire and responsibility conflicting, but repaired by his new relationship with Betty.

Gilbert Grape is a prime example of the conflict between desire and responsibility. His responsibilities include looking after Arnie to “keep him out of trouble” and to “keep up the repairs” of the Grape family home. After Gilbert becomes involved with Becky, he wants to spend a night with her watching the sundown but needs to bath Arnie. Gilbert attempts to teach Arnie to wash himself so that Gilbert can go to Becky, but this fails. Arnie spends a miserable night in the bath, because he is unable to understand Gilbert. Here, desire collides with responsibility and wins with bad consequences, because Gilbert does not yet know how to balance the two.

Gilbert attempts to keep everyone happy – having a love-less affair with Mrs. Carver and looking after the house. In this case, Gilbert’s attempts to keep Momma ignorant of the house’s state are successful but his repair jobs are unable to fix the problems. This leads to guilt, and eventually an implosion in which the house is destroyed, along with his previous life.

Mrs. Carver has responsibilities to her family, but she ignores them in order to fulfill her desire of Gilbert. Whenever Gilbert appears, she tells her children to go outside and “play”. By ignoring her responsibilities, Mrs. Carver creates tension in her family home and eventually this is reflected in Mr. Carver’s heart attack. However her desires ultimately lose to her responsibilities because Gilbert stops obeying her orders.

Becky is the catalyst of change that provides a new outlook on life for Gilbert. She asks Gilbert what he wants, but he replies with all the things his responsibilities to his family require of him: “for Momma to go to aerobics classes, for Amy to have a new job.” When she asks “What do you want, just for you?” he replies “I want to be a good person.” This is a major turning point in the film. After this, Gilbert starting thinking of his own wellbeing more, but still fulfils his responsibilities. At the very end of the film, a year after Arnie’s fateful 18th birthday party, Gilbert takes Arnie (symbolizing his responsibilities) and joins Becky and her Grandmother in their travels around the world (fulfilling his desire). The conflict between desires and responsibility finally ends and a peace is brought to Gilbert’s world.

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape is a film presenting desire colliding with responsibility with different results. Gilbert himself is the main target of this collision as well as Betty Carver.

Another year 11 english essay.

Racism is an underlying force in the novel Montana 1948, by Larry Watson. It is an attitude that motivates people, by which they justify their actions. Certain people, such as Julian, Frank and Wes, are very racist. So is the general community of Montana.

In the community of Montana, racism is blatantly obvious. Daisy McAuley , as an example of the local women, refers to the Indian women as “squaws.” This is a kind of racist terminology, which includes terms such as “black gin”, “nigger”, “redskin”, implying racial inferiority. Daisy knows that Frank Hayden has raped Indian women, but she doesn’t much care. Because the community is prejudiced against the Indians, people ignore what is going on between Frank and the women. The general feeling is that the Indians are ignorant , so how could they know what a doctor is supposed to do when examining them? Bentrock is “really in 1948 still a frontier town in many respects.” In other words, the European invaders have pushed the indigenous landowners into the reservations – people generally accept that this is the way things should be.

Racism is shown as a function of ignorance and misunderstanding, Julian Hayden providing a prime example. His two story “dude ranch” is a symbol of his opinions. He believes that he is more clever than the Indians just because he is white. The Europeans have conquered the West because of their brute force and guns, not necessarily because of their knowledge or intelligence! This does not stop Julian’s racist way of thinking. He refers to the Sioux as “red meat” and denigrates them – ultimately, just objects to be used by his son, Frank. Details used by the author to highlight Julian’s boorish, crude nature include his references to bodily functions and his frequent use of foul language.
The Hayden sons represent two different degrees of racism as the powerful family ‘progresses’. The younger generation has the advantages of education and wealth, causing them to modify their expressions of racism. Frank, the villain, is an opportunist, using the prejudice of the community to support his own evil ends. He abuses his position of trust as a doctor. He knows that the community will take his word rather than an Indian woman’s. Frank relies on the bias in the legal system (institutionalised racism) to save his slimy white arse.

Wes “probably thought he was free of prejudice (against Indians)”. However, the reader notices his more subtle expressions of prejudice. He prevents David from wearing a gift of moccasins, because he believes that they would make his son “as flat-footed and lazy as an Indian.” David knows that his father believes that Indians “with only a few exceptions were ignorant, lazy, superstitious, and irresponsible.” Wes respects Ollie Young Bear, “an example of what an Indian could be.” …in this, Larry Watson nicely observes how the exception can be made to prove the rule. Watson shows the unfairness of the education system towards Ronnie Tall Bear who seems to be equally capable as Ollie, because Ronnie is judged to be “good enough for the army, but not for college”.

