This is not in APA format, and frankly, I’m too tired to convert it for you. Please see the sample research papers for APA format!) Student1
(The intro is a bit abrupt. I’m not in love with it, as intros go.) Humans are sinful by nature. However, some people take sin to a new level. Characters like Jesse in My Sister’s Keeper and Claudius in Hamlet exemplify sinning at its most extreme. These characters sin without knowing they do and act without considering the imminent consequences. These characterize the archetype of the Profane from Joseph Hall’s (Characters of) Vertues and Vices. The Profane is a character absorbed by sin, who lives immorally yet thinks nothing of it.The archetype of the Profane has twisted from an egregariously (Sadly, this is not a word, but I admire your perspicacity in creating such a fun little gem from two words) evil and unwanted (by whom?) person to a commonplace member of society, exemplifying modern society’s lack of moral and religious concern. (On the other hand, the thesis does what it’s supposed to, so we’re okay here.)
In his essay (Mmm, it’s not quite an essay, not quite a book. ‘Treatise’ is perhaps the word for which you’re looking - ?) Characters of Vertures and Vices, Joseph Hall explains the archetype of the Profane in the manner it was seen in the 15th century. Hall writes that the Profane man lives by a (now, if you read this intro to the quote, you’ll note that it doesn’t make grammatical sense. Try for this: Hall writes that the Profane lives by a “[c]ustom of sin [that] hath wrought this senselessness . . . .”)“Custom of sin hath wrought this senselessness; which now hath been so long entertained, that it pleads prescription, and knows not to be altered” (Hall). The Profane is explained to be impious, to not care for or about religion, sin without recognizing his sins(sort of), and live without caring about the repercussions of his actions. A person immoral in this way sins in more ways than just one, as Hall explains, saying, “Every virtue hath his slander, and his jest to laugh it out of fashion; every vice, his colour” (Hall). This type of person indulges themselves with every vice: food, alcohol, gambling, sex. They also disrespect virtues, and think little of moral people. (All this is true, but I’d like to see the commentary do more here than merely translate Hall’s text. Dig deeper!) The pivotal point of the Profane’s sinning is that his sin is not a machination, but rather a lifestyle: he has sinned so long and often with such little thought that the Profane does not even recognize that he is sinning. This archetype embodies meaningless and unacknowledged sin as a lifestyle.
In the Shakespearean (well, yes, you could call it Shakespearean. )play Hamlet, the Profane is exemplified by the lascivious and cold-blooded King Claudius. Claudius brutally murders his own brother to marry his wife and takes his throne, seemingly before considering the consequences of his actions. Though Claudius does not consider his actions, he does at least consider his motives; psychiatrist Rudolph Dreikurs says that “All behavior has a purpose,” (and?) Claudius’ behavior is driven by his craving of power, not morality. He drinks, fornicates, lies and schemes; (this should be a comma instead) all of which would be considered sinful debauchery in the time of the play. These things fit with the selfish, unthinking frame of immorality. Textual evidence for Claudius’ thoughtlessly sinful nature is rather abundant and convicting: “Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, with witchcraft of his wit . . . won to his shameful lust the will of my most seeming-virtuous queen” (Shakespeare 30 not quite how we cite Shakespeare. Go with the act, scene and lines instead). This description by the ghost of Hamlet I elucidates Claudius as a patent sinner who seems not to really care that he has taken his brother’s life and stole his country, queen and title. Claudius also viciously fears death, in keeping with the Profane, and acts to protect himself from that fear; (colon here instead) “By letters congruing to that effect, the present death of Hamlet. Do it, England, For like the hectic in my blood he rages, And thou must cure me. Till I know ‘tis done, Howe’er my haps, my joys were ne’er begun” (Shakespeare 102 again, the citation issue)). Claudius so selfishly fears the accountance (accounting?) of his wrongdoing that he sends Hamlet to his death merely to avoid Hamlet occurring (contriving?—some word choice issues here) his own.
This archetype in modern literature usually does not act against others for as purposeful reasons as Claudius does. Modern times call for wrong-doing to be done for reasons more complex than revenge.(I sort of follow this—but why would more complex reasons be less purposeful? That doesn’t scan well.) For example, in Jodie Picoult’s My Sister’s Keeper, Jesse, the eldest brother of two sisters who are fighting a losing battle against cancer and each other, turns his laziness and loneliness into destructive energy. (I like the way you’ve worded that.) Jesse is secretly the town’s serial arsonist(I actually laughed out loud here—I’m sure it’s not supposed to be funny, but I think every paper ought to have a secret serial arsonist), and coincidentally the son of the fire chief(irony, that!). When his father rebukes him, Jesse says “I totally understand that you‘ve spent your life believing that everything that‘s wrong in the universe all traces back to me . . . This time you‘re totally off base” (Picoult 331). (It’s an interesting quote, but I’m not sure that it accomplishes what you’ve hoped here.) Jesse’s resemblance of a Profane is in the way that he destroys others’ property for no reason, with no regret. His running list of sins and vices fills the gap in his life that is left by his parent’s constant focus on his sisters. (Could we not account that as a reason?) Psychiatrist Rudolph Dreikurs explains that “the first reason for [a child’s] misbehavior is the desire for attention” (Dreikurs 117) All of these sinful activities are done without pause for moral conflict, and Jesse had been acting this way since he was only four or five, when he cursed at his mother and ripped his braces off, screaming “Now you won’t ever have to take me anywhere” (Picoult 167). Jesse begins his string of sin out of hurt and it soon grows to dominate his life.
