COM MOD BASE ESSAY

Question: How effectively does your prescribed text tell stories to reveal both personal and shared
nature of human experiences?

Through its use of storytelling as both a narrative device and thematic concern, texts powerfully
illuminate the shared human experience of the self being forged within the constructs of society and
the desire to form a unique identity under oppressive rule. As a storyteller, George Orwell uses his
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) to craft a warning about the dangers of surrendering
one's personal stories and, thus, one's identity. Powerful regimes understand that the subversive
potency of telling one's own stories and personal narratives threatens their infallibility and,
ultimately, their authority. Orwell uses storytellings to authoritatively reflect how these regimes
deny individual's freedom of speech and thought to entrench their power. The tragic characters
within Orwell's novel engage in the act of storytelling to share their hopes and fears, ultimately
conveying their humanity and experiences in the face of oppression.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell illustrates and critiques how totalitarian regimes force the individual
to relinquish their identity by relinquishing control over the recording and sharing of their personal
stories. Our personal stories, as related to others or just told to ourselves, shape our self-identity by
elucidating our hopes, dreams, and fears. The ability to shape identity through our narratives and to
record them for later reference in letters, diaries, and other epistles is a foundation of human
experience. Tyrannical regimes, however, often seek to ensure blind obedience and absolute
authority over a population by stripping individuality from a populace. Outer Party member Winston
keeps a diary to document his radical thoughts and assert his identity, a motif of his defiant self-
expression and storytelling. Winston's diary was inspired by how the Soviet Union seized diaries to
incriminate and exile individuals to Gulags with opposing or simply non-aligning attitudes to his
regime. The diary is a feature of how Orwell employs multiple genres and styles of writing to reflect
the oppressed collective. For example, the narrator uses perfunctory, placid, and functional language
to describe Winston's life and actions, eschewing ornate language or rich levels of literary
techniques such as in the opening sentence: "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were
striking thirteen." In contrast, Winston's diary features capitalised and unpunctuated repeated run-
on sentences of "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" to portray how Winston's innate desire for autonomy
in his individual story overwhelms his fear of persecution. Winston believes his personal existence is
pointless and metaphorically "dead" without self-expression. Orwell uses the paradox that "as a
dead man it became important to stay alive" to justify why Winston pursues self-expression in this
controlling society. The act of writing and narrating his story condemns him, while simultaneously
being life-affirming as it wrests control over his life and identity from the Party. Ultimately, Orwell's
novel explores what individuals lose if they are not able to control and share the personal stores that
constitute one's identity.

Orwell uses storytelling within the novel to illustrate the characters' humanity as they share their
hopes and fears. Winston demonstrates his need to share his personal experiences and tangibly
affirm his existence in the minds of others by writing in his diary. Winston's diary is an epistle that
provides insight into his psychology. For example, the morbid image of "a child's arm going up up up
right up into the air" that Winston unironically describes as "a wonderful shot," ironically highlights
how the indoctrinated collective lacks humanity and empathy for the suffering of others. The fact
that Winston chooses to tell the story of watching this film in his first diary entry implies that he
subconsciously feels that this content is disturbing and that the audience's "shouting with laughter"
is an inappropriate response. Yet, as the dark irony illustrates, he is conditioned to accept it. In a
similar moment of personal storytelling, Winston tells Julia an anecdote about his wife Katharine.
Recalling that "[to] embrace her was like embracing a jointed wooden image," Winston's simile of
wood illustrates his overwhelming fear of being unloved, undesired and, consequently, alone and
helpless against the Party's manipulations. Winston's desperate desire for love and freedom causes
him to cling to the hope of a revolution. Subsequently misinterpreting the contrived storytelling of
Goldstein's manifesto - the oxymoronically titled 'Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism' as
physical evidence of an underground rebellion. O'Brien destroys the foundations of Winston's
rebellious identity by confessing that "[he] wrote [Goldstein's book]," proving that another of
Winston's dreams was merely a contrivance of the Party. Furthermore, O'Brien's assertion that "No
book is produced individually, as you know" reminds Winston of his complicity in creating these false
narratives, insinuating that the stories he has told himself are as fabricated as those of Comrade
Withers. Thus, Orwell's employment of storytelling as both narrative element and motif reveals the
characters' humanity and vulnerability as they share their hopes and fears.

Nineteen Eighty-Four ends unhappily after Winston's rebellion is defeated, and he comes to love Big
Brother as a broken and generic citizen. Within Winston's loss of individual humanity and the
surrender of his personal narratives, Orwell explores how a totalitarian government's absolute
control over the medie (and hence, storytelling) enables them to enforce collective loyalty to their
regime. The Oceanian government INGSOC employs propaganda to construct and then disparage the
falsified enemies of their equally artificial figurehead, Big Brother. This constantly reminds citizens of
INGSOC's power while reinforcing the story of the citizenry's vulnerability. The third person limited
view of Winston's life captures how the Party utterly dominates the stories that the citizens
experience and subsequently tell. The bleak urban visual imagery of Airstrip 1 where "there seemed
to be no colour in anything except the propaganda posters plastered everywhere" eschews colour to
symbolise the conformity enforced by INGSOC's power and messaging. The Party's monopoly of
power is reinforced by forging documents to prove its infallibility. Winston hyperbolically describes
this forgery as "merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another," emphasising the
powerlessness of individuals to disprove the Party's storytelling, let alone find truth. O'Brien
validates how, once disposed into a "memory hole", non-party stories and narratives are reduced
solely to “Ashes...Not even identifiable ashes. Dust” that does not exist...never existed." Thus, the
Party is able to destroy history while promoting a fake war, employing the paradoxical slogan "WAR
IS PEACE" to distract the citizens from the inconsistent stories of the regime. This conflict is
manufactured solely as an outlet for the citizens to direct their frustrations away from the Party.
Ultimately, ensuring social stability through oppression of the individual and collective.Winston's
final desperate daydream of "the long-hoped-for bullet... entering his brain" because he now "loved
Big Brother" demonstrates authority's absolute power as INGSOC has reduced Winston to an empty,
weeping husk. Orwell employs the story of Winston's demise as a cautionary punctuation mark in
the ongoing historical narrative of governments seeking to control the individual.

The paradoxes in Orwell's dystopian storytelling portray a horrific narrative of tyrannical

governmental control, where personal and shared human experiences are erased for power.
Orwell's cautionary tale exposes how totalitarian governments control storytelling in the media to
enforce a collective and individual narrative that demands blind loyalty to their regime. This
narrative compels readers to reflect on their shared human experiences in politically driven societies
and implores them to regain and maintain political agency and critical thought.

MOD B ESSAY
Question: How does Shakespeare construct his play around leadership?

Effective leadership resists simplistic binaries, instead requiring a synthesis of compassion,

pragmatism, and moral discipline to navigate the complex demands of power and reputation in
times of instability. By innovatively reshaping the traditional conventions of Elizabethan history
plays, William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1(1597) offers a creative incursion into the values that
define good leadership.' By dramatising the conflicts between the titular character, Prince Hal, and
King Henry, Hotspur and Falstaff, Shakespeare symbolically mirrors the ideological conflicts
surrounding concepts of power embodied in the pragmatism in political transition from the
Medieval to Renaissance eras. This allows Shakespeare to attest the need for pragmatism in politics.
With a characteristic Shakespearean form that features an alternating structure, King Henry 1 IV,
Part 1 facilitates a dialectic upon the importance of leaders remaining empathetic towards all
members of society, whilst also acknowledging the role honour and order plays in strong leadership.

Genuine leadership demands a balance between authority and empathy, requiring rulers to engage
meaningfully with all levels of society rather than remaining confined to elite circles. By paralleling
contrasting perspectives of leadership, Shakespeare successfully typifies the idea that good
governance can only occur when rulers maintain a flexible attitude towards all stratums of society.
As the play begins, King Henry is described as "wan with care", following his usurpation of "The
Skipping King", His quixotic proposition of a crusade amidst civil unrest, "nailed for our advantage on
the bitter cross" encapsulates the shortcomings of his leadership, with Shakespeare's additional use
of vivid Christian imagery highlighting Henry's preoccupation with his sins. Yet, whilst Henry
heedlessly governs his land, Hal is characterised as an astute, humanist leader, with the dichotomy
between their ideals illuminating Shakespeare's advocacy of nuanced leadership. This dramatic
construction establishes a stark contrast between the lugubrious world of the King's court and the
jocund world of the tavern, wherein he employs the dramatic technique of soliloquy to provide us
with a direct insight into Hal's stratagem; "imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious
clouds to smother up his beauty." By shifting Hal's speech from prose to verse, Shakespeare
amplifies the Prince's newfound awareness of his royal responsibility, with his additional
introduction of dramatic irony illustrating that Hal's approach to leadership is favoured. Further,
Hal's actions in the tavern allow him to develop stronger relationships with all of society, culminating
in his proclamation that when he is King, he "shall command all the good lads in Eastcheap." By
further appealing to our pathos through a hyperbolic boast of his linguistic dexterity; "I can drink
with any tinker in his own language", Hal is able to cultivate a familiarity with the lower classes. Hal’s
ability to connect with both commoners and nobility encourages modern readers to value empathy
and inclusivity as crucial traits in contemporary leadership. This allows us to see how his approach to
leadership has enabled him to seek solstice with the commoners through his vernacular. Hence,
Shakespeare underscores the importance for successful rulers to attain admiration from both the
political elite and the populace.

