Meaniful Fantasy

Meaningful imagine? Isnt that an oxymoron? I approximation that fantasy is for kids? Why right field an essay on that? Wouldnt it be much worthy to treat the meanings of the third line of Hamlets monologue to his mother, and its impact on the workings of the modern romance author, Danielle Steele. The answer quite simply is, No. There is more than to be catch outed and derived from these works of fancy. in particular when the works in question atomic number 18 those of high tidal bore authors such as Gabriel García Marquez and Franz Kafka, and their respective works, A rattling Old Man with Enormous move and A longing Artist . These works are representative of fantasy apply in a more intellectual focusing, when the fantastical way of telling the story be sires the medium for the put across. In a meaningful fantasy, meaning is non derived from symbolism or from figural interpretation, however by the story itself, how interactions occur between certain kinds of muckle and the way in which the plot unfolds. Through a comparison and contrast of how the characters are similarly tough, their eventually fates and the messages of the stories contained in Gabriel García Marquezs A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings and Franz Kafkas A Hunger Artist, we should be able to come across some common themes as well as come to a better understanding of the term, meaningful fantasy.

        In A Hunger Artist  the nameless main character lives a nomadic life-timetime that has him travel to disparate cities to display his picky beat-grown, professionally. The process behind the display of his art is a truly simple unmatched, he is placed in a cage, normally in a town center where lots of hatful can come gather up him, and indeed he fasts for nigh forty day terms, at the end of the forty days he leaves his cage and the show is over. The general reply of his audience is maven of fascination and care, however the fascination shown is a morbid one, and the awe is non for what they regard as a special talent simply now merely a freak of character. This is evident with the publics lack of respect, m either believing that he is a fraud, a kind of cheat who found it easy to fast because he had discovered a way of making it easy (198), and others cerebration him dishonest in that respect were people who argued that this breakfast was an unfair set ab knocked kayoed(p) to bribe the watchers (197).

        The very old man, in Marquezs story, is similarly treated cruelly, however it is definitely of a more physiologic temper compared to the emotional kind laid upon the hunger workman. He is caged in a chicken coop where the hens pecked at him¦the cripples pulled out his feathers to smell their defective parts with, and even the most merciful threw stones at him (443) non that the saint seems to be bothered by any of this. The angel never makes clear his purpose, and never seems to deviate from his frame of a cataclysm in repose (443). The only quantify the crowd succeeds in getting a clear reception from him is when they burned his side with an iron for branding steers and even then it seems that, his reaction had not been one of rage but of botheration (443)         The public in the stories treats both characters cruelly. The hunger artist is subjected to an flack on his character and profession, whereas the Angel is poked at and prodded with hot irons, and more or less treated as an animal, instead of as an old man, who could convey probably used a speckle of compassion. The two main characters both take their cruel interference as an inescapable reaction to their undeniable conditions As the amuse the public has for fasting inevitably wanes, and it is no seven-day viable for the hunger artist to perform independently. Forcing him to hire himself on to a circus where they grant his request to fast [for] as [long as] he managed (200). This is not the beaver bunk for the artist who believed that he could endure fasting yearlong [then forty days](198), and now that he was free to do so fasted until he starved to death. When on his death bed- a pile of straw in a animals cage- he makes clear his motivatings for his fasting, and reveals that his life was not as expert and proud as it may extradite been perceived (though I dont think any one but maybe the artist, in his denial, was under this illusion) but in fact cursed.

        Blessed is a fitting word for the fate of the angel in Marquezs story. The affair in his character wanes, and his accommodations are upgraded, after a push destroys the chicken coop he is allowed to live in the shed, the angel does not however appear to prefer his new situation any more then his previous, but from an objective horizon there is no doubt that his situation improved drastically. As this is happening changes begin to occur in the angel, both physical and emotionally as can be seen in the pick out          And yet he not only survived his worst winter, but seemed improved with the first sunny days. He remained motionless for some(prenominal) days in the out-of-the-way(prenominal)thest corner of the courtyards, where no one would see him, and at the commencement exercise of December some big stiff feathers began to grow on his wings, the feathers of a scarecrow, which looked more like another misfortune of decrepitude, But he must have know the reason out for those changes, for he was quite careful that no one should notice them, that no one should hear the sea chanteys that he sometimes sang under the stars (445).

