In works of literature, authors often develop their characters’ weaknesses and strengths separately, however, there is often a relationship between the two, with one being the cause of the other. This is the case in Arthur Miller’s play A View from the Bridge and Peter Shaffer’s Equus. Set in the mid-1950’s and 1970’s respectively, the plays explore the development of their extremely different main characters, as well as that of their similar Greek chorus-style narrators. Through Miller’s use of a Greek tragic hero, Shaffer’s use of the concept of worship and both authors’ use of staging to control time, the authors portray their characters’ strengths and weaknesses, and how one leads to the other over time.

In his play, Miller puts in place a Greek tragic hero as his main character, Eddie, with the conventions of such a hero in order to highlight his strengths, and how they lead to his tragically inevitable weaknesses, and subsequent death. As a conventional tragic hero, Eddie has a Hubris; his excessive sense of honour. This is greatly due to the context in which the story takes place, as the Italian community of Red Hook, Brooklyn has a strong sense of community and honour. This can be seen in everyone’s vivid memory of the “Vinny Bolzano” story or even when Eddie says ‘all the law is not in a book’, hinting at the unspoken law that exists within his community. Due to this context, Eddie’s Hubris is created and maintained. This excessive honour is seen as a strength in Red Hook, and Eddie is seen as an honourable man; however this strength develops into a weakness when Miller introduces another convention of the Greek tragic hero; his hamartia. Eddie’s tragic flaw, being his unauthorized feelings for Catherine, is what causes his honourable nature to turn. This flaw, being a clear weakness, is what causes him to call immigration about Marco and Rodolpho, seeing it as the only solution to stop Catherine from marrying Rodolpho, to soothe his jealousy. This transition from positively perceived Hubris to a Hamartia, a weakness by definition, shows a tightly-knit relationship between Eddie’s strengths and weaknesses, which ultimately lead to his death when he attempts to retrieve his ‘name’ and make up for his weakness.

In Equus, however, the relationship between strength and weakness is seen in the depiction of worship throughout the play. On the contrary to Miller’s play, Shaffer’s presents a weakness first, that then develops into a strength. Shaffer does this by first introducing the consequences of Alan’s worship, before revealing what it is or how it could be seen as a strength. By stating that Alan poked the eyes of six horses with  a pick, and later going through the psychiatric analysis and revealing it was due to his Equus worship, Shaffer clearly introduces this worship as a weakness, especially at the time, when in the United Kingdom responses to psychiatry were mixed. He emphasizes this through secondary characters, such as Dalton, repeating Alan is a ‘loon’ and that he ‘belongs in prison. Not in a hospital at the tax-payers’ expense,’ clearly representing the negative, anti-NHS views on psychiatry at the time. However, as Dysart’s analysis of Alan continues, in addition to his personal reflections, and the re-enacted parts of Alan’s past, Dysart perceives Alan’s Equus worship as a strength. This is seen when, in his monologues, Dysart compares Alan’s worship to his own passion for Ancient Greece, and brings attention to the fact that at least Alan practises his worship, by ‘living’ one night every week, while he does nothing. From this, develops the idea that it is better to have something to worship, even if there are bad consequences, than to not worship at all. This is illustrated through Frank, an atheist, who ends up embarrassed in a theatre, watching adult movies. The final affirmation of Alan’s worship being converted into a strength is found in Dysart’s reluctance to continue treating Alan, to make him ‘Normal’, due to the knowledge that this will destroy his religious worship of Equus, and the uncertainty that having no faith is, in fact, ‘Normal’.