Gloria and Gail, the wives of the Hayden sons, are the only two white people in the novel free from prejudice against indigenous people. This may have been because they come from different states and have moved into Montana. David shares his mother’s ideals, seeing only Right and Wrong, not European and Indian. Through these characters, and also through Marie Little Soldier and Ronnie Tall Bear, the novel presents images of hope, moving forward towards social justice.

The novel shows a community that is changing and people in conflict over the issue of racism. The reader, like David Hayden, becomes sceptical of human nature, history and the law, because the novel has dramatised racism in many forms.

Year 11 english essay

The young male characters in Minimum of Two are not a homogeneous group in their life experiences or in the ways in which they deal with society. Most of them however, are characterized by a sensitivity that makes them very aware of the world around them and the demands of that world. They struggle, with varying degrees of success with the changing expectations that Australian society places on men. In the series of stories in which he appears, Jerra learns to cope with a number of issues, including a lack of job satisfaction and being a house husband. He also has to grow into an adult relationship with his parents and to cope with becoming a parent himself. Madigan tries to maturely cope with the rape of his wife, but descends into an almost primeval revenge response to the situation. Hart finds his sensitivity and heightened perception make him venerable to the trials of life and he relies strongly on good friendship to cope. None of these male characters find their struggles easy.

Winton depicts society’s expectation that young men have a job through Jerra. Jerra, in Forest Winter has a job sawing wood, which he thinks is bitter work. By reading further stories about Jerra, the reader realizes that Jerra had once wanted to pay for his family his music. However, society forces Jerra to give up his dreams and work at a menial, boring day job because musically, and also for his father, he “wasn’t good enough.” Jerra struggles to come to terms with his role as a house husband in The Strong One. He feels ill-equipped to deal with “looking after a baby.” As Jerra grows into adulthood, he becomes surer of himself and has an affair in More, which his wife Rachel is aware of but does not like mentioning. Jerra was too young to have a child, but in having one he becomes older, more hardened to the knocks and blows of life. His relationship with his parents is strengthened by Rachel’s trust in them, but also the nearness of death in the shape of his father.

Hart, in Holding works as a nurse, but is unable to deal with the pressures involved in maintaining a professional attitude towards his patients. He becomes emotionally involved with the Pusher trying to “break into that ten year old before the case conference at the end of the week.” Hart doesn’t want other people classifying the boy as hopeless, a lost cause, because in the Pusher he sees something of himself. Hart is “not coping” with his life, desperate to change but unable to. Only his relationship with Clive and Jan holds him together.

In the title story of Minimum of Two, Madigan struggles to come to terms with his wife’s rape, but is unable to maturely deal with the situation. He eventually ends up murdering Fred Blakey in revenge, but this does not make things “right and whole” again with Greta. Instead his actions repel her from him, making it hard for him to live his life. If Madigan had considered further, or had been more experienced he would not have forced the truth from his wife and become a murderer.

All of the young male characters face difficult issues in their lives. They are a diverse group, offering many different responses to the reader. Some successfully come to terms with their situations, while others despair and either retreat from life or react with anger and frustration. Although they have varying degrees of success, they are all sensitive to the world around them and struggle with the changing expectations of Australian society.

Year 11 English essay

What is a monster? According to Bulfinch[1] monsters are terrible beings of unnatural structure and proportions, strength and ferocity, which challenge men. Monsters exist in order to give heroes something to contest, something to bring meaning into their otherwise deficient lives. Although the main function of monsters often is to be killed, they frequently have other important roles to play.

‘Monster’ is a subjective concept. For Heracles, the Cretan Bull is a monster to be captured, furthering Heracles’ heroic status (his seventh task). Contrastingly, for Queen Pasiphae, the bull is an object of sexual desire which fathers the Minotaur[2]. Theseus finally kills the bull[3]. Bringing new monsters, such as the Minotaur, into the world, gives heroes an everlasting stream of phenomena to help or hinder them in their heroic quests. In effect, the monster’s capture or death makes the hero.

Monsters are what make a myth, a myth. Monsters promote the storyline, holding the audience’ interest; without them the myth would become simply a dry history. Even Herodotus’ legendary Histories[4] involves the appearance of mythological monsters which illustrate the events.

