The travel imagination and the hybrid reality in the wake of colonialism

The “traveling imagination,” is of paramount importance to both western and postcolonial travelers. Since both groups create “travel imaginations” by extensive reading, the nature of the books that inform them must directly affect their travels. A westerner, for example, who reads only colonial-era accounts has the “travel imagination” of a different generation. If all perspectives were represented equally in libraries, the “travel imagination” of a given person would be entirely his/her own. But usually the “traveler’s imagination” is biased by prevailing opinion. Libraries are not democracies, and sometimes extensive reading only indoctrinates the reader with the biases of the canon. Perhaps the following generalization will be helpful. Westerners are able to create “traveling imaginations,” based on the books they trust. But postcolonials, who have reason to be suspicious of what they read, have complicated “traveling imaginations.” Sometimes postcolonial travelers base their “traveling imaginations” on what they read, and sometimes, in opposition to what they read. The books discussed in this thesis, In Patagonia, The Cruise of the Shark, The Happy Isles of Oceania, A Passage to England and The Enigma of Arrival, were first published in, 1977, 1939, 1992, 1971 and 1987, respectively, in what Ali Behdad calls the “age of colonial dissolution.” Perhaps it would be more accurate to say these books are set in the “age of colonial demolition.” For the most part, the empires in these texts are in ruins, or at least in the process of being dismantled. In fact, two of the authors, Nirad Chaudhuri and V.S. Naipaul are canonical post-colonial thinkers.

Intent and Method: A Study of Female Characters in Aeschylean and Euripidean Drama

Aeschylus and Euripides used tragic female characters to help fulfill the purpose of religious celebration and to achieve the motivation of public reaction. The playwrights, revising myths about tragic woman and redefining the Greek definition of appropriate femininity, supported or questioned the very customs which they changed. Originally composed as part of a religious festival for Dionysus, the god of wine, revelry and fertility, the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides were evaluated by Aristotle. He favored Aeschylus over Euripides, but it appears as if his stipulations for tragic characterization do not apply to Aeschylean and Euripidean women. Modem critics question both Aristotle's analysis in the Poetics as well as the tragedies which he evaluated. As part of the assessment of Aeschylus, the character of the Persian Queen, Atossa, appears as a conradiction the images that Greeks maintain of non-Greeks. The Persians is discussed in relation to modem criticisms and as on its function as a warning against radical changes in Athenian domestic life. The Oresteia, a trilogy, also charts the importance of an atypical woman in Aeschylean tragedy, and how this role, Clytaemnestra, represents an extreme example of the natural and necessary evolution of families, households and kingdoms. In contrast to Aeschylus' plea to retain nomoi (traditional custom and law), EUripides' tragedy, the Medea, demonstrates the importance of a family and a country to provide security, especially for women. Medea's abandonment by Jason and subsequent desperation drives her to commit murder in the hope of revenge. Ultimately, Euripides advocates changes in social convention away from the alienation of non-Greek, non-citizens, and females. Euripides is, unfortunately, tagged a misogynist by some in this tragedy and another example-the Hippolytus. Euripides' Phaedra becomes entangled in a scheme of divine vengeance and ultimately commits suicide in an attempt to avoid societal shame. Far from treatises of hate, Euripidean women take advantage of the little power they possess within a constrictive social system. While both Aeschylus and Euripides revise customary images and expectations of women in the context of religiously-motivated drama, one playwright intends to maintain civic order and the other intends to challenge the secular norm.