(1.3.71)” Banquo also doubts the intension of the witches, he believes that evil always tells one part of the truth in order to earn one’s trust and lead him to destruction. Banquo warns Macbeth, ”But ‘tis strange./And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,/ the instruments of darkness tell us truths,/win us with honest trifles, to betray’s/In deepest consequence. (1.3.124-128)” On the other hand, Macbeth ignored his friends warning and believes in what the witches say. He is over whelmed by his ambition to be king, he said to himself,”Glamis, and the thane of Cawfor!/The greatest is behind. (1.3.118-119).””Two truths are told/,as happy prologues to the swelling act/of the imperial theme.
They all elaborate and personify madness as a derivation of vitality, form of genius, sanity put to good use. You see, if I’m not mistaken, two of society’s most reliable sources contradict between their statements. And yet we haven’t come to the amusing part. Society is unable to differentiate let alone comprehend the difference between such astray notions. Gentleman, reflect and ponder, society should not define madness for us, society itself is mad.
Within the extremely popular play named ‘An Inspector Calls’ Priestly uses the play to expose the lies, deceit and overall hypocrisy of people during his time. Hypocrisy is usually demonstrated by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have. In a literal sense, weakness is the state of lacking strength. However, Priestly portrays weakness as having personal defects or failings especially in lack of moral integrity. Again, Priestly shows wickedness somewhat detached from its literal meaning and instead shows wickedness in the characters departing from the rule of divine and moral law.
Check your notes; below is a succinct synopsis of that introductory discussion: “Waiting for Conventions” In Waiting for Godot, Beckett implements broken conventions of traditional theatre in order to successfully satirize the detrimental nature of the human condition symbolized throughout this absurdist play (which seems to have no plot). A certain level of tension is created by this plays lack of plot which leaves the audience expecting something to happen that never comes. This lack of plot to some overshadows the reasoning behind why Beckett does this. Although these broken conventions can act as a looking glass into the true meaning of the play, they require the audience to do a certain amount of searching to crack the nut which is Waiting for Godot. Waiting for Godot, unlike many plays follows no specific plot, a concept in which most conventional plays ought to have in order to rope in an audience member to the contents and morals of the play.
It’s impossible.” (222). The reader recognizes that Holden is confined within walls of phoniness and corruption. The profanity written on the walls becomes too much for Holden. In a sense, he desires to eradicate all profanity, therefore protecting the innocence of children, but as Holden indicates, it’s nearly impossible. Unlike Holden in Catcher in the Rye, Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath concentrates society’s corruption on self-interested people.
Thus, the physical blindness of Gloucester and the mental blindness of King Lear can be connected to the theme of false appearances in King Lear, with few characters behaving in a constant manner, therefore blinding the audience and each other to their true personalities. To begin, it is of importance to analyse the blindness of King Lear, Gloucester and to a lesser extent Albany, in order to find out why it is crucial to the plot of the play and the deceiving appearances of the other characters. Firstly, King Lear is the character at the centre of the play and although his actions might not be what presents this play with its deeper meaning, which is provided by intricate family relations and deceit, his initial decisions are certainly at the start of some major issues in the storyline. Moreover, they grant the audience the first vital clues about the true personalities of Goneril, Regan and Kent to name but a few. Additionally, as Curtright mentions, the decisions
With 1998 came 'The Truman Show', a thought provoking but highly exaggerated film that highlights the negatives of this genre of television. Though true in some aspects, The Truman Show is an absolute extreme when it comes to the dark side of reality TV. Thinking about it, who would, in this day and age, watch something like that? We would find it too boring and predictable. Also, I think we are intelligent and moral enough to realise how creepy and wrong it is to watch everything someone does 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Polonius’ instructions to Reynaldo are so comically complex and so circuitously related that he himself loses track of them at one point. And his attempt to relate his great discovery of Hamlet’s broken heart to Claudius and Gertrude in the second scene does not go any better. “Brevity is the soul of wit,” he says (another instance of Polonius getting one of Shakespeare’s most famous and most often decontextualized lines); and he then proceeds to be anything but brief, anything but witty. Rather, he is dull, pedantic, self-important, pompous, flowery – and, more to the point, dead wrong. As in Act One, Polonius obviously fancies himself a great political mind.
Despite all this negativity, it would be a great over-simplification to assume that the overall play ‘presents us with a bleak and cruel world and offers no comfort at the end’, though this is an easy assumption to make given the obvious bleakness that infects the play throughout. Shakespeare does not dance around with back stories for the characters; rather he launches straight into Lear’s grand mistake in the first scene, and leaves the characters actions to imprint on the audience’s mind, introducing them. Lear’s flaws become evident immediately, even if the consequences of such flaws are not fully unveiled until later. Lear’s pride can be dismantled to have many layers; too proud to accept the truth in Cordelia’s words, seeking only mindless, false flattery; too proud to listen to Kent’s wise warnings, hearing only ignorant interruptions. ‘In thy best consideration check this hideous rashness.’ Lear does not only ignore the good advice his good friend Kent is giving him, he also
Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me.” (Page 20, line 18). This supports the idea about him being mad and therefore an unreliable narrator - we don’t know whether the story is true or not. Edgar Allan Poe has chosen this retrospective point of view, because he wants the reader to experience the working of the human mind - the working of a madman. This wouldn’t be possible if the story was told in present tense.