A similarly Profane and equally destructive character is that played by Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter. In this movie, Eastwood plays a nameless drifter who enters a small town and incidentally helps them protect themselves from bandits about to hit their area. (I agree with your character choice here, but make sure your argument tends towards something here—in other words, show me the evolution of the archetype instead of merely proving that the character is archetypal.) While in the town, Eastwood rapes several women in the town, one of whom asks, “Isn’t forcible rape in broad daylight a misdemeanor in this town?” (High Plains Drifter). Eastwood’s character doesn’t care about the rape he committed, and he proceeds to perfunctorily murder countless men, and eventually set the whole town to fire. When asked why he shot two men, the Stranger simply replies, “Somebody left the door open and the wrong dogs came home” (High Plains Drifter). Like this general archetype, the Stranger doesn’t care or feel remorse for his actions. These acts are in line with those of an archetypal Profane character, who acts without considering consequences and does all he can to escape his own death and demise.
Even children’s books display archetypes like the Profane(interesting—what does this say about us as a society?). The Very Bad Bunny(*drops laptop and cries with laughter*) displays a more muted example of a Profane archetype. When P.J. Bunny’s cousin Buster comes for a visit, P.J. realizes that “Buster was a very bad bunny” because does numerous bad things without caring about his family (Sadler). (*still crying*) He locked the family outside, drew on the walls and glued checkers together. His cousin tried to stop him, but Buster never cared: “He even left P.J.’s crayons out in the sun and they all melted together. (no period)” (Sadler). (I don’t know that tonally, you want to go from a man who rapes at whim to a cartoon bunny who leaves crayons in the sun as an exploration of sin here. I feel like something gets lost in translation. ) Buster leaves and does not suffer any consequences of his thoughtless misbehaviors, nor does he make any attempt to rectify his misdeeds, just like the archetype of a(the) Profane, he acts sinfully for his on pleasure and works to escape the consequences of his actions.
Sadly, a Profane character is more likely in today’s world than in Hall’s or Shakespeare’s. Religion was strictly intertwined with government, politics and all of society in those days(some weak phrasing here). The modern separation of church and state, in order to gain equality and freedom, demotes the value of moral behavior in society. (That is a whole different paper!) In a society like that of modern America, flagrant sins and immorality is excepted (you mean ‘accepted’) and expected. People lie daily to get out of unpleasant situations, college kids over indulge in alcohol on a tri-weekly basis(only tri?) ; nowadays families break apart due to gambling problems, and sex is a whole industry. Society has softened the sinful appearance of many wrongdoings of earlier times. (You do a good job of generalizing sin here, but some more specific instances might help for proof’s sake.) This allows Profane characters to be more of a pandemic in present society, without even being considered immoral or despicable, just a normal, wrongdoing person like so many others.
Literature and arts become a record for social ideas and normalities. (An interesting sentence.) The characteristic of Profanity has evolved from a rare and despicable person in the days of William Shakespeare, when morality and society were entangled. Presently, a libertine fitting this archetype represents a fairly hackneyed accumulation of society’s sins(I had to read that sentence a few times, and it didn’t quite make sense any time). Literature like My Sister’s Keeper and Hamlet show this, and it is even apparent in films and children’s books: societal ideas are presented in the literature around us.(I feel like you could have taken on the archetypal shift a bit more and perhaps discussed the idea of the anti-hero as popular in modern film, literature, etc.)
(You are missing a peer reviewed journal here.)
Works Cited
Dreikurs, Rudolf. Psychology in the Classroom; a Manual for Teachers. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Print.
Hall, Joseph. "Characters of Vertues and Vices." Luminarium: Anthology of English Literature. The University of Oregon, 1998. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
High Plains Drifter. Dir. Robert Daley. Perf. Clint Eastwood. 1973. DVD.
Picoult, Jodi. My Sister's Keeper: a Novel. New York: Washington Square, 2005. Print.
Sadler, Marilyn. The Very Bad Bunny. New York: Random House, 1986. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. David M. Bevington. Toronto: Bantam, 1988. Print.