Role of Literature: Analysis of Medea and Don Quixote

An important role of literature is to define 'the other' within the social structure despite or because of their quirks and peculiarities. This allows for change, often declaring it to be brilliant. It recognizes the mark of courage: The character is who he or she chooses to be, often fighting for freedom, perception, and thoughts. Fiction allows one to think about change in a creative way. Studies in psychology, anthropology, and sociology- all provide conceptual accounts of what literature teaches through experience and identity. One’s life could easily be defined by these relationships with others. Literature is key to negotiating, strengthening, and challenging how one defines oneself and others through social similarities and differences.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is one such example of literature that attempts to define and personify “the other”. The ancient tale is an account of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian king who wanted to become immortal. The events within the story are fairly typical of an epic. However, the hero’s counterpart, “wild man” Enkidu, provides an unusual dynamic in which the great epic hero finds himself equally matched by a man whos, “whole body was shaggy with hair,” that had “the strength of the meteorite of Anu” (1.105, 1.125). As the hero, Gilgamesh's rival and then best friend, Enkidu represents the force of untamed nature, a force that was both feared and admired by the civilized, urban society of Uruk from which Gilgamesh came. While the epic is a clear statement about the struggle between the rapid urbanization of the time and the simplicity and force of nature, it also highlights the disparity between the people who embody each of these ideals. Rather than being singled out and despised, the people of Uruk develop a fascination for Enkidu and the way of life he represents. They bring him into their world by deceiving him so that “his animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will be alien to him” (1.187). As in lots of literature written much later, the outcast is only accepted so far as they are willing and able to begin to conform to the norms of society. Had Enkidu remained a forager and continued to display animal-like behavior, the likelihood of him being revered as more than a romantic notion of a free-spirited lifestyle is much smaller. The epic itself concludes by praising the city of Uruk once again-- a testament to the people’s deeply rooted and stagnant feelings of security in their social system.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Like the Sumerians, the Greeks often fell victim to a much-too-heavy reliance on the status quo. Such is the case in Medea, a play released in 431 B.C. by Greek writer Euripides. The story follows a woman named Medea with magical powers who marries a man named Jason and returns to his home, Iolcos. When the people of the city become too afraid of Medea’s powers, the couple moves their family to Corinth, where Jason plans to “cast aside his children and [wife],” and go, “to bed in a royal marriage with the daughter of Creon” (1.16-18). When Medea finds out, she announces that she will kill her children. She debates with herself and gives numerous reasons, including revenge for her husband’s infidelity. Medea was both a foreigner and now unmarried, meaning she had virtually no rights in Corinth. Many Greeks looked down upon outsiders, and Medea had become the definition of “the other”. Unable to own land or remarry, Medea decides she “can do no other thing,” besides orchestrating the murder-suicide of her children and herself (1.811). Reputation was so valued in Greek society that outsiders often felt driven to extremes in an effort to disassociate themselves from the title of “other”. This is an example of literature that openly discriminates against “the other” with little regard for their humanity. In the same way that the Corinthians are unsympathetic to Medea’s plight, the playwright does little in the way of her defense, often having the chorus argue against her. They plead with her asking, “what could be still more awful,” than to kill one’s children (1.1288)? “The other” in Medea is persecuted, exiled, betrayed, and then receives retribution for her response, which is arguably the fault of those whom she eventually wronged.

In contrast to Medea’s hate-ridden tale of loss and hurt between all parties, Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes portrays “the other” as foolish at worst. A wishful knight travels the Spanish countryside with, “his brain dried up,” as “he went completely out of his mind” (1655). Quixote lives in a post-chivalric world where his obsession with old novels leaves him believing that his realistically disenchanting world is actually a faraway land with damsels in distress (peasant women), a trusty steed (a rickety mule), and a great beast (merely a windmill). Don Quixote is a textbook example of a misunderstood outcast with a merry disposition, who is all too naive to the banality and judgment of the real world. He even says of himself that he is, “born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of the adversary are aimed” (1683) CITE. It is both tricky and inaccurate, however, to truthfully read Don Quixote as a rallying cry for the underdog. The line between Quixote’s sweet naivety and delusion blurs, as it becomes increasingly unclear as to whether Cervantes intends for the novel to be one of comedic chivalry or a tragedy of the loss of innocence. By the end of the novel, Quixote is defeated by reality, lamenting, “They must take me for a fool, or even worse, a lunatic… I am powerless to resist it and am being turned into stone, devoid of all knowledge or feeling.” CITE While Don Quixote is popular for its readability as a fable, teaching readers that often the individual can be right while society is wrong, Quixote seems to possess much deeper undertones about the lack of sympathy for “the other” in real-life. Cervantes’ character proves that idealism serves merely as a romantic notion in literature while being rendered useless in reality.

In the same way that Don Quixote deals with the effect of harsh reality on the outsider, The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka tells the story of a man burdened by the tiresome mundanity of supporting an unhappy family. That is, until one day when “Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from troubled dreams, he found himself changed into a monstrous cockroach in his bed” (1204). His particularly and consistently dreadful family suffers a similar plight. While very unconcerned about the obviously tragic changes to their brother and son’s appearance, they express their concerns about public opinion and, “the thought that they in all the circle of relatives and acquaintances had been singled out for such a calamity” (1226). The most unique aspect of Gregor’s despair upon discovering he had turned into an insect, is his own utter lack of concern with his appearance and more immediate apprehension about his ability to do work and care for his family. He too seems to be so indoctrinated into the system of work and reward that he is unable to see past the harsh truth that he has been condemned to lose his humanity, rather than just his source of income. The novel takes a morbid turn when the family decides to, “put from [their minds] any thought that it’s Gregor,” because if it has been, “ [he] would have left of his own free will.” (1232) The still-conscious Gregor is clearly isolated as a cockroach, but arguably not significantly more than before he morphed. Kafka's clear isolation of Gregor underscores the separation of the family from society. He emphasizes Gregor’s seclusion from his family. However, Gregor’s separation is involuntary, unlike the family who isolates themselves from him by the choices they make. When he eventually, “sank down to the floor, and from his nostrils streamed his last weak breath,” the family was forced to learn to be self-sufficient, in a way that they could or would not during Gregor’s life (1233). His uneventful death is fitting in a story in which “the other” is seen as divergent and strange, but is really the backbone of the family unit.