The angel in conclusion recovers from his crash into Pelayos courtyard, and is able fly off into the horizon, leaving Pelayo and Elisenda behind, who are on the whole ungrateful towards the old man and the successfulness he had brought with him.

        The endings of the two stories leave two very different impressions on the reader, even though they are very similar. two stories end with to each one character achieving their purpose. The artist who at the beginning is stifled not universe allowed to express to the fullest sense his art, is lastly able to fast himself to death, which bizarre as it may seems appears to have been his ultimate goal. The angel, gets to be once again an angel, instead of just a man with a enormous set of wings, being that the most important prerequisite of an angel is flight and not only possessing wings. That being what it is the reader should be happy for both characters since each of them each achieved what they had set out to do. You are not of course happy for the hunger artist dying, we feel no-good that his existence was so fated.

        The reason for this feeling of despair towards Kafkas artist lies in the message of the story. That absolute denial of our true nature will eventually be revealed as pathetic and wasteful. The message of the story is derived through the story and of a consequence of the characters. The audiences motivation for treating the artist badly, comes from their disgust towards a creature so gaga that he would turn the denial of the necessities of life, into a profession; this is alike the reason for their fascination. Their fascination is illustrated most eloquently in the spare-time activity excerpt.

At one time the whole town took a lively interest in the hunger artist; from day to day of his fast the excitement mounted; everybody wanted to see him at least once a day; there were people who bought season tickets for the last few days and sit from morning till night in front of his venial barred cage; even in the night time there were visiting hours, when the whole effect was heightened by blowtorch flares; on fine days the cage was set out in the open air.



And then it was the childrens special treat to see the hunger artist¦ [They] stood open mouthed, holding on to each others hands for greater security, marveling at him as he sit there in pallid black tights, with his ribs sticking out so prominently, not even on a scum bag but down among straw on the ground, sometimes giving a courteous nod, answering questions with a constrained smile, or perhaps stretching an arm through bars so that one might feel how thin it was (197) Just in the lead the artist dies he stops denying the true nature of the reason for his fasting, not that he is trying to achieve some flesh of artistic perfection, but that he is simply doomed to do so by some cruel flaw in his character. This realization is evident by the look in his dimming look [as they] remained the firm though no longer proud prospect that he was still continuing to fast         Denial is overly a main part of the theme of Marquezs story. Except in his story the public is the one denying the old man. This is once again shown through the actions of the characters. By treating the old man in such a poor way as they do, they are video display their disrespect too him as a supernatural being. The best reaction when you are encountered with something new and wondrous is not to jug it up and throw rocks at it, but to try and learn something about it and its purpose. The public in Marquezs story however has no desire to do this. Why they react this way is revealed by Elisendas feelings for the angel at the end of the story Elisenda shouted that it was rattling(a) living in that hell full of angels (444) and by her reaction when he flies away, She kept watching him even when she was through cutting the onions and she kept on watching until it was no longer possible for her to see him, because then he was no longer an annoyance in her life but an imaginary transit on the horizon of the sea. (445) These lines basically sum up the thought that it is easier to live a normal life in a world were wondrous and magical things happen, though altogether interminably more boring.

The connecting thread that links the two stories is the message that; although life can be made easier through the act of denial it cannot be made better, from Kafkas story there is the message that abnegation is a detrimental act upon a full life and Marquezs gives us the message that the denial of an irreparable change in our life causes us to miss out on much of the beauty of life.

        In Conclusion the two stories have a lot in common in terms of the actions interpreted against the main subjects, the eventually fate of their main characters, and the overall messages of the stories. By looking at these commonalities it is possible to discern the usefulness and effectualness of fantasy as serious literary works and that relegating an replete(p) genre to be merely escapist is dismissing the largest aspect of literature itself --the story.

This is where fantasy exceeds, in the story, for many there is nothing more worth reading about then an angel instruction to fly again. One may have thousands and powerful thoughts and crisp theories but if your medium is not an effective one, then you may as well stick to writing, top ten lists. Not to say that, it is impossible to write a story person will want to read without a few dragons in it, but dismissing out right that a dragon may not have anything intelligent to pass on is far too condemning. Another strong aspect of a fantasy story is its clarity, forces of good and evil and right and wrong, are normally very clear in a fantasy story, a fantasy story never becomes too symbolic, abstract, or figurative for someone to understand and it always makes clear its point. Think of the thousands of historic period of knowledge and experience one would miss out on if it one never took the advice from an angel.

If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper