Download Discuss the extent to which a range of texts you have studied

Discuss the extent to which a range of texts you have studied succeeds in combining social
commentary and artistic excellence.
To discuss such concepts as social commentary and artistic excellence, we must first define the
terms. Social commentary, here, will be taken to represent some form of dialogue with the society
in which it is written – that is, the author must intend to, and to some extent succeed in, locating a
feature of society and pointing out a flaw or contradiction inherent in it. Artistic excellence, in
contrast, is an entirely vaguer concept, and we will need to define it purely in terms of the critical
reputation of a work. Certain books, here 1984, The Tempest, and A Passage to India, have widely
been accepted to be superb works showing great artistic excellence, how? and this is the definition
that will be used here. We will presume that artistic excellence is primarily an aspect of the aesthetic
beauty of the text and the words, instead of one derived from the ideas in the text – otherwise, of
course, the question becomes purely tautological. maybe winning of awards, being on best sellers
lists, on school text list; This being done, we can move on to the idea that the capacity of a work to
deal with both social commentary and to possess artistic excellence are not mutually exclusive, but
instead can both be employed in a text - but, despite this, we should accept that texts often do not
aim to unite these two, and thus it is unfair to say that works like 1984 or The Tempest fail to
combine social commentary and artistic excellence – they demonstrate that the two often work
better apart than together, and demonstrate that a text can combine the two in separate parts and
still be a great work. This essay, then, will argue that the two are combinable; but that this is not
always a good thing and many texts choose instead to keep them apart for good reason. Lots of
scope for discussion here – argument well set up
In The Tempest, it is fair to say that there is very little social commentary. While the character of
Caliban, for instance, does often evoke discussion and is considered to be a reflection on colonialism,
there is almost no question about the fact that Shakespeare did not intend it to be so. The Tempest
is certainly a great work, but this is not in the slightest because of any social commentary that it
relies on - instead, it draws its fame from the language employed and the brilliant constructions of
character and theme, more from it being “the stuff dreams are made on” than from a serious
comment on the society of the time. The Tempest does not rely on any truly serious ideas, and
instead drives the plot based on almost purely positive emotions – it is, to quote AC Bradley, “A
romp through the positive side of human nature”, instead of ever invoking the negative feelings that
social commentary inherently requires. It proves to us that a work can be great without any serious
attempt to unite artistic excellence and social commentary, and it is certain that this does not
diminish it, and instead makes it great – it shows us that a work can still inspire us without saying
that the world is inherently bad, and thus it in of itself gives the lie to a simplistic understanding of
social commentary as a good, universally attractive thing that makes any text better. To be fair, this
is likely somewhat because of Shakespeare’s remarkable talent with language – other writers, even if
they likewise did not aim to express complex social ideas, would be able to create the sense of
wonder in language that we get from “this isle is full of voices” or “full fathom five thy father lies /
those are pearls that were his eyes…” or even “our revels are now ended”. Shakespeare’s ability to
create artistic excellence here shows us two things – first, that it is independent from social criticism
and second, that it can make a work great without any input from wider social ideas. Effective
Integration of evidence to support to support argument
1984 takes the opposite approach. Whereas The Tempest had been entirely constructed of artistic
excellence with no attempt to invoke social commentary, 1984 instead builds itself nearly entirely
out of social commentary with only the briefest nods at artistic excellence. Consider, for instance,
the “book” that Winston Smith is given towards the end of the work, where Orwell effectively takes
Discuss the extent to which a range of texts you have studied succeeds in combining social
commentary and artistic excellence.
twenty pages off from the plot and his characters to give us a more detailed understanding of his
social criticism. While Orwell is generally accepted to be a superb writer, he does this is quite a
different way from that of Shakespeare, instead revelling in phrases that appear to be subtly wrong,
making us feel that his world is incorrect – which, of course, is entirely focused on furthering his
social commentary. “The clock was striking thirteen” has none of the exultant wordplay that
Shakespeare exhibits, but instead achieves its value because it conveys to us the strangeness, the
“otherness” of this place. 1984 is a book that is entirely devoted to conveying a sense of horror, and
it does this, but it also demonstrates that social criticism, as well as artistic excellence, can be the
pure focus of a text. 1984 does not combine the two at all, and breaks the book up to further this
goal. Orwell’s prose is not actually artistically excellent in the way that Shakespeare’s is, but is
instead excellent because it is more social commentary – 1984 is to social commentary what The
Tempest is to artistic excellence. Interesting discussion point – some would argue that 1984 has
artistic merit also
Despite the fact that both of these texts show us that the two need not overlap, it would not be fair
for us to conclude that no texts combine the two effectively, and that no texts even try. A Passage to
India instead interweaves artistic excellence and social commentary constantly, merging the two
with language that is at once both aesthetically superb and socially resonant. Consider, for instance,
the opening lines about the city “not caressed by the Ganges but ringed by it” and the famously
onomatopoeic lines about the Marabar Caves, “booming”. These are both enjoyable from an artistic
perspective and also help us to get inside the head of the culture that Forster wants us to
understand – Roland Barthes famously called A Passage to India “The best understanding of India a
foreigner could ever reach”, and it does this mainly through the use of a sort of relentlessly sundrenched language – the courtroom scene, for instance, is one of the great works of symbolism in
the English language, compressing the fury of a riot into a few short pages, where Adele’s “I don’t
know… I don’t think so…” suddenly achieves the significance of an explosion. Without a
consideration of the language, it is almost impossible to understand how a mob could explode
chanting the name of a character that, until this point, was never even particularly important. A
Passage to India, then, unites the ideas of artistic excellence and social commentary almost
perfectly, and does this with almost no loss to either. It is worth pointing out, of course, that this
does not mean that A Passage to India is better than either 1984 or The Tempest – it is merely
different, and takes a completely different approach, demonstrating that this is possible. An
interesting choice for the middle ground
In conclusion, it is obvious that texts can combine the ideas of aesthetic excellence and social
commentary to differing extents, and it is equally evident that the extent to which they do this is
mostly independent of the quality of the text. The two do not necessarily contradict, as A Passage to
India shows, but it can often be equally effective to isolate them entirely, as 1984 does, or to even
excise one element from the text, like The Tempest. Texts unite these two elements to many
different extents, which the small sample discussed here demonstrates, but they also demonstrate
that this extent is more of a feature of authorial style than one of text quality. It is unlikely that
anyone would seriously question Shakespeare’s place as the greatest writer of these three, but
nonetheless his is the text that most entirely forswears attempting to combine these two elements.
While it is not impossible to do so, it is simply not present in the text that Shakespeare wished to
write, while it was very much present in the text that Forster wanted to create. This allows us to
finally conclude that the importance of this combination is less than that which would often
Discuss the extent to which a range of texts you have studied succeeds in combining social
commentary and artistic excellence.
otherwise be argued – instead, it makes clear that this combination is often an incidental element of
a work, and that the quality of a text instead lies in the ability which a writer possesses, instead of
structural elements like the unity of these two elements
Really you could probably sit Schol now! There’s very little advice that I can give you . You have a
scholarly approach to the subject and write in a mature and very fluent manner.
ET5.