What similarities are in the stories B. How they compare to each other V. How the stories are different A. What makes them different from each other B. How they contrast VI. In comparison of The Lottery and The Most Dangerous Game both Connell and Jackson convey to the readers that man is inherently evil and that choices made based on societal standards, traditions, and learned behavior may not be the morally correct choice.
He even admitted his evilness to himself stating to Dimmesdale, "I have already told you what I am a fiend!" (Hawthorne 158). The ever growing corruption and evil inside of Chillingworth collided with the good that Dimmesdale, Hester, and Pearl were bringing into the world. Hawthorne hints the innate nature of the good and evil of both sides towards the end of the novel, by describing that Chillingworth is viewed badly by the town but Dimmesdale and Hester are viewed as good people. It is in this way that Roger Chillingworth's specific use in the novel is to portray the conflict good versus evil.
The story Marriage is a Private Affair by Chinua Achebe has a villain named Okeke. His stolid look on things made it hard for him to keep an amicable relationship with his son. Harrison Bergeron’s, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., villain would be The H-G men. They go to extreme actions to provide equality. The Judges in The Pit and the Pendulum by Edgar Allan Poe are considered villains because of how they torture innocent civilians.
The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
The act of murder can be viewed as the manifestation of an in-adherence and veering from an established societal set of laws and ethics. An analytical juxtaposition of Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" and Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" provides a ratiocinative interpretation of varying forms of murder, as well as posing moralistic, principled standpoints on the matter. Edgar Allan Poe is renowned for presenting murder in its fundamental sense that succeeds all aspects of the definition of the act in that it is an unlawful act that requires premeditated malice. In the instance of "The Cask of Amontillado" the premeditation is one based on revenge. Retribution becomes the honing medium for the calculated response of Montresor to Fortunato's insults.
Assess the impact of the Emperor Tiberius on the Principate The impact that the Emperor Tiberius had on the principate was contested by both the ancient and modern historians through time. Ancient historians mostly comprised detested Tiberius as it was their obligation to expose the evils of the principate under the Julio-Claudians and portray its degeneration into tyranny. His flaws are highlighted by the end of his reign particularly caused by his enigmatic personality, deteriorating relationship with the senate, influence of Sejanus and the repercussions of the treason trials. Whilst modern sources illustrate him from a more positive perspective pointing out his good intentions, effectively administrating the state, vastly improving
From the very beginning of Shooting An Elephant, George Orwell demonstrates ambivalence through his affiliations with Imperialist Britain, his sense of self among the Burmese, and his ties to the elephant. In the second paragraph, Orwell says: “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.” We learn early in the essay that Orwell hates imperialism and the Burmans, already making him ambivalent. Although Orwell hates being a British official, he has a constant need to feel important and needed by the Burmans. Therefore, he is excited when called to help with a loose elephant rampaging in the bazaar. Throughout the piece, we experience Orwell’s internal conflict between the imperialist police force he is working for, and the rude Burmans people he is forced to deal with on a daily basis.
Such transition from “sometime sister” to “queen” would be seen as something disgusting and unacceptable by the public if Claudius did not use the possessive pronoun. In such way, he shows to the common people that he is doing it for the best of the kingdom and its people. With the use of such antithesis, the king hides the unacceptable with the necessary and people-favorable. In the end of the monologue, Claudius’ use of contrasting words “mirth in funeral” and
Moreover, Bateman is given another reason to exterminate; having a friend who “has the nicest business card” symbolically represents an ultimately successful yuppie, who challenges Bateman’s subjectivity of the “everyyuppie” and thus, jealousy reflects much of his actions. The composers, through the archetypal characters exemplify how the darker side of humanity may be unleashed from anyone and the ability it has to dehumanise
—To keep us from sinning and to bring us to forgiveness when we have sinned 2. “In the corrupted currents of this world And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above There is no shuffling. There the action lies In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults To give in evidence (158-165)”. Claudius Claudius is saying that in this crazy world, convicts take things they stole and use them to buy off the law, pushing justice aside.