Essay On Haney's Translation Of The First Ode Of Antigone
Seamus Haney's translation and the Fitz and Fitzgerald translation of the first Ode of Antigone differ in their portrayals of the strength and resilience of man. While both translations paint humanity as having ingenuity and power, Haney's translation describes man as being able to overcome anything through hard work in conjunction with the world around him while the Fitz and Fitzgerald translation portrays man as all-powerful and in complete control of his surroundings, describing his achievement and greatness as if he were divine. This is first demonstrated in the difference between the way the two translations describe man's relationship with different elements of nature, including the ocean and animal life. Fitz and Fitzgerald's translation
…show more content…
The trajectory of the plot changes at this point because the conversation is no longer happening, and it has ended without the problems at hand being solved or even with either of the characters coming to a compromise. This is significant. The title of the story hints at the main conflict being the “elephant” in the room- this is also apparent when the woman tries to start a conversation by comparing the surrounding hills to the backs of white elephants just so she can avoid starting a conversation about her feelings. Neither of the characters seem to really want to discuss the prospect of an abortion, but because it is such a pressing issue, they cannot talk about anything else until they come to a concrete agreement. When they fail to have a meaningful discussion about what their plans are, the elephant in the room continues to thrive. The dialogue seems to convey that this conversation has been started and stopped so many time before that both of them start of by pleading- the man pleads to discuss it, and the woman pleads for the discussion to end. The peripeteia is so important in this story because it demonstrates that this cycle is simply being continued. Though they do not actually reach any sort of agreement, the fact that this happens is narratively important because it displays the nature of the characters and gives a small glimpse into the complicated problems which they are
The trajectory of the plot changes at this point because the conversation is no longer happening, and it has ended without the problems at hand being solved or even with either of the characters coming to a compromise. This is significant. The title of the story hints at the main conflict being the “elephant” in the room- this is also apparent when the woman tries to start a conversation by comparing the surrounding hills to the backs of white elephants just so she can avoid starting a conversation about her feelings. Neither of the characters seem to really want to discuss the prospect of an abortion, but because it is such a pressing issue, they cannot talk about anything else until they come to a concrete agreement. When they fail to have a meaningful discussion about what their plans are, the elephant in the room continues to thrive. The dialogue seems to convey that this conversation has been started and stopped so many time before that both of them start of by pleading- the man pleads to discuss it, and the woman pleads for the discussion to end. The peripeteia is so important in this story because it demonstrates that this cycle is simply being continued. Though they do not actually reach any sort of agreement, the fact that this happens is narratively important because it displays the nature of the characters and gives a small glimpse into the complicated problems which they are