What both Shaffer and Miller’s plays have in common is their unique staging that controls time, in contrasting ways, and enables the audience to follow a progression in the relationship between the strengths and the weaknesses they present. Miller’s play, staged on a claustrophobic set, where ‘the front is skeletal entirely’, quite literally opens up the flat of an average man, and allows the audience to look into his life. This set does not change over time, allowing all focus to be on the progression of events. From the very beginning, a telephone box is on stage, but never mentioned. This creates an effect of foreshadowing, as audience members know it is there for a reason, and will be used. In reality, this telephone box becomes the symbolic representation of the shift between Eddie’s strength and weakness, as it begins to ‘glow’ when Eddie decides to call Immigration. In complete contrast to this static set, Equus’s staging is highly unique in many ways, but mostly due to the way the circle around the main square stage is used to represent time. When actions from the past are acted, the actors are often walking around the circle, almost creating a different set for actions in the past, and all others take place in the centre square. This staging technique is what allows the audience to follow the psychiatric analysis of Alan effectively, and ultimately to visualize what his weakness, his worship, was ignited by, and how, in the present, Dysart realizes it is a strength.

Whether weaknesses lead to strengths or strengths cause weaknesses, both A View from the Bridge and Equus demonstrate a significant relationship between the two. What can be said on this relationship is that it heavily relies on the perception of outsiders on the qualities in question. This is why only Dysart is able to see strength in Alan’s worship, or why Eddie continues to fight, refusing to ‘settle for half’. It is sure that the relationship between strength and weakness is what shapes these characters into what they are, much like it is what shapes people everywhere on a daily basis.

This essay is sharply focused on the question, developing a thread of an argument throughout and showing sensitive interpretation of both works. Organisationally it is strong and consistent. There is clear focus on literary features, evolution of the genre and intertextuality, and both in terms of structure and ideas it is genuinely comparative.

A: 9

B: 9

C: 5

D: 4

In works of art, such as literature, tension is an embedded necessity but only to assist the author in elevating the plot structure and highlighting the overriding message; it functions as a means to an end. In F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby and Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things, tension can be described as any technique, in plot structure, word choice or characterisation, to build action leading up to a climax that is significant thematically. In both novels, narrative structure does not flow chronologically, ensuring that the reader is aware of any future failures. Although significantly more developed in the spiralling of The God of Small Things, both are laden with repetition of fragments of phrases, pessimistic symbols, or motifs which can contribute to the layering of tension. Particularly in these novels, the theme reflects a failure of society at large, either of oppressive societal rules or a foolish period of empty extravagance; both require a climax to finally reveal this to characters and the reader. Finally, this inevitable collapse, propelled by tension, is evident significantly in The Great Gatsby through characterization of Daisy, and even Gatsby, through a further mechanism of foreshadowing.

The shifts in time and varied narrative of both novels, instead of negating tension by subtly revealing future events, builds it as each subsequent mention raises the reader's interest. Nick Carraway, the first-person narrator of The Great Gatsby, presents the novel as a record of 'his time back East'. The negative tone is established by his expression that the world should 'stand to attention'; this motif of moral order builds up until later in the novel. Following the climax of Gatsby's tragic death, Nick's ultimate judgement of immorality is obvious as no one attends Gatsby's funeral, in spite of the hundreds of people who attended his parties. More intriguing is the first person reference to Gatsby, that '[he] turned out alright in the end'. By starting with Nick's reflections, the reader pays special attention to the progress and character development of Gatsby. To a much greater extent, Arundhati Roy exploits shifts in time to increase tension. Although the majority of plot action occurs in the late 1960s, the future consequences these actions reaped is revealed through descriptions of the twins, Estha and Rahel, and other assorted figures in Ayemenem in the 1990s. Narration shifts seamlessly from descriptions of a present day Estha, mute and possibly insane at 31, to discussion of his mother's death at 31: 'a viable, die-able age'. Like in The Great Gatsby, the melancholic tone of phrases like 'his head cracked open like a secret', we are between different time frames, enticing the reader's attention to what must be a tragic result.

