Author: Christopher Waugh

In the novel “The Book Thief” written by Markus Zusak, conventions of the genre Magical Realism, in this case symbolism; are employed to illustrate the deeper meaning of the novel. That is; knowledge is power and the power of words and the actions that humans take as a result of them have the potential to have a negative or positive impact on individuals and the world.
In the novel, words symbolise power and the significance of words and their effect on the lives of the characters involved is shown in order to inform the reader to the idea that words are powerful and have a large impact on society and individuals, and also to warn us to choose our own words carefully.

In ‘The Book Thief’, a character who went on a journey towards attaining knowledge and power was Liesel Memimger, the main protagonist of the novel.
Zusak uses the character Liesel to show the power of words through their positive effect on Liesel’s life.
In the early stages of the novel, Liesel’s lack of knowledge was established when we realised Liesel was illiterate and struggled at school.
“She was the book thief without the words” But trust me, the words were on their way”
This early depiction of Liesel allows the reader to see that although Liesel may not have the power of knowledge and words yet , she will.
Being illiterate in a society controlled by words, meant that Liesel had no power over herself and felt disconnected. Throughout her journey, as she began to learn to read and write, her character developed, she found her identity and had a way to control had express herself in a world run by words. For Liesel, words were a symbol that she had power and control over herself.
As Liesel went on her journey, she had to learn how to manage the power that accompanied her words and this is shown through her argument with Isla Herman.
When Zusak wanted to show the reader the true power of words, he used a metaphor to show the harmful impact of words and to present the negative power attached to their power.
“The injury of words, Yes, the brutality of words… Cuts had opened and series of wounds were rising to the surface of her skin, All from the words”
Zusak used a metaphor of words to show how Liesel’s words had the power to cause harm. Although they did not literally cause cuts to open, Zusak wanted to show through the metaphor that Isla was harmed by Liesel’s hurtful words. This was an important turning point in Liesel’s journey, when she saw how if she abused words, they could cause harm to others.
This symbolises the power that accompanies our words and as readers, Zusak wanted us to become more aware that although we have power, we must learn to control it and not use it for bad.
Words also represented life for Liesel, shown figuratively “to remind her that words had brought her to life” and physically when ” She was holding desperately on to the words that had saved her life”.
Figuratively, when Liesel finally had the power of words by her side, her character was “brought to life” by being able to write her own story and take control of her life. Zusak used a metaphor again when words saved her life when she was writing in the basement when bombs hit Himmel St . The words she was writing did not actually save her, the shelter did, but the words were the reason that Liesel was protected in the shelter, so in a way they did save her life.
Zusak created the character Liesel to have a complicated relationship with words. She struggled to understand them, control and manage her own words, and then she used them to create herself, but their power and significance in her life is always present and shown through the symbolism of their power. ” I have hated the words, and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right”.
At the end of Liesel’s journey, she realised too, that although she hated words and loved them, they had an irreversible positive effect on her life and she only hopes that by yearning for knowledge and power, she did it right.

