King Lear is the title character of the play, so it is obvious he is pretty important. And in the play, he definitely knows it. This is evidenced by his inflated sense of self; he has such an ego that he wants to hear his daughters profess their love for him, saying “Which of you shall we say doth love us most,” (Act I Scene I Line 51) and when one refuses, disowns her, as well as banishing his best friend for disagreeing with him. However, these rash actions suggest something more to me. I think that inside, Lear is insecure.
For example, in the poem “Ozymandias”, the king/ruler probably became too concerned with his power and he forgot about the prior goals he set. This most likely led to the destruction of his “works”. Macbeth somewhat demonstrates the same qualities as the ruler in the poem. Macbeth becomes too overly concerned with power and he forgets why exactly he is taking these actions. An example of this is his lack of any legitimate reasons for killing King Duncan and obtaining the throne except for his own ambition and greed to become king.
Good and Evil... Shakespeare has borrowed the concept of ying and yang and used it widely in king lear. He explains to his audience, through a variety of techniques and characters and conclusions , that without the good in the world their would be no bad, each cannot exsist without the other. He uses characters in binary opposites and mediums to show that humanity does have the potential for both good and evil. Good and evil ... In the world we live in, it seems that every other person is out for self gain They will step on anyone and do whatever it takes to get what they want, but does that make them purely evil?
These men are praised by many which is what led to their conceited temperament. This attribute of Macbeth is shown as he is given his second apparition by the witches.... “Laugh to scorn the of power of man, for none of women born shall harm Macbeth” (IV.i.89-91). As Macbeth is told this it is a huge boost of confidence giving him the feeling that he is invincible as though one could touch him. The insight that Macbeth is given from the witches seem to be so true that he relies only on what they have spoken, and does not try to figure out there true meaning and understand what they mean. Macbeth simply just let his ambition blind him.
Romeo and Juliet’s love, like the love of the youth, is acted upon very quickly and impulsively. They are impatient and do not stop and think about the consequences of their actions. Their immature and inexperienced management of their love passion for each other ultimately results in their death. Think about Romeo in the very beginning of the play, when he talks about Rosaline. He describes her looks as he says: "O, she is rich in beauty, only poor".
In Acts one to three of ‘Macbeth’ we learn that Macbeth is a trusted man who everyone believes to be heroic and a ‘worthy thane,’ however, Macbeth’s ambition is the one flaw he has which brings him into a series of events where he creates his own downfall, without the help of his wife or the witches. Macbeth and his wife both destroy their lives and lose everything for nothing. In Act 1, at the very beginning of the book, we can already see that Macbeth has lost all sanity and peace of mind from when the witches meet him and how he reacts. After he has met the witches, he becomes obsessed with their words and isn’t afraid of the ungodly, whereas any other person during his time would be (like Banquo). We know that Macbeth isn’t afraid of the witches as he wants to know about them: “Speak if you can: what are you?” Then we know that he is curious to find out more about their prophetic views on him as he says: “Stay, you imperfect speakers.
Thar. Experience 170 The Idiot “play analysis” In “The Idiot” I think Dostoyevsky was trying to show how twisted our society is, and how even a saint of a person is treated badly without deserve. I believe Dostoyevsky wrote this play with mostly realistic qualities, such as how people take advantage of “the nice guy” all the time with Prince Myshkin continuously being tricked by everyone he knew, and how the power of love makes you do crazy things with Rogozhin killing Nastasya even though he would have given anything to be with her. I thought most of the actors did a really good job. I did not like how some of the actors played double roles because in an already confusing play trying to follow “who is who” is not an easy task.
In Shakespeare’s play, ‘King Lear’, we are shown an array of characters that are multi-dimensional and extremely complex. Shakespeare has the ability to reveal a human character with an exceptional use of language. The three characters that I believe have large roles and functions within the play are, understandably, King Lear himself, The Fool, and Kent. The Fool acts as Lear's conscience and trusted guide, yet he is also a critic of Lear, a truth teller. In effect this makes a true friend, however some believe it was the Fool's constant remarks that drove Lear to madness.
Watching Othello, I already knew the underlined themes and symbolism, etc. because I had gone over it in previous classes; however, while I was watching the play I tried to block out what I “imagined” had occurred versus what the director’s vision of the play was. One of the reasons I do not like to read a play before watching it is because it conflicts with my vision or version of what it would have been. For instance, I imagined Iago as a very sinful villain and not as slick as he was played; however I can see both character directions. None the less, the play and actors were very good and I loved how the director made use of the space.
Neither were his misfortunes of the nature of moral catastrophes, as were those of Othello and Desdemona. In Shakespeare, as in the Bible, the misfortunes that are objective in their source are never moral in character. Romeo and Juliet were undoubtedly "the victims of the animosities of their parents," or in other words were the victims of social conditions for which they were personally in no way responsible. About their misfortunes, however, there is not the slightest suggestion of retribution, and as Carlyle long ago observed, their apparent defeat is really a moral victory. But it is very different with Othello and Desdemona, for there is an element of retribution in their misfortunes.