Roy and Fitzgerald both utilise the chronological shifts mentioned to consistently reinforce specific symbols or motifs seemingly resonant of some future tragedy. 'Pappachi's Moth' is depicted by Roy as a quirky family anecdote, but it becomes a symbol for any pain or disappointment felt by the twins. Preceding Estha's disastrous naming of Velutha as the killer of their cousin, Sophie Mol, Rahel sense the 'flutter' of the moth's wings on her heart. In The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway attempts to fulfil his promise of being 'rather literary' by an extended description of 'the valley of the ashes' at the beginning of chapter 2. In a dystopian manner, the stretch of road between West Egg and New York is labelled as 'grey', filled with 'ash-grey men' and capable of observing any unjust act from the eyes of judgement. This metaphor-laden setting must hold some significance to the story and indeed the prophecy of immorality is upheld - it is the future setting of the accidental murder of Myrtle. The most omnipresent motif in The Great Gatsby is the party; Nick mentions three in the first half of the novel. Each reflect the inane extravagance of the 1920's, as well as its superficiality - people swan around pretending to know each other and Nick wastes two pages listing names. This motif makes the reader aware that at some point the futile extravagance must reach its end, consistently building tension in the meantime. The reader is left to wonder if it will be a quick end, such as Tom rapidly breaking Myrtle's nose, or the dissipation at a party leaving Gatsby alone and friendless.

Roy, like Fitzgerald, refers back to a theme that hinges on expectant tension. The oppressive 'Love Laws', ruining lives as grand 'agents of history', are broken throughout the novel, indicating there must be fateful consequences. Roy introduces early on the importance of historical relativity, and the subsequent 'smallness' of the individual attempting to confront this. This scene, using brutal, violent imagery, of Velutha being practically beaten to death, breaks the tension after it becomes clear that Velutha and Ammu have had an affair, disobeying the hierarchical class structure. Like Gatsby meeting his end for his adherence and faith in the materialistic and worthless American Dream, Velutha faces the consequences of his actions. This parallels the other climax of Sophie Mol's drowning, clarifying the repetition of descriptions of the river and the pathetic fallacy of increasing rain, while highlighting the overriding power of 'history' or fate.

Characters, like Roy's oppressive 'Love Laws', are willed to be broken in both novels. Daisy's introduction in The Great Gatsby includes her feebly lamenting that 'the best thing a girl can be in this world is a beautiful little fool'. Additionally, Gatsby is introduced in a shroud of notorious mystery, reflecting society's mistrust of new money. Both introductions serve to build the reader's interest as to whether they fulfil their first introductions. Characterization on a more general scale builds tension at the beginning of The God of Small Things. The police are ironically drawn as corrupt, inefficient and judgemental, below a poster highlighting justice and professionalism. Like how the reader is aware of Sophie Mol's death from the start, this unkind characterisation only peaks interest concerning the actions of the police and the role they play in the unfolding tragedy. The backwards characterization of Baby Kochamma serves the same end. The future scene of her alone but for her subservient cleaner is only fully understandable at the end of the novel, when it is clear that she was a major stimulus in Velutha's death, as well as Ammu's destructive nature.

The necessity for shifts in chronological narrative in both novels only becomes clear when the effects of tension are analysed. Through repetition, of either symbols of message-driven motifs, the reader is pre-warned of future tragedies and their thematic importance. Pappachi's moth, for example, evolves from pointless addition to a key indicator of Rahel's sadness and the tragedy of Velutha's subsequent death. Furthermore, both themes rely on sustaining a dangerous and unjust status quo, until the climax when the party must end. Characterization almost acts as foreshadowing, hinting at the negative condition of the future. Ultimately, tension is used by Fitzgerald and Roy to complement their messages, as most works of art must. By enticing the reader's interest and increasing importance of future events, a novel ceases to be a plot-based story and instead becomes a deeper reflection of life.

This essay deals well with the challenges of the statement question. The student rightly defines the key terms and sets the framework of the response in the introduction. Organisationally, they have opted for the more difficult 'both works in each paragraph' structure with great effect, and the use of expert transitions ensures that the argument follows a clear thread throughout. This essay is extremely concise and precise, employing hugely detailed evidence, reference and consideration of features of the literature and evolution of the genre's style. In short, it is an excellent essay.

A: 10

B: 10

C: 5

D: 5