Although words gave Liesel knowledge and power over herself, Zusak also used words to symbolise the things wrong in the world and to show the dark side of the power of words, when sought after to spread evil.
Nazi Germany and it’s regime was ruled by propaganda and the manipulation of words, which enabled Hitler to exploit the nations trust in him. Hitler yearned for words only so that he could control people, unlike Liesel who yearned for words to control herself.
Hitler knew the power that words could have and used them against the nation.
Through Adolf Hitler and his abuse of the power of words, Zusak could confront us again with the truth that the power of words is corruptible and can be used for bad as well as good.
Hitlers words stand as a symbol for the evil in the world and a warning to the reader to acknowledge when they themselves are abusing the power of words.
Zusak used Max’s story the Word Shaker to explore how someone could abuse the power of words. “Yes the Führer decided that he would rule the world with words, I will never fire a gun, I will not have to.” This line shows the reader how Hitler had recognized the power that words had, and realised he could rule the world with them.
” He watched them grow, until eventually great forests of words had risen throughout Germany …. It was a nation of farmed thoughts.”
For Zusak to imply that German people were not in control of their own thoughts but were being manipulated by their leader and thoughts were being created by Hitler’s propaganda, Zusak shows how significant the power of words can be in society.
When we as readers look back on Liesel now, we get a better understanding on why she was so desperate for words, knowledge and power. Because she did not want her thoughts to be controlled and manipulated like the rest of society.
Zusak used the quote “Without words, the Führer was nothing”, to educated the readers to see that Hitler was just an ordinary man, who had figured out how much power words have hidden in them and used them to spread hate and corrupt a society. But Zusak really wanted to show the reader that without the words, Hitler was just like anyone else.
This brought the Nazi Germany situation close to home, because the readers were forced to think about how easy it is for someone to abuse the power of words in society, and made the reader look over their own society to see if this was something that was happening to them.
As readers, we get to see how Hitler abuses words to rally the German people, when Max dreams of fighting Hitler.
“Will you stand out there, powerless? Or”—and now he stepped one rung higher—“will you climb up into this ring with me?”.
Zusak used the boxing ring dream to show how Hitler used words to convince the German people that they had a common enemy, the Jewish people were considered a threat and Hitler unified their hatred towards the Jews. The metaphor that all of Germany could step into the ring and help Hitler defeat Max shows how Hitler could masterfully manipulate people and the power of words in order to rule Germany and start a war.
Zusak used Hitler to show the readers the dark side of the power of words, in order to present the idea that all power can be used for good or bad, and words, as they represent power in The Book Thief, can be used in the same way.

Another way that Zusak used a characters words to symbolise power was through the character Max, who experienced the hateful side of Hitlers words and labels. However, this did not stop him from recognizing that not all words were hateful, and the power of kind words could change a life.
An interesting element of Max’s relationship with words was his experience with Mein Kampf, Hitlers biography. The hateful words of Hitler’s book made it’s way into every household of Germany, in one way or another, and the book and it’s words preach the hate that Hitler wanted people to have. Mein Kampf represent the evil capabilities of mankind when we abuse the power of words.
However, Zusak masterfully used Mein Kampf to also represent power and freedom to Max, as it was the way that Max was able to find Hans Hubermann and find safety in the Nazi regime.
“Mein Kampf. Of all the things to save him”. The irony that the very book that condemned Max and other Jews in Nazi Germany is the thing that brought him safety shows how Zusak wanted the readers to see how the power of words can be used for either good or bad, and that even though Hitler abused the power of words, his words still had the potential for good in someones life. Zusak also used Mein Kampf when Max used the pages of Hitlers words to write his own story on top, The Standover Man.
The Standover Man was a story for Liesel to tell her Max’s life story and strengthen their friendship, but also a way for Max to rebel against Hitler and all he stood for by creating something beautiful out of the evil. Mein Kampf means My Struggle, and Max kept the cover of the book to show how The Standover Man was a story about his own struggles in life, as a result of Hitlers words.
By writing over Hitlers Mein Kampf pages, Zusak showed the reader how hateful words can be transformed into kind words, and showed how Max was able to find a way to defy Hitlers preaching even in the smallest of ways.
Zusak also used Max to help teach Liesel about the power and importance of words through his story The Word Shaker. Max knew how important kind words were to combat the hateful words that their society was plagued with and had a drive to share that knowledge with Liesel.
In Max’s book, “The best word shakers were the ones who understood the true power of words”.
This line refers to Liesel as being a word shaker, because she could understand the true power of words. This was because of the time that she was illiterate and “knew how powerless a person could be without words.” Liesel understands the true power of words because of her own struggle to attaining them, and Max wanted her to realise through The Word Shaker what Hitler was doing with their society but also to show her how powerful words were.
“The tear was made of friendship-a single word”. Here Zusak teaches the reader about the true power of words, by showing how the word friendship between Max and Liesel grew into an in destructive force that could withstand Hitler and the world.
Zusak showed us as readers the power of kind words and how they could outweigh the hateful words in a society such as Nazi Germany but also in our own societies.
Through words, Max and Liesel could reclaim their own power and independence in Nazi Germany, and create a strong friendship, and their symbol is shown in a different light, this time representing freedom, friendship and power.