True leadership is defined by the ability to relinquish personal indulgence in favour of duty, with
moral clarity emerging through the rejection of self-serving influences. Shakespeare patronises the
significance of kingship through his dramatic construction of alternating scenes. To wit, he creates
parallels between the royal court, represented by Prince Hal, and the lowly tavern world,
represented by Falstaff. Falstaff's ideal life is satiated by incessant pleasure, and thus, despite being
an anointed knight, he devotes himself to a world of self-indulgence, uncovering the paradox of his
leadership within the tavern. Shakespeare's introduction of dramatic irony, as Falstaff muses on the
value of leadership; "In England, when thou art King...when thou art King hang a thief", draws a
correlation between leaders and lowly thieves to amplify this notion. Shakespeare further employs
the dramatic technique of soliloquy in Falstaff's Act 5 catechism, as the "reverend vice" declares
honour is "a mere scutcheon", subsequently stating that "I have led my ragamuffins where they are
peppered..there's not three of my hundred and fifty left alive" Falstaff's brazen disdain for the values
of pragmatic leadership eventually forces Hal to outcast the pompous character, with the rejection
of Falstaff's values the superfluous proof for the Prince's nobility to surface. Hal foreshadows his
future rejection of Falstaff in the play extempore, where Shakespeare's use of metatheatre amplifies
Hal's political responsibility. As Falstaff pleads to Hal not to banish "sweet Jack Falstaff…..kind Jack
Falstaff…..true Jack Falstaff"" the Prince replies with "I do, I will", with the ominous overtones
present in the Prince's response symbolising Hal's cognisance of his sacred obligation. This
illuminates Hal's gradual embrace of political responsibility. Thus, by rejecting Falstaff, Prince Hal
surrenders the vain pleasures of exuberance, tainting his past actions in the Tavern. Hal’s rejection of
Falstaff’s hedonism reminds us that personal discipline and moral responsibility are necessary
sacrifices for those in positions of influence today. The contrast between Hal's noble self-sacrifice
and Falstaff's egocentric greed highlights how pragmatism paves the way for righteous leadership.

Honour, while essential to leadership, must be tempered with pragmatism, as the uncritical pursuit
of glory can undermine the very power it seeks to legitimise. By further dichotomising the strategies
employed by various characters to gain prestige, Shakespeare incites public discourse into the
political benefits that can arise from a pragmatic perception of honour. Stemming from the
ideological uncertainties permeating the Elizabethan psyche, Hal's conflict with Hotspur acts as a
conduit for Shakespeare to challenge the esteemed perception of regal glory in the Elizabethan
status quo. Shakespeare's initial characterisation of Hotspur accentuates the rebel leader as the
embodiment of chivalry, lauded by the King's court as "gallant Hotspur...the theme of honour's
tongue." In comparison, Hal is denounced in the same scene as having only "riot and dishonour stain
his brow." However, we come to acknowledge the dramatic foil Shakespeare establishes between
Hal and Hotspur exemplifies how Hotspur's blind adherence to anachronistic notions of chivalric
honour ironically debases his political reputation. Shakespeare's personification of honour as a
tangible concept in "to pluck up drowned honour by the locks," emphasises how Hotspur's
hedonistic and reckless pursuit of the ideal blinds him to the nuances of effective leadership.
Conversely, Hal manages to synthesise Hotspur's appreciation of virtue and the humanist ideals of
prudent manipulation. Within Hal's soliloquy, Shakespeare's use of metonymy in his belief that his
"loose behaviour" can be a metaphorical "mask" that he can "throw off" reveals his understanding of
the inherent ambiguity of honour. Shakespeare contrasts this with Hotspur's political ineptitude to
endorse a more subtle approach to attaining honour. Shakespeare's further employment of
monetary language throughout Hal's soliloquy uncovers the Prince's view that honour will never be
sufficient in its value. His use of celestial imagery; "two stars keep not their motion in one sphere",
ultimately characterises Hal as chivalrous, indicating that his rational conception of honour is better
representative of an effective leader. The contrast between Hal’s measured pragmatism and
Hotspur’s blind pursuit of honour challenges us to rethink glory as a leadership goal and instead
prioritise wisdom and foresight. Clearly, to Shakespeare, a leader without honour cannot be an
effective leader but a leader who places all value in chivalry will be too reckless to lead successfully.

Ultimately, amidst the bawdy comedy of Eastcheap, the gravity and machination of the court, and
the action of the battlefield, Shakespeare challenges a Manichean conception of leadership. Instead
of a dichotomous view of the efficacy of powerful leadership or populist leadership, King Henry IV,
Part 1 offers a nuanced idea of an ideal leader where popularism cohabits with pragmatism and
ruthlessness to ensure the future safety and success of the crown and nation. Consequently, King
Henry 1 IV, Part 1 remains a relevant exploration into the inherent subjectivity of honour and
reputation and their role in maintaining a leader's political reputation especially in times of national
or international crisis such as we face today.