Timothy Findleys the Wars and Shakespeares King Lear - Book Report/Review Example

Shakespeare and Timothy Findley used animal imagery in their novels in order to intensify the similarities and differences that humans share with animals. Humans are not as dissimilar with animals as often believed or displayed. The two novels both show the characters of animals that are mostly humanlike or by featuring characteristics that are somehow connected to animals. In Timothy Findley's novel however, it is obvious that as a writer he put animals in a higher pedestal; much to say, as something be that are equal if not better than humans. It seems that from how he portrays the affiliation of his main character Robert with the animals is covered of reverend, respect and awe. The novel took off as Robert finds himself to be enlisted in the War. In his time in war, he has encountered different animals that seem to warn him about dangers. On the early part of the story Robert was portrayed as someone who was quite skeptic about the purpose of the war. Robert Yes , Rowena Will you stay with me forever Yes Rowena. Can the rabbits stay forever, too Yes Rowena. This was forever. Now the rabbits had to be killed. (pg.22) This scenario was what have mainly trigger Robert into coming to War or becoming a soldier, his sister Rowena had died and he would like to leave all of her memory behind, nonetheless, it seems that he was always hunted by her memories. These memories are the same memories that he associate with animals. Robert was always curios about how animals behaved. He often found comfort in the ways of living made by animals than the ways of man. In a prairie, he saw a coyote and followed it up until the river bank. There Robert had realized the differences between man and animals lies on the hunger of man to dominate everything beyond him. According to his observation, animals do not destroy entirely or live their enemies devastated. Animals do not try to manipulate other beings and do not use others to pursue a certain end. Man on the other hand is well known to display this character. When they try to dominate others they do so with brisk force and destruction. According to Robert animals just take what they need but they do not take and devastate anything more than what they actually need. On another instance Robert was seemingly directed by the omens that are shown by different kinds of birds. This somehow shows that animals does not want to harm humans and are actually friendly creatures. It also portrays the way humans disregard other creatures and their importance. Towards the end of the novel, the main character had a realization concerning the fact that human beings are the cause of their own sufferings and misfortunes. To add, they also cause misfortunes and harm to other beings such as plants and animals. At the end, Robert died while trying to protect a group of horse in a stable. They died from fire. Unfortunately Robert's life and the life of the horses that he protects both died because of his fellow human's cruelty. The novel shows the close connection as displayed by Robert with other animals. Somehow, it could be reflected that the author is trying to show the similarity between the animals and their human counterparts along with the differences between them. The novel contradicts the common notion regarding animal behavior, while animals are often seen as wild and ferocious, the novel tries to bring out the kind character or the good character of animals. Upon reading the novel, one could depict that what bad attributes man gives to animals are actually the same attributes that man possess. As far as being human is concern, there are several instances where one would find himself hating to be dominated by other people, what more by other animals. Humans are proud about their capacity to reason and to dictate their surroundings. The earth is now dominated with several manmade objects that are mostly unnatural. In the story The Wars, Findley have been successful in demonstrating how humans sought to conquer every place they foot on. In the process wherein Robert realized the goodness of animals, he has also seen the reality of that man is not as good as he deemed he is. This rudeness of man could also be reflected upon Shakespeare used of personification and analogy by comparing the real characters with animals. This gives the story more power and clearer highlight. King Lear is a classical novel by Sir William Shakespeare that tries to give an overview on how power and greed could change the character of a person. It also portrays how things are not what they seem to be. In a deeper portrayal it also shows how the experience could change a person most specifically hard or worst experience. Such is the scenario upon the life of King Lear who has been left with nothing when he succumbs to the flattery and deceit by two of his greedy daughters. Being blinded by seemingly perfect flattery, the king disowns one of his daughters even though she had been his most favorite. The simple reason for this is the fact that the daughter could not afford to offer lies of flattery just to have a portion of his father's wealth. The whole story revolves around the fact that the child whom the father disowned had been the only child who genuinely loves him as a father. At the end, it is this daughter with whom he found the love and care that he needed and yearned. Nonetheless, the tragic part was that it was already too late since her daughter was executed by her own sister's orders. The role of animals in the story was trivial because it was through the constant use of animal imagery that Shakespeare had been able to highlight the characteristic of each character. The Kite was held in comparison with the lies made by Goneril, one of the evil daughters, in respond to the discovery of her real intention. The king could not believe that such act was made by his daughter however it was a reality that he needs to face. "Detested