In Markus Zusak’s “The Book Thief” , conventions of Magical Realism; symbolism, were used to teach the readers about society and the power of words.
Words symbolised knowledge and power, and Zusak successfully presented the idea that the power of words are undeniable and are extremely important and powerful in society. He also taught the readers that words could have a significant impact on peoples lives, whether it be because of kind words, hateful words, or both.
Through the course of the book, Zusak taught the characters, as well as the readers, about the true power of words and he also presented a warning, that we as people, must acknowledge the power of our own words, because we have now seen what happens when words are abused.

Macbeth Act 2, Scene 2 – Is this A Dagger?

Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 5: Unsex Me Here

 Ambition is the greatest human virtue that provides purpose in peoples lives by giving them the desire to achieve success or power. Having ambition in our lives means that we dream of accomplishing big things and strive to achieve them. When ambition works alongside strong morals and the right intentions, it will normally have a positive outcome. But, with the nature of ambition being such a fragile concept, people can often unknowingly cross the border and become too ambitious, seeking things not meant to be. The thirst for power can never truly be satisfied, and once ambition has clouded our judgement and morals, there will be detrimental effects on not only us but the people around us.
 In Macbeth by Shakespeare, Ozymandias by Percy Shelley, Viva la Vida by Coldplay and Gattaca by Andrew Niccol, the nature of ambition and it’s limits has been explored and the texts all reach different conclusions about ambition, allowing the reader to understand that ambition is NOT a simple thing.

In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the damage ambition can cause is portrayed through the main character Macbeth. Macbeth is a loyal friend, soldier and war hero first described as “valours minion” after the battle against Norway,  who served King Duncan honourably and never thought to question his position. Macbeth is exposed to a prophecy that says he will become Thane of Cawdor and King of Scotland.
The prophecy has a great impact on Macbeth and he realises his true desire for power. The prophecy ignites a wildfire of dark ambition in Macbeth, and in the process, Macbeth sacrifices his morals to become King. 
After the murder of King Duncan, Macbeth says “I am in blood, Stepped in so far,that should i wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er”. Shakespeare does this to show how Macbeth believes that he has already sacrificed his morals in the murder of Duncan that going back is not an option for there is nowhere to return to. The acceptance of his dark ambition allows Macbeth to let go of anything holding him back and this leads beautifully into his line “I have no spur to prick the sides/Only vaulting ambition which o’oerleaps itself/And falls on th’other..” Here Shakespeare shows how Macbeth  has nothing to hold him back from his ambition (no spur to prick the sides), and his thirst for power is so strong that it vaults over istelf and lands on another side, the evil and darker side of ambitions capabilities. This opens the door for Macbeth to become morally and mentally corrupt, which leads to the destruction and death of his friends, wife and even himself. 
The true nature of ambition was revealed in Macbeth by Shakespeare and we see how if taken too far,  the thing that pushes us to our potential can also be the thing that ruins us. 

In a similar way as in Macbeth, in the poem, Ozymandias by Percy Shelley, the self-confident and ambitious Ozymandias desires for his legacy to be remembered after his death.  He makes a statue of himself and places it in the desert as a way to be remembered forever and for people to see. However only “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone/Stand in the desert”. Shelley uses this to infer that all that remains of his mighty statue are is legs. “Near them on the sand/Half sunk, a shattered visage lies”, this says that Ozymandias’ visage, meaning his face is broken and lieing in the sand. We start to get the idea that the very person Ozymandias desired to be remembered as is not who he really was, in truth he was as broken as his statue now is. 
The poem goes on to say that on a plaque on the statue it reads “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings”
Here we really ssee Ozymandias’ desire to be seen as a powerful man. Ozymandias thinks that he is the King of Kings, and because Kings are believed to be powerful and Gods appointed ruler, Ozymandias’ is declaring that he is the most powerful King to have lived, and essentailly he is the ruler of Kings, a position in history that is seen to be Gods. “Look on my works, ye mighty and despair!” // Nothing beside remains, Round the decay of that colossal wreck” 
 Here Ozymandias says that people should look on his ‘works’ and lose hope in themselves at the greatness of them, ironically though, nothing beside his ‘mighty and powerful’ statue remains to show for his works and accomplishments.  This shows the reader how if we get too enveloped by our own ambitions and personal greatness, we lose sight of what’s really around us and become isolated from the real world. Ozymandias statue represents all that was wrong with his ambition and the very thing he desired to be remembered as was the opposite of what was seen from the statue.
Ozymandias by Percy Shelley explores ambition and the ways it can retaliate against us, even after death, and in the same ways as Macbeth, both men lost the things they desired most due to their ambition.

