Ransom v Invictus on Fate

[jonwil]

Hey guys having some difficulty unpacking this prompt, attached is literally my brain on paper so it may be grammatically awkward or ideas may seem unfinished but this is what I've gotten planned for this essay prompt. Hope you can give me some kickass feedback!

Compare Ransom and Invictus, using the following quotations as the basis for your response:

‘It will end here on the beach...or out there on the plain. That is fixed. Inevitable’ Ransom

‘Do you hear? Listen to your country … This is our destiny’ Invictus


Quote Analysis:

  1.  Quote from Ransom alludes to the inevitability of life and its cycle. Greeks strong belief in faith and the unchallengeable power of the guards means that there is little one can do to change the course of history.

  2.  Quote from Invictus also allude to destiny and its calling as something irresistible but the circumstances demonstrate that destiny and fate are changeable.

The first quote has a sense of damnation tied with it, fate is depicted as disastrous. Fate in Invictus though can be interpreted as what leads people to greater heights, ultimately it is the inspiration Mandela constantly reminds Francois of.

Paragraph Points

Destiny can be challenged. Priam challenges the calling of the gods in his own role as King Priam. Mandela challenges the fate of South Africa by revolutionizing the country through his campaign for unity. Ultimately both texts demonstrate that fate and destiny are not necessarily “inevitable” rather that they are catalysts for change based on the consequences they present.


Destiny is also foresight. Achilles foresees the end of the war understanding it's inevitability. Likewise Priam’s foresight is imbued by the goddess Iris. In Invictus, it is Mandela and consequently Francois’ foresight that enables them to carry out what is “unthinkable”. Ultimately both texts suggest that destiny is not necessarily what is predetermined rather something that is foreseen with hindsight and knowledge.


Destiny allows one to leave behind a masterpiece legacy. Priam’s has “done something for which he will be remembered for”. Challenging of destiny has enabled him to immortalise his existence becoming the “stuff of legend”. Mandela has reprised South Africa from clutches of an apartheid-era mindset that only sees the perpetuation of vengeance, anguish and racism. Moreover leaving a legacy for the nation’s unity and sporting career.


ESSAY:

Predicated upon the crisis of the past, Eastwood’s Hollywood epic Invictus explores the concept of fate in that one’s destiny is only fixed in the presence of inaction. Likewise, Malouf’s Homeric adaption of the Iliad as a reimagination through his novella Ransom challenges preconceived notions of fate through Priam’s iconoclastic journey inspired by the goddess Iris. However, where Malouf’s characters are caught in the midst of the Trojan war, wracked with fear and misgivings about the god's predetermination, Eastwood’s Invictus instead concerns itself with the aftermath of Apartheid, depicting key struggles that are only overcome by challenging fixed ideals and one’s own destiny. To this end, whilst both Malouf and Eastwood examine fate’s role in one’s actions and decision, ultimately they differ in their portrayal of denouements as a result of challenging one’s own destiny.


In both Ransom and Invictus, characters are driven to differing actions by their response whatever fate presents them at a given moment. This is particularly foregrounded in Achilles's irredeemable attitude presented throughout the entirety of the novel until his own ransom at the end. Achilles own recollection of the story of Patroclus arrival alludes to a sense of an “infinite power” that stands above the world, very much a power he would see “step in” and “reverse” what was to happen. Such allusion to the gods and moreover, their power to reverse from Achilles point of view is depicted by Malouf in a manner that demonstrates Achilles full dependence on the intervention of the gods, rather than human intervention. Furthermore, this sense of what is “fixed” can be viewed in Achilles assured sense of closure to the war on either the “beach...or out on the plain”. His call as warrior despite his nature as a “farmer” where “earth is his element”, further demonstrates the hold destiny has upon Achilles. His unwillingness to seek his own destiny and rather follow what is “inevitable” is Malouf’s initial illustration of the repressive nature of destiny. Contrariwise, Eastwood depicts fate as an inspiration to a higher calling. The symbol of Henley’s poem utilised as a voice over through the Springbok trip to Robben Island compounds this sense of inspiration fate and championing fate has in the life of others. It is only when Francois witnesses the struggle Mandela suffered in his “30 year” sentence in a “tiny cell” does he recognise that all was only possible through Mandela’s unwillingness to submit to a fate determined for him. Rather it is the fact that Mandela sees himself as “captain of [his] soul” and moreover the “master of [his] fate”, does Eastwood contend that without reprisal from that which appears to be one’s destiny can one’s own humanity can be suppressed. Ultimately illustrating the power one wields through the mastery of fate. Conclusively both texts express fate initially as that which is predetermined but through comparing Achilles and Mandela’s individual response that what they saw as their fate, do both authors demonstrate that fate can be a suppressor of a higher call.