kite! thou liest" (Line 284) On the second act, the king then refer to Goneril with sort of hatred by comparing her actions to that of a vulture that feeds among the carcasses, since the king was already dying or was too weak to rule, Goneril took over his property for her personal benefits and disregards what the king feels along with maltreatments and lack of respect. "she hath tied / sharp-tooth'd unkindness, like a vulture, here [points to his heart]" (Lines 136-137) Upon using the animal serpent as a personification that often refer to the devil telling a deception or a lie, King Lear have been able to portray the lies that was fed into him by her daughter Goneril. "struck me with her tongue, / Most serpent-like, upon the very heart" (Lines 162-163). When the Duke of Albany compared Reagan and Goneril to tigers, it somehow tells the readers that both of the characters are swift and bossy. Tigers are often seen by ordinary man as powerful and treacherous. This must be how Shakespeare would like to portray the two sisters. In The Wars, animals are seen as something that somehow reflects the characters of man. Animals like man are seen to be protective and savage. It also shows that man and animals are both dangerous. In King Lear, animals are used in order to heighten the impact of imagery used by the author. The animals are used to display man as someone who is at the same level as animals in terms of behavior. What I mean is that animals and man are often portrayed as comparable. The differences between the concepts in the novels are on the way the relationship of animals and humans are used. While on The War, the relationships were friendly, there are many instances wherein the main character sees animals to have more manner and goodness than humans. Animals are used in this novel as a reminder that animals are not really as bad as we often thought they are. Animals could also be use to exemplify good roles in novels and stories. Not that Shakespeare is wrong in making animals add to the negative characteristics of his characters but in Findley's use of animal imagery it is clearly depicted that animals should not and must not be stereotypically used to denote evil. In King Lear on the other hand, Shakespeare seems to bring into light the animalistic character of man. There are many parts of the story that shows man displaying more animalistic character than ordinarily perceived. In such cases, animals seem to act better; man seems to act better than beasts. The character in The Wars is neglectful of the animal's condition. They are rude and they only value victory and domination. This is in contrast with the behavior of the main character which is peaceful loving and understanding. The characters in King Lear are beast like with an exemption of a few characters. In such scenario, animals are seen as merely accessory to the imagery and do not have a direct connection and relevant character in the main story. Being so, there is a bit of irony that was being projected by the assumption that humans acts in the same manner as animal. This denotes that such characters are not acting rationally and are inclined towards their animalistic instincts. The use of animal imagery and the characters on both stories suggest that humans and animals have a lot in common. Nonetheless, Shakespeare and Findley differ on their use of animal imagery. While Findley give animals an active role in his novel, Shakespeare uses them as a passive personification to highlight the main characters. I believe that Findley would want to emphasize the positive role of animals in the human life by justifying their actions and through presenting the idea that animals could actually help man. Findley have so many accounts in his novel show that humans should not treat themselves as gods in this world because there are actually other beings that could equal them with respect to proper behavior and justified actions. What Findley tries to emphasize is the attribute of respect that should be given not only to other people but to other beings as well. "The roof...went up in seconds like a tinder box. Within less than a minute of the fire being set, the rear portion of the roof fell into the barn...onto the backs of horses.." (185-186) These lines are taken on the part when Robert was burned in the barn by trying to save the horses. It shows how Findley tries to exaggerate the relationship between Robert and the horses. When his comrade thought of him as foolish, Findley let the reader see how other man often disregards and misunderstood kindness to animals. It the story, its seems to be something that the other people could not really understand. Shakespeare on the other hand offers the different behavior of man that is mostly attributed to animals. By doing this, he have assumed that there are certain behavior that man and animals share in common, thus this behaviors should not be held restrict to animals alone. Shakespeare tried to evaluate man in the same level as the animals. This is where the two authors converge. By seeing animals as somehow as important as man, the authors have succeeded in showing how man treat animals and how animal a man could become. It is afterall our exposure to the same nature and our having to endure and survive the same circumstances creates our similarity with animals. Nonetheless, the insatiable hunger of humans for more power and control over the things that surrounds him is where the distinction begins. It is also in this parameter that man could be considered as more dangerous and vicious than those of the animals. Works Cited The Wars: Animal Imagery. Planet Papers. Retrieved on December 15, 2007. http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4084.php Cummings, M. King Lear: A Study Guide. Cummig's Study Guides. 2003. Retrieved on December 15, 2007. http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xKingLear.html G.B. Harrison, ed. Shakespeare: The Complete Works. New York: Harcourt, 1952 Read More