Dear Bicycle, A bicycle at your most rudimentary and generic form, you are a mode of transportation nationally associated with youth. But, you are much, much more, you are a fledging sense of freedom that within its restraints allows for the juvenile development of reason and responsibility, as well as the repercussions that are associated with the lapses of. In a more materialistic sense you are something of great hierarchical significance, consuming the superficial thoughts of adolescence. Schwinn or Mongoose, mountain or road, all decisions that affect one’s social interaction and one’s place in their kernel of friends. In all aspects you are an object of vast significance in one’s childhood development. Something almost no kid can live without.
But, as time progresses and one grows in age, your necessity wanes. You shift from an object of great possibilities and something that facilitates one’s everyday thoughts, to something that only rarely takes presence, only when seeking a form of leisure. All priority surmised. All major implication on life lost. Something whom once habitual presence in thought is now a void, now filled with the fascination of the new possibility of four wheeled transportation.
A car, an object that has precedence in the thoughts of many teens alike. You are the gateway to an even more expansive set of freedoms only obtained through the standardized process of obtaining your license. Which is yet another auxiliary attribute associated with your highly praised nature amongst teens. These extensive freedoms you provide however are not without their implicating consequences that are associated with their abuse. Most of these in which are drastically greater in severity than those associated with the juvenile exposer presented by the previously revered bicycle. But, as stated by one of the more peculiar authors of history Albert Camus, “freedom is nothing but a chance to be better” and that is exactly what you present. These freedoms are but a milestone in teenage development further realizing the great capabilities in responsibility one possesses. In a physical sense you are something that provides an immense improvement in capability when compared to that of which are associated with the object that has prior been the source of unparalleled qualification. It allows for increased range and speed which all lend it’s broadening of the scope of possibilities. With your aid we are able to go places a bike simply would not permit. And as I press down the peddle I contemplate the location in which my weathered bike will find rest within my basement.
Revenge is an ubiquitous concept and action that has sustained a presence in human cognitive thought and has not only been a driving force behind the thoughts within the minds of real people, but also has been the focus of countless works of both contemporary and historic media.
One example of a series of contemporary compositions that feature plots in which revenge is a dominating feature is the “Taken” series of movies. In both Taken and Taken 2 the plot revolves around either the protagonist or the antagonist seeking revenge against one another. In the first movie “Taken” directed by Pierre Morel the protagonist, Bryan Mills, a retired CIA agent, is seeking revenge upon on the Albanian Mafia. The action for which he is attempting to obtain revenge for is the abduction of his daughter Kim, who had traveled to Europe with her best friend Amanda to follow the band U2’s tour around Europe. Bryan Mill’s sets off on a journey utilizing his past CIA contacts to track down his daughter and kill those who impede his progress. This revengeful quest consumes the remainder of the film with many falling in his path as he locates his daughter and regains control of her from the grasps of the Albanian Mafia. He acts in a reckless manner, attempting to achieve success at all cost. These actions stem directly from the inciting moment when he is on the cell phone with the people who had abducted his daughter and continue until the very end of the film when he finally achieves revenge, killing all of those that were directly involved with the captivity of his daughter. This is precisely shown by the trailer attached below.
Shown by both this modern film and the historic play Hamlet, revenge is an element that facilitates the protagonists actions of obtaining justice. This is although is not isolated to the actions of these fictional characters, with people seeking justice in beyond the extent of the law countless times on the news. Both in the play “Hamlet” and the movie taken the authors utilize the concept of revenge as a driving force behind the protagonists attempt to instill justice; Hamlet who is seeking revenge against King Claudius and Bryan Mils seeking revenge against the politically ingrained [in France] Albanian Mafia. In both these cases the protagonist is attempting to remediate actions completed by subjects that have relative sovereignty over legal prosecution in their respective areas. Thus, the protagonist is driven to carrying out acts of revenge as a necessity to obtain some extent of justice, but with this this somewhat ambiguous form of “justice” we must call into question its ethical and moral viability. From the eye of the law, it is not a justified means of reconciling one’s actions, and is viewed as belligerent action, overstepping one’s bounds according to societies restrictions. But, on the other hand people who have been involved in situations of grief that stem from a wrong that can not be remediated within the restrains of the accepted judicial system can condole with those who take matters into their own hands to obtain justice from a trauma that exists beyond the extent of the law. Thus revenge is an action that that is completed in either good hearted attempt to obtain justice or as a frivolous action the originates from impulses that are not rationally evaluated by the individual, and it’s criticism by society should pertain only to the confines of specific examples and not as a generalization of the concept as a whole.
The second movie is “Taken 2”, directed by Oliver Megaton. Its plot is also consumed by the actions of revenge, with the head of the Albanian Mafia, Murad Hoxja and the antagonist in the film, seeking revenge against the protagonist, Bryan Mills for his actions in the first film. This is shown in the trailer attached below where the head of the Albanian Mafia vows to obtain revenge against Bryan Mills for the death of the members of the mafia, specifically his son. The remainder of the sequel is consumed with the head of the mafia targeting Bryan and his family while they are vacationing in Istanbul, Turkey. Although this task of obtaining revenge goes awry when the protagonist resists and ultimately kills the man attempting to revenge him.
This direct justification for revenge, are somewhat similar to that displayed by Hamlet within the play “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare, although the protagonist Hamlet shows a greater quantity of reluctance to execute the action of taking revenge. This difference which leads to the very different plot structures, can be derived from the backgrounds of those who are completing the task of revenge. Bryan and Murad are both people who have been perviously exposed to the task of committing a homicide. Bryan Mills previously being employed by the CIA, and Murad Hoxja being the head of a mafia that participates in many obscene deeds. In contrast Hamlet is a man of sovereign power and has no previous knowledge of the direct actions of seeking revenge. This idiosyncrasy leads to the divergence of their two general plot structures with the play Hamlet being composed of an extended period of deliberation on seeking revenge that spans multiple scenes. While in the “Taken” movies there is a general lack of this time uncertainty and an extended period in which the protagonist or antagonist completes their revengeful deeds. Although all of these works in some fashion show the clear progression of revengeful works with drawn out anticipations, confrontations, and completion of the tasks of revenge.
Throughout history revenge has also been present in the actions of many leading political officials and has proved the cause of many notable events. One example of an action of revenge shown in history during the time of the founding of the United States was the action of Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton in a duel. This event in American history originated from the defamation of the character of Aaron Burr during his race for the governor of New York, propagated by Alexander Hamilton who was the secretary of state at the time. Burr, enraged by these statements by Alexander Hamilton, sought revenge within the parameters of a duel in which he fatally injured Hamilton shown in the image below. (for more information in regards to this duel click here.)
All in all, there are countless examples of human actions that have revolved around revenge throughout history both in actual existence or within the pages and scenes of literary works some of which have a rightful justification and some of which are merely superfluous acts of exaggerated human emotions. Thus, in our everyday lives when we face adverse actions that draw us to partaking in revengeful acts we should mentally validate the necessity of these future actions.
