American Research Journal of English and Literature

E. A. Gamini Fonseka, PhD

While Shakespeare’s King Lear is known for abdication in English literature, the Bodhisattva King Makhadeva is known for the same in the Canonical Buddhist literature. In terms of abdication, Lear gives up his responsibilities as King of Britain, while the Bodhisattva King Makhadeva renounces not only his responsibilities but also his throne and kingdom as a whole. Out of senile insouciance, Lear looks forward to an elegant retirement, never short of the royal regale he has been used to, while Makhadeva, still a man of physical vigour who has just seen the very first grey hair on his head, warned by the forebodings of senile decay, takes heed to achieve spiritual advancement before death. After abdication Lear proves the most unfortunate and pathetic tragic hero in all of Shakespeare’s plays while Makhadeva remains a role model for the Buddhists all over the world to follow in the face of old age. Thus, as much as the prospects they hold in the event of abdication, do contrast the returns they experience. Focused on the post-abdication escapades of the two kings, this paper attempts to make a comparison of their characters in light of the moral, social, and didactic implications of their decisions in the context of the values and ethics they are both exposed to in their respective cultures that influence their response to the vicissitudes of life.  

Masaomi Kobayashi

 What does it mean to be human? In his best-known novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick addresses this fundamental question through drawing parallels between natural and artificial beings. While conceiving humanity in relation to technology as an integral part of the posthuman condition embodied in human-machine relations, the novel sets in perspective the post-human condition under which post-modern technology actualizes viable machine-machine relations. Special attention is thus paid to the android characters, possibly including the bounty hunter protagonist, mass-produced by high-tech corporations as post-modern Prometheuses. With in mind the novel’s film adaptations that underscore its post-human aspects such as corporate personhood, this study affords insights into the author’s science fiction not only by providing an exploration of humanity, but also by expanding the universe of discourse of post-humanity

Neil L. R. Tate

 Although scholars are fully cognizant of the fact that twentieth century American writer Ernest Miller Hemingway (1899-1961) enjoyed the shooting sports throughout his life, it has never been comprehensively analyzed in the corpus of criticism how deeply the writer incorporated firearms into many areas of his persona and psyche. Hemingway demonstrates a connection with firearms that extends beyond the realm of the mundane activities of sport and military—venturing into erotic fantasy, sexual fetishism, and symbolism. This intriguing area of research has only been assessed tangentially by anecdotal references. Ultimately, firearms manifest as a key feature in the life and culture of Hemingway and remain deeply woven into the tapestry of his narrative and the idiom of his discourse.

Dr. Craig Doughty

This article presents an analytical insight into the characters of Marlowe in Joseph Conrad’s novella, ‘Heart of Darkness’ and Francis Ford Coppola’s appropriation of that character, Willard in the film, ‘Apocalypse Now’. Both characters are used to document and deal with concepts of colonialism and the impact of foreign interference in lands deemed harsh and unforgiving: the Congo and Mekong respectively. In doing so, Marlowe and Willard make relentless journeys during periods of heightened historical conflict that lead both characters down spirals of emotional suffering. Interwoven into the fabric of these journeys are the distresses and pains of their creators. As such, Marlowe and Willard act as vessels for autobiographical forays.Principally, however, Conrad and Coppola use Marlowe and Willard as reference points for concepts of human morality. They compel the reader and the viewer, respectively, to question to what extent common morality is shared by most or all human beings and furthermore, is accessible to, and binding upon, all rational beings.