Shakespeare’s Othello and the Blind Owl by Sedayat can be compared and contrasted in several ways. For instance, it is evident that the characters and plots in the two books are different. Also, some themes such as, love, gender culture and murder are common in both works. However, The Blind Owl includes suicidal incidences, which are missing in Shakespeare’s Othello.
The creation ‘Othello’ is one of Shakespeare’s latest works and one of his ardent misfortunes, penned for a moment amid ‘ King Lear’ and ‘ Hamlet’. The production ardently presents cultural pressures – race, femininity, and religion. The play, perhaps more carefully than any of his other plays, relies on the strength of opposition and divergence, the characters.
He polarizes the characters into white and black. Othello is a general and a Moorish that has saved Venice. Here, is a man who, regardless of his alien origins, is the savior of his society, a person who is widely respected and well-liked, excluding by his lieutenant, Lago. The basis of Othello’s achievement is his immense love for his lady, Desdemona.
On the other hand, in The Blind Owl, the storyteller, a pen-case decorator, falls in love with a naive woman who is virtuous and demonic at the same time. Afterwards, the young woman shows at his front doorstep, goes into his residence, and lies on his sofa, where she dies. In a past life, the storyteller gives an account of his physical and emotional come down following his matrimony to a woman who has numerous lovers, but rejects to have sex with him. He unintentionally kills her.
In Lago, Shakespeare thrashes out with blacksmith rhythm, one of his extraordinary creations, a guy fired by jealousy, tempered by nausea, a person whose bravery is engraved into a form and devilishly, expresses himself in duplicitous twists and wrong turns sufficient to bring down Othello.
It is the essence of Shakespearean tragedy that the male protagonist should plunge from the transcendent heights to utter impoverishment, anguish, and demise. Winning her hand, securing her affection is his remarkable mastery and lifts him up to unimagined contentment. However, in this precise essence, Lago demoralizes, with the seed of envy. As atheism is a key aim, the whole structure of Othello’s supremacy and wholeness collapses.
He murders his spouse, visages the apprehension of what he has done, and distinguishes that everlasting damnation is the least chastisement than enduring life conscious of his own guiltiness. The play “Othello” symbolizes Shakespeare’s oft-repeated thesis of obligation and love as the mortar mix which connects the social order.
It is in Othello’s misfortune that he should contaminate mutually, divulging them as weak spots rather than strong points, the alchemy of his passions reducing them to acids which will consume his heart and crook his exact character. On the other hand, Sedayat presents a menacing piece of writing that looks at ideas of lunacy.
Shakespeare has taken characterization to a new height. His achievement is not simply in his invigoration of the English literature, but in his psychosomatic consciousness and approaching to get inside the brains of his characters long before social science envisaged. The characters in Othello contain a pragmatism which distinguishes them from the theatrical character as a representative for word and medium for accomplishment.
Shakespeare’s characters breathe; their predicaments and tragedies are devastating human. Othello and Lago are two of Shakespeare’s supreme mortals. Wickedness we learn can be as engrossing and considerably vibrant as any laudable task. A play that pits such characters alongside one another is a play that offers lasting loot for both its spectators and its performers.
Shakespeare’s works have delighted and motivated actors for centuries, they keep on doing so, and each cohort of actors wring new explanation and perception from the performance. On the other hand, time, characters, and space are all in an uncontrolled region where linear progression does not take much concentration.
Measures in the commencement lack explanation until the focal point, and there’s no way precisely to count the number of characters brought in the play. They may be a dozen, or possibly only two. In The Blind Owl, it is significant to comprehend the narrator’s imagery of his insight of the women characters.
A deep study of such imagery reveals that the narrator is instinctively treating the women of his formation, as blank screens onto which he is portraying different aspects of his characters that he cannot deliberately admit. To infiltrate to the heart of the narrator’s tribulations of distinctiveness and being, the knowledge of mothering and women is related to tribulations of reliance and self-esteem weakness of one capacity.
It is likely to imply that the storyteller is suffering from a split mind and is trying to assimilate a split off female factor. In reality, he is foretelling a fear of his own female factor. In such cases, the whole crisis of women is connected with one’s individual viewpoints at oneself, and it is always the feminine factor that dissociates to both men and women.
They seek out for the idyllic woman continues. His companion becomes one and the same as the biological mother and the wraithlike woman. The expedition is figurative; the narrator wants to find the mother in the globe of the bereavement, thus restoring significance to existence. Losing his mother has left him conscious of the need of sense in his reality. He ought to find her to complete the existential procedure.
Shakespeare hammers out with blacksmith tune, a man blazed by envy, tempered by detestation, a man whose willpower hammers into form and whose iniquity expresses itself in treacherous twists and cruel turns enough to oust Othello. It is the character of Shakespeare’s tragedy that the leading actor should thrust from the inspirational heights to utter impoverishment, hopelessness, and death.
Conversely, in the Blind Owl, an insubstantial girl appearing all through offers optimism. She is the portrait, which the storyteller paints on his account, a mental image that he loves, and the picture on an old jar. However, the young woman has a “double nature,” coming back as the narrator’s crafty mother, and, afterwards, as his immoral wife.
In Shakespeare’s plays, the basis of Othello’s victory is his immense love for his lady, Desdemona. Winning her hand, securing her affection is his greatest accomplishment and elevates him to unimagined contentment. However, it is this precise basis that Lago undermines with the seed of envy. As distrust takes the core, the entire structure of Othello’s supremacy and comprehensiveness, in relation to him, collapses.
He kills his spouse, visages the awareness of what he has committed, and realizes that everlasting damnation castigation that endures life alert of his own guiltiness. Although both books have incidences of suicide, The Blind Owl appears to be extremely influencing as even the author in the Blind Owl commits suicide, by gassing, an occasion that has outshined his work.
In conclusion, Shakespeare’s Othello and the Blind Owl by Sedayat compare and contrast themes in several ways. For instance, the themes of love, murder and gender are prominent in the two works. The play “Othello” symbolizes Shakespeare’s oft-repeated thesis of obligation and love as the mortar mix which connects the social order.
On the other hand, in The Blind Owl, the storyteller, a pen-case decorator, falls in love with a naive woman who is both virtuous and demonic. Othello murders his spouse, visages the apprehension of what he has done, and distinguishes that everlasting damnation is the least chastisement than enduring life conscious of his own guiltiness.
Conversely, in the blind Owl, the storyteller gives an account of his unintentional killing of a woman who rejects to have sex with him. Shakespeare’s Othello, perhaps more carefully than any of his other plays, relies on the strength of opposition and divergence, the characters.
The characters, in Othello, contain pragmatism which is distinguished form the previous task of the theatrical character as a representative for word and medium for accomplishment. On the other hand, in The Blind Owl, the narrator treats the women of his formation, as blank screens onto which he is portraying different aspects of his character that he cannot deliberately admit.