Both Auden and Watson effectively form representations and perspectives through the implementation of techniques within their texts. Auden actively uses poetic techniques to display his own negative perspective regarding the power of dictators in "Epitaph of a Tyrant". Auden immediately creates an ambiguous environment as the first line states how dictators are after "perfection, of a kind". The slight pause after perfection satirises its positive connotation casting doubt upon the reader questioning what type of perfection that the dictators wanted. In addition, Auden further demonstrates his negative perspective through the comment on the amount of knowledge the dictators know; "[Dictators] knew human folly like the back of [their] hand".
The use of this rhetorical device allows him to establish his main idea subtly, due to the fact that some of the terms he uses, the German people would not understand. As Hitler goes into detail of explaining what he is going to do, he uses various terms that make the Germans believe he is doing well when in fact it is for a horrible crime. “...to conduct humanitarian warfare – that is, to attack only fighting troops.”(Hitler, Adolf). With this use of euphemism, Hitler is able to conceal that he is going to bomb large places but saying he is only attacking the troops that are fighting. This type of euphemism allows him to influence the German people with what their opinion on the issue is going to be.
Wolters believed that Speer only tried to protect his reputation, that he was trying to build himself up systematically & that he was a hypocrite who was far from apolitical. Dan van der Vat further supports Wolters, and says “the only reason Speer escaped the death penalty was because he was a good liar”. Matthias Schmidt, author of ‘The end of a Myth’, believed that Speer had the motive to become a great historical figure, and attempted to do so by gaining power in the Nazi party I agree with Wolters, Dan van der Vat and Matthias Schmidt, with saying Speer was only interested in his reputation. That he was a megalomaniac architect who had established what Schmidt said was a “cunning apologia”, and had therefore escaped execution at Nuremburg. Although, due to Gitta Serenys studies, we can sympathize.
Throughout this text, the protagonist Holden Caulfield is portrayed as someone who is facing the typical struggles that became apparent in society due to the industrialisation of the 20th century. Despite his un-heroic nature, we’re called to examine wether or not Holden has enough characteristics to be titled an archetypal anti-hero. His mental instability and judgemental personality can be used to argue against this statement. Conversely, the obvious flaws that he posses and the heroic desires that he has may just be enough for him to redeem his title as an anti-hero. Through the discussion of these points, we can come to an educated conclusion as to wether or not Holden is in fact the archetypal 20th century anti-hero.
It is ridiculous to argue that McEwan makes Jed Parry anything other than terrifying. What do you think of this view? Jed Parry as a character raises key questions and ideas in ‘ Enduring Love’ as well as upbringing contrasting emotions amongst the readers. The actions , such as kidnapping Clarissa are evidently seen and are able to form an image of a terrifying human being which we lack sympathy for.Although this is true, there are many factors which I believe are able to reflect on the vulnerability of his character. The whole novel is written from Joe’s point of view which could mean that it is an interpretation that is exaggerated.
I’m almost glad this war came along. It’s like a test, isn’t it, and only the things and the people who’ve been evolving the right way survive,” ( pgs. 116-117) he is formulating his own metaphors about war that confuse Gene. Leper enjoys living freely, he prefers taking a path most choose to avoid. This way of thought is the sole cause of Leper’s inability to conform, which in turn jeopardises his stability when entering an environment where each and every action he takes is an order given by a higher power.
Explain how Iago presents himself to the world. What is beneath the surface of his public identity? Why does he hate Othello so passionately? What makes Iago so effective at manipulating people? What do other characters, besides Othello think of him?
The Motivation of Iago William Shakespeare’s Othello is a story based on betrayal, jealousy, hate and revenge. The villain in the play, Iago, is said to be one of Shakespeare’s most evil characters. On a search for power, nothing is going to stand in his way. His actions throughout the play are a direct result of his trying to attain what he believes is rightfully his. Iago’s mean and insensitive manipulation is geared towards the innocent and ends up causing the destruction of Roderigo, Cassio, Desdemona, Emilia, and Othello.
(1.2 139-142) In conclusion, these conspirators lead to their own downfall by not listening to each other. The conspirators thought that if they give a speech and let Rome believe that Caesar was ambitious and he was going to bring Rome to its knees. They were all mistakenly wrong in the end they were said to have betrayed
This is exactly what the Devil wanted to happen because now that he has broken a truth that Goodman Brown previously had, he suddenly gains faith in the devil. The Devil now has the ability to exploit and mislead Goodman's findings by setting up false information. This understanding that the Devil has only bad intentions and wishes to mislead humans is part of Puritan beliefs. can be backed up by puritan beliefs, in which this story was written