Jekyll and Hyde confuse Saussure’s theory of limited language through opposing signifiers by representing two opposing ‘signified’ in the form of one differing but physiologically ‘same’ signifier, or vice versa. They are the same, but different, occupying the same physical space, but representing binaries. They carry two different signifiers - ‘Jekyll’ and ‘Hyde’ - but simultaneously refer to the same signified (the one form or entity that exists in flux but ultimately in the same spatio-temporal niche) and two different signified (the separate notions of Jekyll and Hyde). The reader is aware that they are the same despite their different signifiers, and their different signified forms. How can this be possible within Saussure’s framework? These complications of sameness embody the complexity of the relationship between binaries. While Saussure insists that language should be a closed or limited system, simplifying language into what is not rather than what is, the duality of Jekyll and Hyde personifies the flaws in his theory - while night may be night in as much as it is not day, Jekyll cannot be JUST Hyde’s opposition, for they are one in the same moment as they are different. In denying the simplification of language they indicate that definitions are more of an infinite tissue of difference and similarity rather than a set of clean-cut binaries. If we accept the model of language indicated by Jekyll and Hyde’s duality we thus must come to accept that such duality much exist within other binaries; that whatever Jekyll and Hyde symbolise must have the same complicated, networked symbiotic relationship. For the purpose of this essay, if we come to accept Jekyll as an embodiment of the Enlightenment and all its definitives and ultimates, and Hyde with Post-structuralism and its fancy for the indefinite, then we can begin to argue that accepting the non-ultimate as an ultimate truth is a paradox; we cannot say nothing is ultimate as that, in itself, is an ultimate statement. Consequently, we have to accept that theories of the Enlightenment and the theories that followed exist in reaction to each other; that they must be considered together, and not separately. They definie each other, not in opposition, but in harmony, as ideologies cannot stand alone, or exist in a pure form, rather as interactions that play out simultaneously.
They really don’t wanna make Sam and Dean sympathetic characters do they?
Hey, let’s take the most beloved character, stew him in guilt, have him sacrifice himself for the greater good, multiple times, then offer him a good, happy, pure life where he forgets all his fuck ups and gets to help people, THEN let’s take it all away from him, have him save the motherfucking day, and STILL be hated and eventually abandoned in a great big melting pot of guilt and misery and torture at the hands of his big satany brother.
Oh, and an even better idea? Instead of allowing Satan to manipulate a fairly strong human, let’s give him an angel to play with! Yeah, cracking. That’s just gonna go down a treat.
ESSAY DUE IN 11 HOURS. ONLY JUST STARTED WRITING. WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN.
Chaos and Creation: The importance of fertility and its relation to creation myths in the dystopian worlds of The Waste Land and The Handmaid’s Tale.
The Greek and Roman conception of the creation of the Earth, thought to originate with Hesiod’s Theogony, begins with an amorphous, indefinite void from which the primordial gods are birthed. Ted Hughes’ interpretation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses opens with a creation myth centred on chaos, “A huge agglomeration of upset. / A bolus of everything – but / As if aborted./ And the total arsenal of entropy / Already at war within it.” This image of chaos as a beginning, as a fertile ground of potential, provides an optimistic lens through which to view the chaos depicted within the dystopian works of Eliot and Atwood. Instead of perceiving the ruined worlds depicted as barren waste lands, or ‘ends’, the fragmented societies can instead be viewed as ‘beginnings’ from which new creations can emerge. We enter both The Waste Land and The Handmaid’s Tale in the midst of the chaos, introduced to societies already upset by catastrophe, viewing the post-apocalyptic worlds as beginnings to new stories. The very notion of stories springing forth from infertile lands creates a paradox, as the barren landscapes lend themselves to textual creation.