[First Aid]

Hi! I'm probably not the best person to be giving you feedback (I'm in Year 12 too :')), but I'll try and help out.

I like the ideas you set out beforehand, they're clear and relatively easy to understand, although I was a bit confused when I was looking at your body paragraph.

In both Ransom and Invictus, characters are driven to differing actions by their response whatever fate presents them at a given moment.

When I look at the prompt, the concept of fluidity of fate/destiny seems like a big idea to me - similar to some of the points you created. However, I find this topic sentence confusing as I don't understand the point you're trying to get across. Are you trying to say that an individual's destiny is determined by their responses to the opportunities presented by fate? It might just be me, but I would perhaps work on making this sentence clearer. When I read your TS it seems like you're saying individuals have different responses to what fate presents - I'm not sure if this addresses the question.

This is particularly foregrounded in Achilles's irredeemable attitude presented throughout the entirety of the novel until his own ransom at the end. Achilles own recollection of the story of Patroclus arrival alludes to a sense of an “infinite power” that stands above the world, very much a power he would see “step in” and “reverse” what was to happen. Such allusion to the gods and moreover, their power to reverse from Achilles point of view is depicted by Malouf in a manner that demonstrates Achilles full dependence on the intervention of the gods, rather than human intervention. Furthermore, this sense of what is “fixed” can be viewed in Achilles assured sense of closure to the war on either the “beach...or out on the plain”. His call as warrior despite his nature as a “farmer” where “earth is his element”, further demonstrates the hold destiny has upon Achilles. His unwillingness to seek his own destiny and rather follow what is “inevitable” is Malouf’s initial illustration of the repressive nature of destiny.

I kind of get the idea you're trying to portray here, but I feel as if this doesn't relate to your TS (topic sentence). This is more about how fate restricts individuals. Apart from this, the idea is good but I think your expression needs a bit of fixing in order to bring out what you're trying to say. Some of the words you use are unnecessary. Try to be direct and succinct.  For example instead of:

"Achilles own recollection of the story of Patroclus arrival alludes to a sense of an “infinite power” that stands above the world, very much a power he would see “step in” and “reverse” what was to happen. Such allusion to the gods and moreover, their power to reverse from Achilles point of view is depicted by Malouf in a manner that demonstrates Achilles full dependence on the intervention of the gods, rather than human intervention."

Perhaps

"Achilles' recollection of his first encounter with Patroclus alludes to a sense of “infinite power” that transcends human's comprehension - a power that allowed him to see 'something' “step in” and “reverse” what was about to happen. This allusion to the gods and their power to dictate and control an individual's fate is depicted by Malouf where Achilles is fully dependent on the intervention of the gods, rather than human intervention.
(I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to convey, I just tried to touch up some sentences)

I'm kind of short on time, but the remainder of the paragraph is pretty much the same in my opinion. I think the ideas you present have potential to be really good, but you just need to work on presenting them in a clearer and more understandable manner. I'm Year 12 as well so I might be wrong ;p, try and get other people's feedback too.

[happydays2]

Love the argument here. Although you are finished and done with as far as Year 12 goes, other people can learn from your essay. What you are doing is arguing the topic, and looking into the subtleties of the concept of fate. This line is particularly good:
"His call as warrior despite his nature as a “farmer” where “earth is his element”, further demonstrates the hold destiny has upon Achilles."
Perhaps you may have argued that he felt trapped within the fate that seemed inevitable, and that the only way to escape was through 'something completely new'. In a similar way, South Afrtica may have been caught in a similar struggle - caught in cycle that seemed fated until Mandela says 'throw your guns..pangas into the sea', but it was only by doing something completely new in an authentic manner that enabled South AFrica to form a new narrative through the rugby.