Gabe Holladay
Mr. Lineweaver
AP English
28 February 2017
Act 2:35 Equus Analysis
Act 2:35 in Peter Shaffer’s Equus depicts a passionate dialogue between Hesther and Dysart. Hesther urges Dysart to cure Alan’s condition, but Dysart believes doing so will result in irreparable damage to Alan’s character. Dysart thinks that ridding Alan of his relationship to Equus will result in his ultimate harm.
Dysart is unsure if making Alan normal will be good for him. In his final speech, Dysart highlights the ironies of modern day society. Society would view Alan’s actions as gruesome and unforgivable. Concurrently, many view it as “normal” to make animals their pets. “When that’s done, I’ll set him on a nice mini-scooter and send him puttering …show more content…
Continuing along the passage, Dysart begins focusing less on the damage he will inflict on Alan, and more on how he himself will be affected: “Why me?...why me? …. Account for me!...All right-I surrender! I say it!...In an ultimate sense I cannot know what I do in this place-yet I do ultimate things. Essentially I cannot know what I do-yet I do essential things. Irreversible, terminal things.” He asks rhetorical questions in his inquiry of “why me?” This question, along with its repetition makes it appear as though Dysart did not choose this occupation and it was instead forced upon him. He then proceeds to “surrender” and admit the true conflict he feels about his job proclaiming he does not know exactly what he does, but he knows he does “essential things.” Yet, those same “essential things” are “irreversible, terminal things.” Dysart contradicts himself, further reinforcing the conflict and duality he is experiencing. The “essential things” he is referring to is what his job entails. He is aware how big of a role psychiatric treatment plays in society, but not to the individual. While he understands that he performs “ultimate” duties, he is no longer sure why he does them. He subsequently remarks on how his job results in “irreversible, terminal things.” This embodies Dysart’s newfound perspective on the topic: his job can make one tolerable to society, but at the price of “terminal” damage. Dysart is uncertain about the validity of his job and is upset that the burden to perform it falls on
Mr. Lineweaver
AP English
28 February 2017
Act 2:35 Equus Analysis
Act 2:35 in Peter Shaffer’s Equus depicts a passionate dialogue between Hesther and Dysart. Hesther urges Dysart to cure Alan’s condition, but Dysart believes doing so will result in irreparable damage to Alan’s character. Dysart thinks that ridding Alan of his relationship to Equus will result in his ultimate harm.
Dysart is unsure if making Alan normal will be good for him. In his final speech, Dysart highlights the ironies of modern day society. Society would view Alan’s actions as gruesome and unforgivable. Concurrently, many view it as “normal” to make animals their pets. “When that’s done, I’ll set him on a nice mini-scooter and send him puttering …show more content…
Continuing along the passage, Dysart begins focusing less on the damage he will inflict on Alan, and more on how he himself will be affected: “Why me?...why me? …. Account for me!...All right-I surrender! I say it!...In an ultimate sense I cannot know what I do in this place-yet I do ultimate things. Essentially I cannot know what I do-yet I do essential things. Irreversible, terminal things.” He asks rhetorical questions in his inquiry of “why me?” This question, along with its repetition makes it appear as though Dysart did not choose this occupation and it was instead forced upon him. He then proceeds to “surrender” and admit the true conflict he feels about his job proclaiming he does not know exactly what he does, but he knows he does “essential things.” Yet, those same “essential things” are “irreversible, terminal things.” Dysart contradicts himself, further reinforcing the conflict and duality he is experiencing. The “essential things” he is referring to is what his job entails. He is aware how big of a role psychiatric treatment plays in society, but not to the individual. While he understands that he performs “ultimate” duties, he is no longer sure why he does them. He subsequently remarks on how his job results in “irreversible, terminal things.” This embodies Dysart’s newfound perspective on the topic: his job can make one tolerable to society, but at the price of “terminal” damage. Dysart is uncertain about the validity of his job and is upset that the burden to perform it falls on