Compare and contrast the importance of the description of the Amphitheatre in The Mayor of Casterbridge and the description of the death of Candys dog in Of Mice and Men. In particular deal with their implications as omens.
OMENS IN THE NOVELS
"OF MICE AND MEN"
AND
"THE MAYOR OF CASTERBRIDGE
* Compare and contrast the importance of the description of the Amphitheatre in "The Mayor of Casterbridge" and the description of the death of Candy's dog in "Of Mice and Men". In particular deal with their implications as omens.
Throughout these two novels we come across certain parts of the book that almost give you an insight to the ending of the story. In the case of Mice and Men we come across the death of Candy's dog that marks a major omen in the story. In the case of the Mayor of Casterbridge we come across chapter eleven where Michael Henchard and Susan Henchard have secret meeting in the Amphitheatre, which again is another Omen. Although these two events are similar in that they both serve as bad omens, they each have a different meanings and importance for the characters in the books.
In the Mayor of Casterbridge, the author has his story based primarily upon the life of one character, Michael Henchard. We start the story off mainly with descriptions of Henchards actions, and from this we get an almost instant impression of him as being a bad person, when we find out that he sold his wife to a sailor while being drunk. As the story moves we start to have a change in his character. He strangely starts to become a more kind and wise person who strives to make amends of his past events and help the ones in need, and as a result he quickly becomes the Mayor of Casterbridge. His life seems to be stable and a success, but things slowly take a turn when three key characters enter his life. Donald Farfrae, Susan and Elizabeth Jane. Donald Farfrae, a clever Scotsman becomes Henchards companion after helping him with his crop problems; little realising that he would later bring him more trouble than success. Susan, his long lost wife, who was thought to be dead suddenly reappears with his mysterious daughter, Elizabeth Jane who has been kept in the dark for so long. These characters seem to build an unstable foundation for his life ahead, at first seeming innocent to him, later become somewhat of a threat to his integrity.
The story moves on, but on chapter eleven we come across a key event in the book. In this chapter the author describes the Ring as a Roman amphitheatre in Casterbridge, a city that was built in the spirit of old Rome, it was bizarrely a meeting place for any other groups needing secrecy but never for lovers. Henchard chose this place because it would be improper to invite her to his house. Michael and Susan meet in the middle of the arena. He starts by saying that he no longer drinks; then he asks why she has ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The story moves on, but on chapter eleven we come across a key event in the book. In this chapter the author describes the Ring as a Roman amphitheatre in Casterbridge, a city that was built in the spirit of old Rome, it was bizarrely a meeting place for any other groups needing secrecy but never for lovers. Henchard chose this place because it would be improper to invite her to his house. Michael and Susan meet in the middle of the arena. He starts by saying that he no longer drinks; then he asks why she has never contacted him. Susan says she was moved by faithfulness to Newson. Michael says she is innocent because of her faith. They agree that Elizabeth-Jane must not know the truth of their relationship. Michael suggests that Susan take the name Mrs. Newson and live in a cottage with Elizabeth-Jane. Michael will meet, court and marry her. This will save his reputation and bring his child back to her proper home. Susan meekly agrees. Michael promises to provide them with money to keep a wealthy lifestyle. Susan is pleased to repeat her marriage. She runs away, leaving Michael to run to his home a few moments later.
Although this is the obvious purpose of the chapter there is a much more important and significant meaning to the chapter. We enter the chapter with a detailed description of the actual amphitheatre. At first it didn't seem of much significance to me, but as I slowly read on it became quite lengthy and intense. It soon became very evident that the author was trying to put a message across to the reader. The amphitheatre was being described as a grisly place that was surrounded by some sort of evilness. The author described the terrible history of the amphitheatre and its past events. He almost described its history as if it was a real part of story. In short terms it was clear that the author was giving the reader negative thoughts about the place and in some sense he was linking this strongly to the two isolated characters, Michael Henchard and Susan. For example, many of his descriptions were described as if they were warning the reader of the bad fate that Henchard would have to face, as shown in the quotes below.