Heracles’ labours[5] would hardly exist without monsters to kill or capture. It is almost as if monsters and heroes are interdependent, for without monsters, heroes would be less heroic. This had a huge impact on the ancient community, for heroes represented the step between common people and the gods. Heroes provided this important link because they had direct contact with the divine. In the era when the myths were first told, they often related spiritual insight and religious doctrine, which took the place of scientific explanations for unusual occurrences. D. S. Lamb describes how monstrous births and the study of embryology bring to light combinations of organic forms that resemble monsters – the mythology of evolution[6].

Monsters and myth were important in explaining everyday events. Monsters such as the Hydra may have been related to the appearance of two-headed cattle and sheep, and so justified the Greeks’ killing the troublesome animals. The same might have applied to the Cretan Bull for example: this raging monster could be compared to an ordinary bull that had taken to charging shepherds. Ordinary men in such circumstances could raise their own status by emulating the heroes of the old tales.

It could even be argued that some gods are monsters. When performing dishonourable deeds, such as impregnating mortal women, they often take the shape of beasts. This shape-shifting nature, often coupled with crafty deception of the gods’ own spouses (Zeus’ unfaithfulness), causes much harm to the mortals it involves. If this line of thought is continued, it may be concluded that some women have monstrous qualities, tricking men and causing havoc in Greek society. This especially applies to Medea, to whom Jason refers as an ‘unclean, child-murdering monster’[7]. She uproots the basis of Greek civilization, bringing her barbarous ideas from Colchis. She destroys a king and his daughter, as well as her own children[8]. Medea is not killed however, even though her deeds are monstrous[9]. Her end is triumphant as she is borne aloft into the Heavens[10]. Monsters, like gods, were held in awe.

A deep distrust or fear of the feminine principle finds similar expression in Scylla, a once beautiful maiden who is changed into a six-headed monster by the witch Circe. Homer describes Scylla:

“yelping hideously; her voice is no deeper than a young puppy’s but she herself is a fearsome monster… She has twelve feet all dangling down, six long necks with a grisly head on each of them, and in each head a triple row of crowded and close-set teeth, fraught with black death.”^[11]

She hides from the world in a cave high up on a cliff, and seizes 6 crew members from every vessel in reach[12]. Her attempts at this are aided by Charybdis, a treacherous whirlpool directly opposite from Scylla[13]. Charybdis distracts Odysseus and his crew from watching for Scylla, and he looses his six best men to the monster[14]. The myth of Scylla and Charybdis would have helped the Greeks to reconcile themselves with why so many seamen did not return from their travels. It also celebrated the fearlessness of the sailors traversing the waters.

An entire myth was created to explain Scylla’s origins[15]. Rather than springing from nowhere to be killed, Scylla has her own history, which gives storytellers more to work with. The creation of Scylla, out of the jealousy of Circe, is just as important as her death[16].

A complete contrast to these ugly, vicious monsters is Pegasus. Although Pegasus is born of Medusa, he is tamed by Athene and does not display any negative qualities or ill-will towards humans[17]. Due to his unnatural state (a flying horse), he is a monster. But rather than being killed, this beautiful creature assists Bellerophon to slay the Chimaera[18].

Sirens, lovely sea-nymphs, are part of the troubles encountered by Odysseus on his long journey home. Forewarned by the witch Circe, Odysseus fills the ears of his seamen with wax so that they cannot hear the Sirens’ wonderful, terrible songs[19]. The Sirens’ songs charm seamen to throw themselves into the surf or steer their ships towards the treacherous rocks to reach them[20]. The sirens, in their beauty, have a monstrous power. Indirectly they are killed by a hero when Odysseus sails past, unmoved by their song.

“And [Odysseus] shall slay the triple daughters…self-hurled from the cliff’s top they dive with their wings into the Tyrrhenian Sea, where the bitter thread spun by the Fates shall draw them.”^[21]

Without the Sirens, and other monsters, Homer’s poem would lose much of its interest for the listener. The various monsters, although adapted from previous stories, give the writer flexibility to use imagination. The Odyssey and Iliad would be dry tales if they explored the war and subsequent homeward journeys with only human participants.

