May 2017, Paper 2 (HL)

Question 3: To what extent do at least two of the works you have studied show that an individual is in control of his or her destiny?

Many individuals believe that destiny is controlled by an external force that is beyond the reach of human beings. This force may be regarded as faith or religion. One of William Shakespeare’s later tragedies, King Lear, demonstrates that individuals are entirely responsible for their actions. The play, written in 1605 during the Jacobean era and the reign of James I, portrays the tragic downfall of a king after dividing his kingdom and leaving his power to two “vicious” and “serpent-like” daughters. Shakespeare depicts the consequences of human actions and the impact these can have on destiny. On the other hand, Kitchen, a postmodern romantic novel by Japanese author Banana Yoshimoto, follows the psychological and emotional battles of a young woman living in Tokyo. Mikage demonstrates that destiny is not only in the hands of individuals, but that it can be controlled by many other factors including magic realism. Both texts consider themes such as judgment, reason, hope, and faith, allowing the characters to take control of their destiny.

According to the critic, Kenneth Muir, Shakespeare removes all gods and an afterlife; so it follows that characters are entirely responsible for their actions, and if this leads to disaster, the tragedy is absolute. The catastrophic denouement of King Lear, characterised by the death of Lear’s virtuous and honest daughter, Cordelia, demonstrates that his actions have caused the king to lose the only daughter that truly loved him. Indeed, the entire play depicts the cruel and unjust consequences of Lear’s decision to divide the kingdom. King Lear’s failure to apply reason and misperception demonstrate the he was in control of his own destiny. During Act 2.2, Lear is weeping on stage as he exclaims, “Oh reason not the need. Let not woman’s weapons, tear drops, stain my man’s cheeks.” Shakespeare emphasises the idea that Lear does not understand that he can change destiny through modulation. Shakespeare places hard stress on “let”, known as dactylic rhythm, to highlight the message he wishes to convey.

Unlike Lear’s “infirm” nature, Edmund, a Machiavellian character and bastard son of Gloucester, offers the audience a contrasting perspective. At the end of Act 1.2, Edmund closes the act using a rhyming couplet, “if not by birth I shall have lands by wit. All with me’s meet that I can fashion fit.” Here, Shakespeare heightens Edmund’s violent nature by using abrupt, monosyllabic words and plosive sounds. Edmund’s soliloquy at the end of Act 1.2 demonstrates that the character has full possession of his destiny. Edmund also praises the gods when he says “I grow. I prosper. Now, Gods, Stand up for bastards”, suggesting that faith was very important during the Jacobean era and that people believed that faith controlled their destiny. Although Shakespeare juxtaposes Lear and Edmund to demonstrate their contrasting beliefs, it is evident that individuals may not believe they are in control of their destiny and may only come to the knowledge of their control at the conclusion of the tragedy.

Kitchen was written in 1988 and with the help of Yoshimoto’s ‘Zuhitsu’ writing style, meaning ‘follow the brush’, the novel portrays the idea that the moon, magic, and faith control destiny. The non-linear narrative structure allows the author to warp reality, potentially provoking the reader to continuously question the setting. Yoshimoto’s solipsistic narration enables the reader to enter the mind of Mikage and experience her numbness to pain. Following the “surprised” death of her grandmother, Mikage moves in with the Tanabes, a two-person family consisting of Yuichi, a lonely young boy, and his transgender mother, Eniko. When Mikage was cooking for Yuichi in the “deathly silent” night, Yuichi asks “don’t you think that seeing such a beautiful moon influences what one cooks?” Here, Yoshimoto highlights the importance of the moon in Japanese society, exposing an important cultural observation, but also suggesting that the moon can influence an individual’s destiny. Yoshimoto employs an interrogative syntax and eludes Mikage’s response for dramatic effect. This technique creates an ambiguous effect on the audience, inviting readers to reflect. Shortly before Eniko’s death, Mikage shares a dream with Yuichi. Magic realist events are frequently used in Japanese literature; indeed, the critic, Ida Mayer highlights the symbolism of this narrative style. Mayer describes the dream as a turning point that communicates an idea of salvation. The critic points out that Kitchen’s dream sequences are not fantasy, but instead have the power to influence the real world. After the dream, Mikage says, “it was once a miracle and the most natural thing in the world.” The contrast between the noun “miracle” and the connection to the theme of nature demonstrates that these dreams cause hesitation in the protagonist and that Mikage is not in control of her destiny. This is confirmed when Mikage is walking through the streets of Tokyo and tears were “found pouring” down her cheeks. Mikage then comes across a kitchen and she thinks, “it was a kitchen. I was puzzled. Smiling about how I had just gone from the deepest despair to feeling wonderful. I implored Gods, please let me live. The repetition of the letter “d” demonstrates the ability of an external force to determine Mikage’s happiness. The call to the Gods emphasises that the idea of her destiny is not in her control, as her life is dependent on the decision of the Gods. Kitchen is dominated by parallels with a magical and supernatural world that controls the destiny of human beings.

Although King Lear suggests that Lear’s loss of power and his social status are consequences of his tragic flaw and failed love for his loyal daughter, some characters highlight the importance of the gods. For example, Albany, Goneril’s husband concludes his part in Act 5.3 saying “the judgment of the heavens that make us tremble.” Here, Albany may expose an idea that contrasts with critic Kenneth’s Muir’s view, since an external force does have an impact on the destiny of Lear’s people. Although, during the Jacobean era, failure to apply reason reduced men to the animal state of being governed by appetite and lust, Edgar, Gloucester’s legitimate son, believes that “the gods are just and out pleasant vices make instruments to plague us” (Act 5.3). Edgar’s final lines confirm that an individual’s destiny is not only within their control. Kent, Lear’s disguised servant questions the tragic ending of the play when he asks, “is this the promised end?” Again, Shakespeare highlights how destiny cannot be change if it is already decided.

Kitchen provides a contrasting perspective when Mikage offers a moral message to the reader: “On this truly dark and solitary path, the only way we can light is our own. Even if I was raised with love I will always be lonely.” Yoshimoto creates contrast with the previous imploration to the Gods as the author is suggesting that every individual can determine their destiny. Through the juxtaposition of the nouns “love” and “lonely”, the author emphasises the idea that an individual can choose whether he shall live in happiness or lonely isolation, but Mikage decides not to. Mikage’s confusion demonstrates that an individual cannot always determine how their lives will develop, but that they can choose whether they do this embraced by light or in the dark of the cosmos.

Although the two texts discussed belong to radically different historical periods and cultural contexts, both Shakespeare and Yoshimoto demonstrate that an individual does not possess absolute control of her or his destiny. Some individuals may place their fortune on forces that are beyond the reach of human beings, but this does not mean that their decisions do not impact their success or impact.