Viva la Vida by Coldplay explores ambition in a slightly different light than the other two texts, in that the main character, a King, has already lost everything he had desired through his ambition, and the song explores what consequences come to those who become power hungry.
The song begins with the line  ” I used to rule the world, Seas would rise when I gave the word” which implies that the King ‘used’ to rule everything and believed he was so powerful that he even ruled nature and seas would rise when he told them to. This is an impossible act and one only ever accomplished once in the Bible, when God allowed Moses to split the Red Sea and cross it. The King believes he too can raise seas, implying that he has powers similar to Gods and can accomplish the same things, a sign of his self confidence.  
Soon after the King faces the consequences of his ambitions, seen in the line ” One minute I held the key, Next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castles stand, upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand”. This is a telling part of the play, when the King loses they key to his own castle and realises that the very foundations of his castle are built upon instable and uncertain pillars of salt and sand, and not reliable pillars of stone. Salt is  a metaphorical symbol of durability and permanence and it acts as another biblical reference, a pillar of salt is a symbol of sin, refering to Genesis when Lot’s wife looked back on Sodom even though she was warned not to and as punishment was turned into a pillar of salt for all eternity.  Because of these references to the Bible, this line makes us believe that the Kings castle was built upon sin, which implies that the King got to his position through sinful ways, just as Macbeth did. The castle pillars however are not durable and permanent like the concept  “pillars of salt” would suggest, because the pillars of sand imply that the castle is built upon loose and unstable sand pillars too, therefore the castle is built upon sin and instability.
Nearing the end of the song, the King then reaches what I think to be the worst of his consequecnes, when he says the line “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”.  The true extent of the Kings consequences is shown here, when he says that Saint Peter, the angel that guards the gates of heaven won’t call his name to enter the afterlife, and he instead will go to Hell.
As King he is seen to be Gods appointed ruler on earth and the belief that he will  not be accepted into heaven is a sign of despair and a complete loss of faith, due to the ambition he had.

Viva la Vida explores the consequences of a power hungry ambition, similar to the way Ozymandias and Macbeth do,  through the character of a King who seeks power and in the end, loses it all.


After reading the last three texts, you might have the impression that ambition is a dangerous and fragile human virtue that only causes harm to humans. Contrary to this belief, ambition still has the potential to give real purpose to our lives, without having negative consequences if we play by the rules and don’t sacrifice our morals. 
In the dystopian film Gattaca by Andrew Niccol,  a society is built upon the idea that genetic selection is better than natural conception, and ‘invalids’ or naturally conceived humans are of lesser status. Vincent Freeman is an ‘invalid’ who was born with a rare heart disorder that could kill him before 30.  All throughout Vincent’s life, he suffers under the burden of discrimination and inequality of the Gattaca society.
Vincent uses ambition as a way to give his life purpose, and he strives to overcome the disadvantages of his inferior genetics.
When Vincent says the line  “Eugene never suffered from the routine discrimination of a ‘utero’, a ‘faith birth’ or and ‘invalid’ as we were called” he shows how genetically perfect humans never had to experience the same prejudiced treatment that Vincent and others like him suffered everyday. This helps to show us that Vincent and other invalids were hardened by their harsh treatment because they routinely endured it.
Vincent then goes on to say “He suffered under a different burden: The burden of perfection”  which poses a very important idea that perfection can be a burden in society and in Gattaca, those who have had their lives handed to them on a silver plate like Eugene; suffer under perfections high expectations. Vincent and Eugenes status in society are at opposite ends of the spectrum, however, both suffer under some burden, and it is how they overcome the burden that tells of their strength as humans.
Because of Vincent’s upbringing in Gattaca’s society, he learns that in order for him to ever succeed in life and overcome his burden, he will have to fight against every single molecule of his genetics if he wants to succeed. This means that to be an astronaut and get to Titan as he dreamt of, he needed to have the ambition to get himself there , unlike Jerome who just needed the genetics. 
In the line “Jerome had been engineered with everything he needed to get into Gattaca, except the desire to do so.”
Niccol uses this line to show how Jerome’s (Eugene)  genetics meant he had everything he needed to succeed, except the ambition to do so. This shows of the expectations that perfection placed on him and without the desire to achieve, his genetics were just as ‘invalid’ as Vincents.
Vincents most powerful line “This is how i did it Anton, I never saved anything for the swim back”  shows us how completely determined Vincent was to achieve his dreams, that he never saved anything for the ‘swim’ back or in other words, he had nothing left to go back and could only go forward. Niccol uses this as a way to show that Vincent’s ambition meant he gave everything to achieve success and had nothing to hold him back.
This can be linked to Macbeth’s ” Should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’oer”  quote, in that both men felt that they had no way to turn back from their ambition, and they had to let it take the reigns entirely. However, the difference in the two men is that Vincent never comprised himself or his morals like Macbeth did and that is why his story ended in success and not destruction.

