Tom Buchanan V.S Jay Gatsby: Who is more corrupt? In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, we are introduced to two characters pitted against each other in an intense rivalry full of wealth, social status, hatred and love. Jay Gatsby and Tom Buchanan are two characters that portray subtle differences in their personalities, but share many characteristics that contribute to both of their corrupt nature. Both of these characters, through dishonesty, moral values, and jealousy, are shown to be corrupt. However through further analysis, Tom’s motives, means and the ultimate consequences of his actions allow him to take a more corrupt role than Jay Gatsby in this novel.
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 plot of the story itself is a piece of situational irony, however there are many other instances found throughout it, including verbal irony. One specific example of this is when Hazel and George are talking, Vonnegut writes “ ‘I think I’d make a good Handicapper General. (Hazel)’ ‘Good as anybody else,’ said George.” His response to Hazel’s comment is slightly sarcastic, but also ironic, in that she really would be “as good anybody else” because in their society everyone is just as good or bad as everybody else. Another example of this false sense of equality is when George says,
This setting by Salinger and Steers helps explore the concept and puts greater emphasis on the consumer society and the ‘American Dream’. As a time of tra ditionalism, affluence and materialism, society believed that their status, power and wealth was the key to true happiness. However Salinger uses Holden to help convey the corruption of this idea. Holden believes that all the people around him are ‘phoneys’ because they forfeit their morality to fit in with the conformities of society. While in Steers appropriation Igby rejects the ‘American Dream’ in which his godfather, D.H has achieved and Igby’s brother Oliver is corrupted by.
He then goes on openly explaining all the rules to Blitzball. At one point Finny even makes up a rule for Leper, one of his friends, so that he could be able to continue to play. Finny’s fun and open attitude displays his laid-back personality. Their clashing personalities and their attitude to Blitzball greatly impact the pivotal event at the end of chapter four. Gene feels as if Finny is able to win at everything, however, when he jounced the limb he felt like he controlled what Finny was able to
In the original film (Hitchcock) the old dark and colorless film, the creep music provide the viewers an idea that something wicked is about to happen. Therefore again both directors did provide enough action to carry over to each scene. In the remake the casting was truly wrong; For instance the infamous character Norman Bates, the psychopathic motel owner was played by fast talking, macho man Vince Vaughn. In the remake the Norman appears to be more of a sexual predator, whom would actually please himself as he watch Marion through a peephole in the shower scene; which gives the audience a different point of view about this film and van sant character Norman. However in the original version Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates, who truly fit the character with calmer attitude, and good boy looks as Norman.
In an essay he wrote about his play Death of a Salesman, Arthur Miller argues that a tragic hero is not necessarily one who is noble of birth. However, the tragic hero must have these traits: he must suffer, be doomed from the start and his decline inevitable, be basically noble in nature, and have free choice to some degree. Also, his inevitable fate must result from a tragic flaw, and his story must arouse fear and pity. If these qualities are truly what makes a tragic hero, then it can be said that Ethan Frome is a tragic hero, and, therefore, that his story is a tragedy. This can be said because Ethan Frome meets every requirement listed by Miller.
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.
Beatrice is the one that starts this one. “I wonder that you will still be talking Signior Benedick nobody marks you.” This shows us that Beatrice wants to talk to him but she does it insulting him. Benedick responds really quickly “What my dear Lady Disdain! Are you yet living?” Here Benedick is saying that Beatrice feels that she is inferior to everyone and she can say anything because she is inferior. In Act II where there is a party in Leonatos house Beatrice talks to a masked man and tell awful things about Benedick to him.
It is shown through the characters names, for the names are often related to important political figures of the early twentieth century. Each character is symbolic of something all his or her own. Helmholtz Watson is sought to be one of the most rebellious characters in the brave new society. He has a conflict within himself but is much interested in others. Much like John B. Watson, the man known for the Little Albert Experiment, Helmholtz is curious, but much too bored with his lifestyle.
The use of events within ‘Romulus, my Father’ also allow us to view Romulus himself as a sort of tragic hero, since his fatal flaw is being too trusting of people’s karacter. The novel depicts Romulus as a unique character, who has a deep sense of integrity, yet this integrity ironically destroys his soul. He is wise, yet in a sense illogical since much of his judgement takes place on an irrational basis. The novel not only uses the idea of a romantic tragedy, but also takes other forms such as eulogy, bildungs roman and biography. This use of shifting language modes represents Raimond himself changing, both in pace of the story and his opinion regarding his father.