Emil Smith

How is the personal nature of politics

explored through these texts?
In David Malouf’s Ransom, Sophocles’ Antigone and Kamila Shamsie’s Home Fire, the authors
explore politics' inherently personal nature differently depending on the power the individuals hold,
showing how those with positions of power can implement their personal beliefs at will, whereas it
is extremely difficult for others to do the same. People who hold lots of power, political leaders, are
shown as having their arguments accepted based on their authority, while the people close to them
have their arguments listened to, but ultimately ignored. The common people, who have no real
power politically, are left in the dust, as they are shrugged off easily, and not cared for by those in
power.
In these books, the authors explore the abuse of political status to pursue ulterior personal motives
through the main political figureheads in each work. In Sophocles’ Antigone, Creon is shown to use
his newfound political status to persuade the senators to support him in his personal attack on
Eteocles. Starting his speech on loyalty to the state and forbidding the burial of Eteocles, Creon
reminds his new senate that, regarding his rule of the state, “I claim and hold it from today, as mine
by right” (11). Through this, Sophocles uses Ethos to show Creon is very sure of his power, and
further, shows the privilege that he feels he is entitled to as a result of it. By reminding the senators
of his power, he will be able to implement the policies and ideas that he personally believes are
right, and since he has this position of power, that has been given to him by the gods, no matter how
nefarious his intentions are, he will not be questioned by the senators. In Malouf’s Ransom, King
Priam, while doing it for a less nefarious cause, again uses this same tactic to convince the court of
his personal quest to retrieve Hectors body, and ensure his image remained positive. While speaking
to the court, he tells them “One of the chief concerns of a good king is the image he presents … that
is what I am concerned with now, in the last days of my kingship” (89). In this speech, Priam
mentions his status of power as king multiple times, using this idea of keeping his image strong being
his duty as a king. Like Creon’s speech, here Malouf employs this ethos to show how Priam is using
his position in society to justify his actions, but in addition, the third person is also employed within
Priam’s speech to introduce some reason into the speech, and further convince the subjects of his
message. First, they are told how important the image is, with the narrative perspective presenting it
as a rather objective, factual statement, and then ending it with the personal connection to his own
kingship merely solidifies the point – it is his duty, but also his right as king to be able to fulfil this
inherently personal goal. In both texts, the leaders, while their intentions differ in severity, both
employ appeals to their authority to convince their subjects of the validity of their personal goals,
and ultimately succeed using this method.
The political “middlemen” in these books, the characters who don’t hold absolute power, but still
have connections to the political class, are shown to be stuck in a hard position, where while they
are extremely close to the powerful people, they still disappointingly fail in convincing them of their
personal political beliefs. In Malouf’s Ransom, Hecuba employs both the emotional and rational
points of view while trying to convince her husband, Priam, against going to rescue Hector’s body.
After Priam has told her of his plans, Hecuba asks of him “And if you too are lost? Who will stand by
me in what we know is to come?” (60). Through this, she talks about Priam’s chance of dying, and
uses her emotive language to pull on his heart strings, making him worry for not just himself, but the
one he loves. However, he is resolute in his goal, and despite her best efforts, her personal politics
are left behind in favour of his quest, which ultimately ends well for him. In Shamsie’s Home Fire,
Terry tries to convince her husband, Karamat, to stop his offensive against Aneeka and Parvaiz, but
instead he chooses his power and authority over her, choosing to continue. While arguing with
Karamat over the phone, Terry texts him bluntly, “Get home now or the next news headline with
Emil Smith

your name in it will have the story of your wife moving out to a hotel” (249). In saying this, Shamsie
shows how, while Terry has great power over his personal life – Karamat immediately comes home
to her to avoid irreparable damage to his career and relationship, she still has very little control over
his political role, and the ability to have her personal beliefs brought into play. Being so close to the
home minister, it would be assumed that Terry would have some level of control over his political
decisions, but unfortunately, it is shown that maintaining his power and image is more important for
Karamat, much like Priam in Ransom, and Terry’s opinion is left behind. In these two situations, both
Priam and Karamat’s wives are trying to convince their husbands of doing what they personally
believe will be the right political move, but the importance of their image and power to them get in
the way of listening to the people close to them. While in Ransom, it leads to good results for the
king, and the opposite in Home Fire, they both have the common thread of the personal politics of
those close to them being forgotten.
Through these texts, the authors explore the hardships of individuals who lack political connections
in their journeys of conveying their personal messages in politics, and the less formal, and more
emotive, ways they must do this. In Shamsie’s Home Fire, in conveying her personal political beliefs,
Aneeka is forced to employ more extreme and emotional appeals in order to make her message
heard, as she doesn’t have the power and platform of her enemy, Karamat. In her final act, the scene
in the park, Aneeka is described as sitting on a “white sheet covered in rose petals” amid
“extraordinary heat” (219) when she receives Parvaiz’s body. In addition, Parvaiz’s body is later put
in a “coffin made of slabs of ice” and described as “a prince in a fairy tale” (228). Using the
juxtaposition of the imagery of the clean and delicate roses and sheet she is sitting on, with the
coffin made of ice, a very luxurious item that is expensive to maintain, and the setting of a hot day
with wind and dust sweeping around everywhere, with the press swarming around them like the
dust storm, Shamsie is able to show just how great a length Aneeka must go to for her personal
message to be regarded seriously. Unlike Karamat or Priam, who can mention their authority to get
a platform for their personal messages, Shamsie is able to use this imagery to show just how hard it
is for common people to get any sort of legitimate platform for their messages. Likewise, in
Sophocles’ Antigone, this is explored through the character of Antigone, and her struggle to get her
brother back. Antigone is shown to use highly emotive language while arguing with Creon, in saying
“A living death, in silence and darkness and solitude” (39), using the imagery of an extremely sad and
lonely death, something Creon shouldn’t want to wish upon anyone, yet he sentences her to her
death, “The sooner she’s got rid of, shut up out of harm’s way, and forgotten, the better.” (40).
Through this, Sophocles highlights again the struggle of regular people in shaping politics and the
decisions of those in power, as while she is finally resorting to such an emotive and powerful
argument, almost at the end of a long series of trying to convince Creon, he is still dismissive of her
and sentences her to death, using his power effortlessly to simply kill her, while she had to try so
hard to even convince her to bury a dead man. Through these, Shamsie and Sophocles both create
situations of extremes in their protest against the powerful, however they still ultimately fail in their
goals of having their political messages heard, a stark contrast against the ease at which the
powerful do.
In Ransom, Home Fire and Antigone, Malouf, Shamsie and Sophocles all show how it’s really only
those with positions of power who are able to affect politics with their personal ideas, with their
authority being accepted in such cases. All others, those close to politicians, or just regular people,
ultimately don’t get their personal beliefs implemented, which is central to the power imbalance
highlighted in these texts.