In the four texts, Macbeth by Shakespeare, Ozymandias by Percy Shelley, Viva la Vida by Coldplay and Gattaca by Andrew Niccol, the nature of ambition was explored in distinctly different ways,  and all the texts came to a different conclusion about ambition and it’s potential either better or worse our lives. 
From investigating these texts, we can understand that ambition can either be the greatest human virtue or the greatest undoing of humans and it is a force to be reckoned with.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy ‘Macbeth’, ambition is the driving force behind the downfall of the main character, Macbeth. Macbeth is given the knowledge from supernatural creatures that he will be Thane of Cawdor, King and that Banquo will be the father to future Kings. This information acts like a pebble and creates a ripple effect that fuels Macbeth’s burning desire for power and to be King, whatever the cost. But as we have seen countless times in history, too much power can corrupt a man and become the thing that ruins them.  ” All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – Lord Acton.  This quote does well to explain the capabilities of power, able to corrupt a man, like in Shakespeare’s play. This essay will be about the language conventions that Shakespeare uses to show Macbeth’s degenerating mind and corrupted mental state as a result from his ambition.

Dramatic Irony is when the audience knows something the character does not, this gives them the knowledge but not the power to act on it. It is often used to make the audience feel involved in the play. In Macbeth, Shakespeare uses dramatic irony to show Macbeth’s mental deterioration, he cannot recognize the tricks his mind is playing, but the audience can. An example of this is when Macbeth is on his way to murder Duncan, the current King in his sleep. He believes he can see a dagger, floating in the air before him. It reaches towards him but he cannot touch it or feel it. Macbeth questions his sense of sight, perhaps the only time in the play where he may believe he is imagining things and he questions his morals.        “To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but A dagger of the mind, a false creation”.      I’ve interpreted that the audience cannot see the dagger and knows Macbeth is not mentally stable. The audience doesn’t want Macbeth to kill Duncan but we cannot stop him or warn Duncan.   Macbeth says     “There’s no such thing ,It is the bloody business which informs Thus to mine eyes”.    which means there is no such thing, he is imagining the dagger, and he says the murder he was about to commit has deceived his sight. His mental state and conscience at this time is stable enough to realize the truth behind his visions, but he is so succumbed to the idea of becoming King that he follows through on the dreadful act, that will, along with other things, plague his mind.