" It looked Roman, bespoke the art of Rome, concealed dead men of Rome.
"... in 1705 a woman who had murdered her husband was half-strangled and then burnt there in the presence of ten thousand spectators. Tradition reports that at a certain stage of the burning her heart burst and leapt out of her body, to the terror of them all..."
" The arena was still smooth and circular, as if used for its original purpose not so very long ago."
From analysing the descriptions, the author at times seems to ridicule Henchard of his bad future. He almost makes him seem as if he is blind to the surroundings he is in. For example, the author describes,
"...the historic circle was the frequent spot for appointments of a furtive kind. Intrigues were arranged there; tentative meetings were there experimented after divisions and feuds. But one kind of appointment - in itself the most common of any - seldom had place in the Amphitheatre: that of happy lovers."
This is very strange in that although the author goes to great length to describe the terrible aspects of the amphitheatre and its bad luck, Henchard doesn't at any point realise his surrounding, worse is that he believes that the amphitheatre is the best place to meet. I think the importance of this is the whole idea of a bad omen. The omen seems to be right in front of Henchard, yet he can't recognise it, which from my point of view points out arrogance in Henchards nature, which again foretells his future.
When you compare this to Of Mice and Men there is a clear comparison. Both these omens are right their in front of person eyes, yet they fail to realise its significance. For example, in of mice and men at the death of Candy's dog we come across some quotes that are like parallels to the end of the story. Although the reader can interpret them as bad omens, the characters have no idea. In one part Carlson says to Candy, in regard to the dog,
"...Got no teeth, he's all stiff with rheumatism. He ain't no good to you, Candy. An' he ain't no good to himself. Why'n't you shoot him, Candy?"
This is almost like a direct parallel to what happens and more importantly why it happens, at the end. This sub-plot is an obvious metaphor for what George must do to Lennie, who proves to be no good to George and no good to himself. Steinbeck re-emphasizes the significance of Candy's dog when Candy says to George that he wishes someone would shoot him when he's no longer any good. And when Carlson's gun goes off, Lennie is the only other man not inside the bunk house, Steinbeck having placed him outside with the dog, away from the other men, it seems to somehow put him into the position where he will be at the end of the story, even with the same gun, the only difference is that George is the one holding the gun.
I think when you talk in terms of what implications the omens hold for the story in each book the omens differ in comparison. In the mayor of casterbridge their isn't really a direct parallel, to what the future holds for Henchard (although you could say that the execution of the woman that took place at the amphitheatre is a parallel for Susan), the only hint you are given is that they both have a bad future. The difference in of mice and men is that the death of Candys's dog is a direct parallel, by this I mean that it almost describes in detail what happens to Lennie at the end. For example, the dog is shot in the back of the head; Lennie too is shot in the back of the head. The similarity that I found out in both the mayor of casterbridge and of mice and men was that in both the primary character loses a loved person, e.g. in of mice of men Candy has to sacrifice his loved dog for the good of others, and at the end George has to sacrifice Lennie for the good of others even though he loved Lennie. I think the difference with the mayor of casterbridge is that the omens are based upon a single person, which is obviously Henchard. In of mice and men the bad omens are a general trend for all the ranch workers.
To conclude, I think in an overall sense, in both these novels the author has used these omens or metaphors as methods of creating curiosity amongst the readers. I found that after reading the story in of mice and men it was blatantly obvious that the dog was an omen for Lennie's end and George's sad days to follow. This was only because after reading the book I had the benefit of hindsight which gave me a more sharp and specific idea of what the omen was implicating. I think this is the same situation that I am in with the omen in the mayor of casterbridge. I think to understand the more specific implications of this omen you simply have to read the book fully, so that you have the benefits of hindsight.
By Sayfur Rahman 10B