“For his second labour Herakles was instructed to slay the Lernaian Hydra…. [which used to] raid flocks and ruin the land. The Hydra was of enormous size, with eight mortal heads, and a ninth one in the middle that was immortal… he was unable to help matters by striking her with his club, for as soon as one head was pounded off two others would grow in its place. Then a giant crab came along to help the Hydra… Iolaos made some torches… and, by using these to burn the buddings of the heads, he kept them from growing… Herakles lopped off the immortal head… He cut up the Hydra’s body and dipped his arrows in its venom.”^[22]

A giant crab, made monstrous by its unnatural size, serves to distract Heracles so that the Hydra might kill him. However, this just makes Heracles more determined, and he asks his cousin to help him. The interplay between the Hydra and the crab allows the writer to show the importance of teamwork, both by the monsters and by Heracles and Iolaos. This drama exerts a fascination over the audience, because it is so exotic and frightening. There is also a suggestion of the scientific and medical – the primitive ideas of cauterization and venom collection. The Hydra’s venom, like the Lion’s skin, provides a linking device within the narrative.

“First he [Herakles] was assigned to fetch the skin of the Nemeian Lion, an invulnerable animal sired by Typhon . . . He then went to Nemea, found the lion, and shot it first with arrows. But when he knew for sure it was invulnerable, he picked up his club and started after it…He encircled its neck with his arm, and by squeezing choked it to death.”^[23]

Heracles then skins the monster to make a lion-skin cape, which he proceeds to wear in his future exploits. The lion skin allows Heracles to emerge unscathed from other trials.

Centaurs (horse/humans) are a monster-like combination, yet they have redeeming traits. Perhaps the reason Centaurs are not represented entirely as evil monsters is because of their human physiology[24]. Further, for the ancients horses were very important, intelligent and useful so the joining of one with a human was not deemed degrading[25]. Like humans, Centaurs have vices. Harris and Platzner[26] suggest that Heracles himself resembles a centaur, divided as to when violence is appropriate or not. The centaurs embody both wisdom (in the form of Chiron) and bestiality (the Battle of the Lipithae and Centaurs) [27].

Chiron is instructed by Apollo and Diana in the skills of hunting, medicine, music, and the art of prophecy[28]. He is referred to as “Kheiron, most righteous of the Kentauroi.”^[29] Many Greek heroes are his students, including Aesculapius, who, although human, follows in the footsteps of Chiron, becoming a renowned physician – able to restore the dead to life[30]. Chiron’s tragic death occurs at the hands of Heracles, who mistakenly shoots him with an arrow coated in Hydra-poison.

“you, immortal now… will long to die when you are tortured by the serpent’s blood… saved from immortality, the gods shall put you in death’s power, and the three Goddesses shall unloose your threads of fate.” ^[31]

Eventually Chiron gives up his immortality to release Prometheus from torture. Befitting his background as a ‘monster’, Chiron is transformed merely into a constellation, whereas the hero Heracles will be elevated to divine status[32].

It was common for mythology to convert monsters into constellations after their deaths. This assisted navigation by the stars and explained the various shapes formed. If monsters existed only to be killed, they would just die, not remain in the skies to remind the people about heroes’ exploits! Chiron didn’t die in vain; it was for a noble cause.

Centaurs were a whole race of mythical creatures. Some like Chiron followed noble causes; others indulged in villainous exploits. Centaurs were often guests at human gatherings, most notably the marriage of Pirithous with Hippodamia.

“For Eurytus, the fiercest of the fierce Centauri, was fired by wine and by the sight of that fair girl, and drink was in command, doubled by lust. Tables were overturned, the banquet in confusion, and the bride, held by her hair, was seized and carried off.”^[33]

Other Centaurs “seize[d] what girl each would or could”[34]. The race of Centaurs is almost wiped out in the ensuing “Battle of the Lapithae and Centaurs”[35]. It completes the study of a culture within a complex fantasy world. Certainly many centaurs are killed but in no way is that their reason for existence.

Seemingly a simpler matter, the Stymphalian Birds are man-eating birds which haunt Lake Stymphalis in Arkadia, and Heracles uses his ingenuity to kill them^[36]. Hunting down a flock of ordinary pigeons that were merely destroying farmers’ crops, would have done nothing for a hero’s – or storyteller’s – status, whereas man-eating birds make a thrilling tale of adventure. The Thracian horses too are described as man-eating[37]. Heracles is required to tame these horses, thus freeing the countryside from their terrifying influence. It is not necessary to kill the horses, in fact it would be detrimental if Heracles did, because they are valuable stock (the ancestors of Alexander the Great’s own steed)[38]. Heracles is protecting the people, as well as proving his courage and elevating his notoriety. These are useful tasks that benefit society, made compelling by the monsters concerned. Silk[39] states that Heracles is a civilizer, founding cities, springs and festivals.