In Shakespeare’s works, metaphors are used to convey an idea that isn’t literal or possible, that the audience will understand. Shakespeare likes to use this convention to imply that one thing is another. In Act 3, Scene 2, Shakespeare makes reference to Banquo being a snake that is scorched. Macbeth says: “We have scorched the snake, not killed it.” This is said to Lady Macbeth about Banquo’s murder and Fleance’s escape. By comparing Banquo to a snake he is letting the audience imagine a snake that has been wounded, but not killed, Banquo is dead but the threat of Fleance becoming King is still there. In Greek Mythology, there is a figure, Hydra, that is often represented as a snake, and if one head is cut off, three more will grow in its place. I believe this idea of a mythological figure like Hydra links to how Fleance is a threat amongst others that will only grow stronger as Macbeth’s ambition grows. Shakespeare used this metaphor to invoke the imagination of the audience. Shakespeare also makes another comparison in Act 3, Scene 2 that implies his mind is full of scorpions. “Oh, full of scorpions is my mind, dear wife! Thou know’st that Banquo, and his son Fleance, lives”. Macbeth is stating that his mind is full of evilness, he has killed Duncan and Banquo and will continue to kill to maintain his throne. “Thou know’st that Banquo, and his son Fleance, lives” implies that as long as Fleance lives he will have a mind full of scorpions which represents his evil thoughts. This line can be seen as a way for Macbeth to show how he himself feels like his mind is failing him and degenerating, full of thoughts that he would once not think, but now are normal to him.

In Act 3 Scene 4, dramatic irony is used to show Macbeth’s unstable mental state. Shakespeare has skillfully used dramatic irony here to compel the audience to question whether a ghost is truly at the banquet like Macbeth says, or whether Macbeth has truly lost his mind and is hallucinating the bloody apparition of Banquo.  Macbeth says ” Thou canst not say I did it/ Never shake thy gory locks at me……Prithee, see there! behold! Look!”     Here, Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo sitting in the seat his friends gesture for Macbeth to sit in and he shouts to Banquo that he cannot say he did it (murdered Banquo).  The ghost is only seen by Macbeth, isolating him, which would strike fear in any man and cause you to question the stability of your own mind. Macbeth tries to show Lady Macbeth where Banquo is but it is a futile attempt. He then says “Avaunt, and quit my sight!”, meaning go away and leave my sight (directed at Banquo).   Banquo is only targeting Macbeth because they were once good friends and there was no honor in his murder, he wants Macbeth to be filled with guilt for the crime he has committed and the consequences because of it. Ghosts are often depicted as people who have died with unfinished business or of foul play and Banquo is a clear accusation at Macbeth’s evil actions. The audience and characters surrounding Macbeth will both be thinking Macbeth has lost his mind, but to him, he truly believes that he can see this ghost and is not crazy. Shakespeare has used the idea of Banquo reappearing shortly after being murdered to suggest that Macbeth has lost or is losing his sanity, thus making him imagine and see things that aren’t possible.  Macbeth then goes on to say, ” When now I think you can behold such sight/ And keep the natural ruby of your cheeks/ When mine is blanched with fear”. He is questioning the people at the banquet on how they can look so normal ( not afraid) at the sight of Banquo’s blood covered ghost when Macbeth is full of fear, and we as the audience know it is because Banquos ghost is only visible to the guilty Macbeth, and not to the guests or audience

In the last Act of Macbeth, Macbeth’s mind has truly become corrupt by the ambition he had to secure his position as King. He has sacrificed his mind whilst trying to eliminate certain ‘threats’. This is shown by the iambic pentameter of his speech being interrupted by a weak foot and the language choice Shakespeare uses. An iamb is an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable. The iambic rhythm is the rhythm that the English language naturally follows, and was the way of speaking in the Elizabeathen era, when Shakespeare was writing plays, thus it was adopted into plays in a pentameter with five iambs in a line. This is called iambic pentameter. In Shakespeare’s plays, iambic pentameter was predominant in the noble and high-class people to symbolize their high culture, education and their status in society, whereas commoners speech in ‘ plays is not in iambic pentameter to signify their low status in society, because they don’t have the literacy skills of a noble. Often, In Shakespeare’s plays,  when nobles speak without iambic pentameter it is because they are either drunk or losing their minds. In our case, for Macbeth, it is the latter. In Macbeth’s soliloquy ‘Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Tomorrow’ it is noticeable when a weak foot is present. For example in the line ‘To the last syllable of recorded time’  the ending is a weak foot, which interrupts the natural flow of his speech. This is because his mind is faltering and the simplest of things like speaking in iambic pentameter is failing him.