Academic literature on the topic 'Louie Knight (Fictitious character)'

In Don Quixote the task of character constructon, properly the narrator's, is to a large extent usurped by the protagonist himself. He appears to rebel against the novelist and the multitude of fictitious authors and creates his own world, conferring names (Don Quixote, Dulcinea, Rocinante) and status (knight, lady, steed) on the characters, and even changing the ones they originally had. Hence, one can conceive the novel as a constant tension between author and protagonist, in which the former repeatedly punishes the latter (deceptions, beatings, final defeat) for refusing to accept the world he had initially proposed to him.In Don Quixote the task of character constructon, properly the narrator's, is to a large extent usurped by the protagonist himself. He appears to rebel against the novelist and the multitude of fictitious authors and creates his own world, conferring names (Don Quixote, Dulcinea, Rocinante) and status (knight, lady, steed) on the characters, and even changing the ones they originally had. Hence, one can conceive the novel as a constant tension between author and protagonist, in which the former repeatedly punishes the latter (deceptions, beatings, final defeat) for refusing to accept the world he had initially proposed to him.

The purpose of this paper is to attend to the preface as an important element in understanding the symbiotic relationship between author and text, especially when a male author assumes the female power of procreation. In the prefaces to Don Quixote Part I and II and Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Cervantes and Lord Byron, respectively, identify their main heroes as their 'child of the imagination/brain '. Nevertheless, in many instances we encounter moments of anxiety manifested in a dialectic of engagement and disengagement, owning and disowning, of denying and defending theirfictional personages. To Cervantes, Don Quixote is "child of his brain", the son, and yet hes also the stepson, who eventually ends up no more than a brave knight; to Byron, as well, Childe Harold was initially called Childe Burun, but later on is referred to as just a "fictitious character" from whom Byron tried to disengage throughout the poem. This equivocal and dialectical discourse ofembracement and abandonment could be better understood by extending the birthing metaphor to encompass postpartum anxiety. In the prefaces, both Cervantes and Byron Platonic male spiritual pregnancy is combined with the female physical and psychological symptoms of giving birth and its qftermath. Thus, the preface becomes a birth certificate not only legitimizing the hero, but also problematizing the parental relationship between father/author and son/text or hem, for it involves more than the ontological history Of the hem or the text.

The paper will present the sociological and psychological complexities behind the encounter of Charles, last Emperor and King of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and his young admirer, László Almásy at Easter, 1921. The King, withdrawing from power in 1918, and the young man Almásy met in the palace of the Bishop of Szombathely in 1921 in the night hours of Great Saturday. The following morning the King was to make a journey to Budapest to meet Miklós Horthy, Regent of Hungary, whom he had made Admiral three years before. Almásy was the driver of the car bringing the King to Budapest. Horthy and the King met in the Royal Castle of Buda where Charles had been coronated as King of Hungary in December 1917. The Admiral was unwilling to transfer the power and sent the King back immediately. Almásy had become the knight of the king involuntarily but, as it will be demonstrated, his role in the attempted coup d’etat of the King was far from being accidental. Michael Ondaatje published a novel in 1992 entitled The English Patient. Based on the novel, Anthony Minghella directed a romantic war drama film of the same title in 1996. The character named as the “English Patient” was the Hungarian driver of Charles IV attempting to get his throne back in 1921. The real Almásy, however, had a much more romantic life than his fictitious counterpart.