Another lion monster, the Sphinx, is portrayed in Sophocles’ “Oedipus Rex”, a very subtle examination of the human psyche. The city of Thebes is afflicted by the Sphinx, which halts the progress of all travelers, who have to answer a riddle to save their lives[40]. Oedipus answers the riddle, the Sphinx allows him to pass and Oedipus refrains from killing her[41]. However, the Sphinx is so humiliated at the solving of the riddle that she throws herself off her rock and perishes. In gratitude the citizens of Thebes give Oedipus their queen in marriage[42]. The Sphinx has existed to prevent Oedipus from passing into the city and fulfilling the dreadful prophesy of his fate. There is profound irony in the idea that Oedipus’ cleverness indirectly causes the Sphinx’ death, which brings him an inevitable punishment worse than death.

Ultimately, monsters contribute to mythology in many ways; they certainly do not exist only to be killed, although their deaths are usually meaningful. Monsters carry spiritual, social and scientific significance specific to each text. They are essential to myth as an art form, central to ancient culture. Monsters enable authors of many genres, oral, written and performed, to exercise the imagination, creating intriguing creatures and sometimes complex situations, images of beauty or fascination that have often become iconic. Heroes would scarcely exist without monsters to challenge, yet monsters might well exist without heroes to kill them.

References

Bulfinch, Thomas, “Bulfinch’s Mythology: The Age of Fable” (1855), http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/bulf/index.htm

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 15. 3 – 4, 4. 77. 1 (trans. Oldfather), http://www.theoi.com/Text/DiodorusSiculus4A.html

Euripides, Medea (trans. Kovacs), http://www.theoi.com/Text/EuripidesMedea.html/

Harris S L & Platzner G. Classical Mythology: Images and Insights (4^th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Herodotus, Histories (trans. Godley), http://www.theoi.com/

Homer, Iliad 11. 831 – 832 ff (trans. Lattimore), http://www.theoi.com/Text/HomerIliad11.html

Homer, Odyssey 12. 39 ff, 12. 54 ff, 12. 210 – 259 (trans. Shewring), www.theoi.com/Text/HomerOdyssey12.html

Lamb, D. S. “Mythical Monsters”, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 2, No. 2, (Apr. – Jun., 1900): 277-291, http://www.jstor.org/stable/659242

Lycophron, Alexandra 712 ff (trans. Mair), www.theoi.com/Text/LycophronAlexandra.html

Nonnus, Dionysiaca 2. 10 ff (trans. Rouse), www.theoi.com/Text/NonnusDionysiaca1.html

Ovid, Metamorphoses 2. 649 ff, 7. 433 ff, 12. 210 ff, 13 .900 – 14. 74 (trans. Melville), www.theoi.com/Text/OvidMetamorphoses1.html

Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 4. 1 (trans. Jones), www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias2C.html

Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 30 – 33, 74 – 80, 92 (trans. Aldrich), http://www.theoi.com/

Silk, M S, “Heracles and Greek Tragedy” (1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/642295

Euripides could be read superficially as a “realist”, but he frequently presents fragmented worlds described in very formal language. He usually opens his plays with a non-naturalistic prologue in the form of a monologue, then closes them with a detached coda, often by the appearance of a deity. Like Aeschylus, Euripides is innovative, often adapting traditional stories in order to create reoccurring dramatic situations which often focus on female characters.

Aeschylus is described as the greatest innovator and the most imaginative of the Greek Dramatists. In his early works Aeschylus uses two leading actors, as the main interaction of the play is between character and chorus, not from the contact between character and character. The central interest of the play, established by the chorus, is therefore in situations and a build up of tension leading towards a climax. He introduces a third actor to his later plays as a kind of alternative chorus, enabling the main characters to interact. Aeschylus’ lyric style is flexible, contains patterns of language and is usually easier to understand than that of Sophocles. The politics and intricacies of community life are intrinsically linked into Aeschylus’ works.

Sophocles is sometimes described as having a ‘middling’ style. His rich, formal language, following highly structured rules, can be esoteric. Yet he uses it with tact and subtlety, maintaining the pulse of the verse – hardly an average playwright. He also specialises in enacted metaphor and often achieves the powerful effects of the eerie and uncanny. Sophocles’ theatricality is expressed through significant objects and events that promote a connection between gods and men in the form of dreams, oracles and omens.

It can be appreciated that each of these writers has developed a unique style for dramatising the diverse myths of their time.

References

Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, ed. Oxford Classical Mythology Dictionary. 2003.