who hides and what is hidden? how does deceit function in the world of the play, and how does it help the play comment on life in general? a central motif in the play is trickery or deceit, whether for good or evil purposes. counterfeiting, or concealing one's true feelings, is part of this motif. everyone seems to lie; good characters as well as evil ones engage in deceit as they attempt to conceal their feelings: beatrice and benedick mask their feelings for one another with bitter insults; don john spies on claudio and hero; don pedro and his 'crew' deceive benedick and beatrice.
When Proctor returned continues to testify against his wife’s accusation, he becomes overwhelmed by the girl’s façade, along with Mary’s and Danforth’s accusations against him about him being a liar. Out of anger, Proctor storms from the court in a feeble attempt to maintain his reputation as a truthful man. In doing such, he exclaims, “God is dead…a fire is burning!” (Miller 111) Proctor’s exclamation against the court late in Act III, only emphasizes the injustice Proctor believes is evident in Salem, and that there is a direct parallel among the trials, fire/ Satan, and the nonexistence of God. These very parallels Later, Proctor is imprisoned for his actions and chooses to avoid death by signing a confession which he knows to be false. As both Danforth and the judges oppress over him, Proctor cannot bring himself to sign, and ultimately leads himself to his own death.
Social background, personalities and beliefs influence the way individuals think. The 3rd Juror was a vengeful and aggressive man who is the last juror to change his vote to not guilty. At the end of ACT I, when he yells angrily at the 8th Juror ‘I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’, the 8th Juror says ‘you don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?’ This conflict contributes to a major turning point because it brings closer to a unanimous ‘just verdict’ as other jurors learnt about flaws from strongly prejudiced people, like the 3rd juror. He contradicts himself by saying ‘Anybody says a thing like that…they mean it’ earlier in ACT 1 because he struggles to detach his personal feelings from the boy as he sees his own estranged son in the 16 years old defendant. Furthermore, the 10th Juror’s angry monologue at the end of ACT II, he demonizes people who are ‘different’.
The accumulation of questions “How did she call him” and “When did you compact with the devil” reveal the instability of her belonging to the group as the interrogative pronouns “when” and “how” are assuming without question that she contacted the devil. This demonstrates how a lack of understanding of the truth prevents belonging. Increased understanding of the character of George Harvey, from the lovely bones, would ensure that prejudgements of characters would not prevent belonging. To one lacking understanding, George Harvey is “nothing remarkable” thus is able to shift the blame for Susie’s murder onto another. The boy was “certainly tweaked at an angle” and thus is expected to be violent.
His willingness to slaughter the man for so weak a reason is frightening though. It helps to show how twisted Chillingworth truly is. During the end of the novel though, Dimmesdale thwarts Chillingworth’s revenge plot by telling the Puritan community how he had an affair with Hester. This act absolutely ruins Chillingworth because he no longer possesses the power over Dimmesdale. All the horrible acts he had done in the past were undone, because Dimmesdale "Hast escaped me!"(228).
Two characters that show bewilderment throughout the course of the novel is Scout, and Bob Ewell. One character in the novel that shows ignorance throughout the course of the novel is Bob Ewell. "This morning Mr. Bob Ewell stopped Atticus on the post office corner, spat in his face, and told him he'd get him if it took the rest of his life. "(271) Bob Ewell was desperate for revenge and the help that Atticus was trying to prove Tom's innocence of something that Bob Ewell caused. This quote is important because it showed that Bob had no respect for Atticus, and his embarrassment in court was his main priority in getting him back.
October 2, 2012 Case Brief Cupp v Murphy 412 U.S. 291 (1973) Facts: Daniel Murphy was convicted of murdering his wife in the second degree. After he found out of the murder he called the police and voluntarily submitted himself to questioning. In the middle of his questioning the police noticed a dark spot on his finger and they asked if they could get a sample and he refused. The police did not respect his wishes and they took the sample anyways of what was under his fingernail. They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim.
Although Marie has a serious cold, she also uses her weak voice to protest being checked by Uncle Hayden alone. From these few words, readers can feel the intense fear and panic from Marie and know that Uncle Hayden is an indecent rapist. Besides, by the end of Chapter 1, I really confuse about the Mr. Hayden`s attitude. After David`s mother tells this father all the things, he waits for his father to explode, but, instead, his father said as quietly as before: “Why are you telling me this?” (36:4). Although I know that Dr. Hayden is David`s father`s brother, I consider that in front of justice and brother`s relationship, I will prefer to choose justice.
Julius Caesar Characters fatal flaws In shakepear “Julius Caesar” uses examples within the play to show that that plays fatal flaws existed among all the conspirators but 3 of them had major fatal flaws which led to their own downfall. The three of them made a similar but different mistake in the death of Caesar. This included getting involved in the stabbing of Caesar. Brutus, Cassius and Cinna in the play “Julius Caesar” had fatal flaws all because of jealousy and passion. The first conspirator Brutus who was one of Caesars friend who joined in on the murder that let to hid downfall by allowing Anthony to speak in the funeral..
He doesn’t want to vote guilty until he has enough evidence that this boy did indeed kill his father. Many different points are made about the boy who supposedly stabbed his father, that are cross examined well by juror #8 who still stands alone at not guilty. All of the evidence that the 11 jurors found contains flaws in