A man whoʼs twisted conscious haunts him by placing him in a state of paranoia, confusion, and weakness. He wants to ease his conscious, but can not seem to take the action to do so. There is a battle within him and while he does lose, there is a sense that deep inside he wishes he had the strength to win. In the entrance of Claudius, we have a king who seems to be competent in caring for the kingdom. This raises the first question of his moral motives.
For all its emphasis on power, much of the play is actually concerned with powerlessness. In what ways is powerlessness important in Richard III? In King Richard III, Shakespeare depicts Yorkist society as an utterly selfish, power-hungry world in which social standing is of the utmost importance. Antagonist and evil “villain” Richard exemplifies this egotism and avarice through his constant, ruthless manipulation and deceit of others. However, Shakespeare makes it clear that in fact others’ narrow-mindedness is key to Richard’s success.
"As a protagonist, Hamlet has many flaws that contribute to his downfall." In what ways is Hamlet an antihero? An antihero is the 'hero' or 'heroine' of a play or novel that has negative qualities that separates him or her from a typical hero such as Superman. In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, the protagonist, Hamlet is depicted as an anti hero. He has the good traits and flaws of a typical hero such as loyalty and intelligence.
The hero learns something from his mistake, and is faced with a serious decision. In order for a tragedy the suffering of the hero should be meaningful. The hero of Shakespeare is almost always male. Shakespeare also concludes that the tragic hero dies at some point of the story. Shakespeare's characters illustrate that tragic heroes are neither fully good nor fully evil.
So far it appears to be that the Prince, Capulet, and Tybalt don’t know how to handle situations. This each has their own tragic flaw that adds to the story and will contribute to the downfall of Romeo and Juliet. It is in this scene that we really see the personalities of Tybalt and Capulet and how they will affect the story line. If Tybalt and Capulet were never to have the private conversation, then we would never see them as they truly are and would never quite understand their personalities. It is said that the behind the scenes is what is real as opposed to the play that is shown.
By portraying a sense that ambition is starting to push away at Macbeth’s loyal and honourable qualities, Shakespeare can effectively convey the personal conflict constantly happening within Macbeth’s mind and heart. This serves the further increase the tension of the play as the audience starts to ponder what side of Macbeth is eventually going to win the mental battle, his good side or his evil, ambitious side. Both have man vs. man conflicts, where characters are fighting each other. There is also a man vs. society conflict in each, regarding the situations that cause them to fight and their lack of control over their fate. There is also man vs. technology/supernatural.
The decisions one makes can influence the course of one's journey through life, all stemming from a single moment in time. In William Shakespeare's tragic play, King Lear, the title character is a flawed man whose inability to see the truth in front of him leads to his downfall. King Lear's journey through the play takes him on a path from denial to rage to isolation, leaving him, in the end, a broken fragment of the king he once was. His denial stems from his not being able to see his daughters' true colors. This denial leads to his rage, when he perceives that Regan and Cornwall are being thoughtless of his authority.
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is a timeless tragedy, depicting historical figures but concerning the modern world as well. John Proctor, the protagonist, though fitting several of the characteristics of the Aristotelian tragic hero, is actually a much more complex tragic hero. The primary differences between John Proctor and the classic tragic hero are obvious, such as the lack of noble birth, his not being in a position of leadership, and the inevitability of his fate. These differences are necessary, as Arthur Miller attempts to convince his audience that his protagonist is an everyman and is worth sympathizing for. In Arthur Miller’s more complex world, a more complex tragic hero is needed.
* Its more revenge and self-interest rather than the driving force behind his moralities * He is uneasy about taking on the role as whistle-blower * Struggles with the decision to abandon the code of D & D * He is indecisive until Charley’s death * Rage and desire seem to drive him rather than any desire to address a moral failing * After inquiry Terry is transformed into a stronger more positive version of himself. Or is
And in recent times, I have begun to appreciate the importance of a particular idea I find fascinating. I became curious about what it is in our lives that adds fuel to the fires of our everyday struggles, and the impacts that our conflicts have upon our individual morality. Do we indeed drive our personal battles because of an inherent selfishness, and, conversely, do our conflicts cause us to become totally concerned with our own personal, and often materialistic, desires? When writing the play, developing the character of John Proctor was relatively simple: he was to be a flawed hero. He was to be a hero who, when compared to the moral goodness of a Rebecca Nurse, was to be considered a more realistic character and possibly a more attainable example of humanity.