Interpretations of texts are painted by the representations of personalities, through events and situations. They enthrall the audience to reflect on characters’ vices and virtues, determining their true nature, and spawning conflict between their various perspectives drawn from techniques. These differing personal interpretations evoke conflicting perspectives in the audience’s minds.
Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, Hussein’s article “A dynasty in power, death and politics” and Alan Jones’ radio commentary “Breaking election promises’ provokes audience’s interpretations of representation in texts, through the medium of political minds and situations.
In JC, Brutus’ initial representation of a noble leader “sitting high in all the people’s hearts” by Cinna and Cassius transforms to an “impractical thinker lacking the scruples of conscience” as his gullibility to Cassius’ persuasion is scrutinized. The juxtaposition of these representations of Brutus challenges the audience to deduce their interpretations of his personality, by assessing the virtues praised by the conspirators and the vices outlined through critical analysis. By contrasting Brutus’ loyalty and bravery to gullibility, Shakespeare enforces Descartes’ concept that “great minds are capable of great vices as well as virtues”. These contrasting representations shape the reader’s judgment of Brutus through the event of Caesar’s assassination, distinguishing his vices from his virtues. Thus, by exposing different aspects of Brutus, the audience delves in conflicting perspectives in his personality. It underpins how differing personal interpretations, gives rise to conflicting perspectives in texts.
Brutus’ extensive hyperbole, during the event of Caesar’s funeral, “had you rather Caesar alive and die as slaves, or Caesar dead and live as free men”, presents negative imagery of a Rome in precarious circumstances...