I think that the idea that he does not deserve his reputation is solely for argument, because some people love the feeling of making other people angry. So Alexander made some mistakes and maybe he killed people, just because he had the authority, but no one is perfect and you can’t argue that he does not deserve this title because he made these mistakes. Every human person has made mistakes because no one human has any faults in their history. If you look at other great leaders, they all had a weakness and eventually led to their downfall, but just because they had weaknesses does not mean that they should not be honored for their accomplishments. I think that ‘defaming’ Alexander the Great does not prove the ‘no’ side in any way, because he did many things to help his empire and even though he was the cause of many deaths to the native people of their homelands, he did what he thought was best for his people.
Both honest mistakes that he didn’t even know he made. The ignorance shown towards Lennie in the novel was due to the time period and the people’s lack of knowledge. People in the story like “The boss” just thought that Lennie wasn’t smart because he just didn’t talk much unless it was to his best friend George. There was ignorance in Raymond because his brother thought that he could remove Ray from his schedules at his home and take him with him. The Ignorance was that Ray needed those schedules or he will have a fit.
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.
I hated reading the novel The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. It was a very good book but it was so depressing, tragic, and scary. As I read this story, one bad thing happened after another. I did not like the narrator Amir because he was very selfish throughout most of the book and took advantage of a special friendship that him and Hassan shared until Amir didn't want anything else to do with him. As a child, Amir was constantly trying to impress his father, Baba, who looked up to Hassan more than he did Amir.
Books are seen as evil in this society so the new job of firemen was to burn these banned books to promote world peace. He coincidentally says that every fireman will take a book due to curiousness and if it is taken care of twenty four hours after the fact, then he won’t be penalized for the illegal
He accidently killed Stilson in the beginning of the book without knowing until chapter 15, because he kicked him so many times. He did not mean to, he just wanted to win and make them stop harassing him. Ender always feels like a killer after he kills someone, even when it’s not on purpose. For Ender, he doesn’t want to be a killer because he doesn’t like killing people and he thinks that it will make him like Peter. Ender does not want to kill anyone because if he does, then it’ll make him like Peter.
It leads to a lot of confusion when he talks to a great number of the people he encounters throughout his journey to find Wellington’s killer. The first notable instance of this is when he cannot empathize with the fact that his father finds Christopher’s “detecting” unacceptable and possibly harmful to the family. However, this characteristic is integral to the story and its development because if he’d understood that nobody wanted him to snoop around there would have been no substance to the novel – it would have ended right away once his father told him to stop investigating. This also really ties in with the fact that Christopher requires order in his life. This characteristic causes him many difficulties in such a chaotic world.
In the novel 1984, by George Orwell, the idea of Winston Smith being a hero is questionable and up to debate among many people ever since the release of the book. He is the author's intended hero in the novel and rebels against a government that wrongfully controls and manipulates its citizens. Winston Smith is a hero with flaws just as any other hero has flaws and is someone who anyone can relate too. Although it may be difficult to see his heroic attributes on the surface; analyzing his actions and words reveal who he is. Smith grew tired of the Party and its wrongdoing and decided it was time to act.
That is why there is so much confusion around this topic being the fact that Claudius was a horrible person, but was actually a very good king, because he possessed the abilities that are needed to succeed in such a setting. Like for example why would he kill his own brother, just so that he could have the thorn, like is it that important to him, just to have a little bit of power, that he would have already had if it wasn’t for his brother. The worst part is that he was probably a better king then his
A drawback of Fleming’s work was that he kept changing his mind in his published book on how he discovered penicillin, this led people to believe that he was lying and caused people to not trust his work. Even though Fleming discovered penicillin, he did not develop his work because it was too difficult to make and store. But his work led to the development of penicillin. In the 1930’s Florey