This literary technique connects with the critical lens because Othello was blinded and did trust everything Iago said. This showed that Othello is really not the man that he is on battlefield. He could have confronted Iago but never did because he
They all elaborate and personify madness as a derivation of vitality, form of genius, sanity put to good use. You see, if I’m not mistaken, two of society’s most reliable sources contradict between their statements. And yet we haven’t come to the amusing part. Society is unable to differentiate let alone comprehend the difference between such astray notions. Gentleman, reflect and ponder, society should not define madness for us, society itself is mad.
This characterises Iago as a dishonest & deceptive character, contrary to what seems to be popular belief; it allows the audience to question their previous impressions of Iago, who initially appeared to be an honest and loyal character. The other characters are continually led to believe this, solely due to the reputation he has gained for himself merely for the success of his plan. The way Iago represents himself – as an honest and loyal man – is what leads to the eventual success of his plan to manipulate Othello into believing Desdemona cuckolded him. Othello begins to trust Iago; he entrusts him to take the responsibility of escorting his wife, Desdemona, to Cyprus: “My Desdemona must I leave to thee” (I iii 291) and he places trust on
Contrast Kent’s and the Fool’s attitude towards Lear. What point of view does each represent with regard to our evaluation of Lear as either villain or Hero? One major difference in the attitude taken by Kent and the Fool toward Lear is the approach they both take when speaking to him. The Fool’s lexis is in the form of riddles; he gives wisdom in folly so to the audience his lexis seems complex and comedic however at second glance is in fact wisdom. The Fool appears to speak the mind of the audience, informing Lear of his rash and unwise decisions- “Thou hast pared thy wit o’both sides and left noting i’th’middle.” This honesty spoken by the Fool interrupts the natural order of being as in Elizabethan times Lear was seen the ‘the embodiment of God- his equal on earth’ therefore such a ‘lowly’ person as the Fool would not be permitted to be so blunt and honest.
Critically assess Hume’s challenges towards miracles. David Hume (1711-1776), an empiricist, is a great criticiser of miracles. He has many different arguments against miracles and against what people think miracles are. Although Hume criticizes miracles, he never actually says that he does not believe they occur. Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening.
His comedy is so great that he is able to transcend normal societal rules; Elizabethan England was an incredibly hierarchal society in which absolute respect ought to be shown to those in power, and yet although he is a servant, the Fool’s humorous nature seems to exempt him from the expectation of respectfulness. The Fool is not present after Act 3, and his absence removes the comic relief of the play and plunges it into more serious,
Sometimes in human society, good and evil will be passed along as incomplex, but Harper Lee displays her characters through the themes of good and bad. Atticus is a good man with a good head on his shoulders, but he does have his flaws. For example, “ he allows Aunt Alexandra to override his better judgement” (Jordison). Proving that he, Atticus, may be drawn away from the path of goodness. Atticus may be portrayed as good, but he has his doubtful moments.
The people he has convinced of reasonable doubt are “goddam geniuses” and “smart bastards” who have been “bulldozed by bunch’a what d’ya call ‘em – intellectuals.” The inference here is not necessarily that the 10th Juror is stupid (though the 9th Juror does say of the 10th that “It suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man”) and the 8th Juror smart, but that education can create a class division and that those without an education can become suspicious of those that do because intellectualism can be used to manipulate people. The 10th Juror is not convinced by the testimony of “phoney psycho whatever-you-call-it-stuff” (i.e the psychiatrist’s report) but by the instinctive believe in class. The boy must have done it because of his social
This is an achievement, and one which a more agitprop documentary would not have been able to maintain. The “silence” of the filmmaker, however misleading and ethically dubious, also allows the raw material to speak for itself. Here, many of the Friedmans’ aforementioned flaws actually serve to humanize them and what seems wacky also seems irrational and desperate and stumbling in ways that are familiar to any honest member of the human species – that dance in front of the courthouse, smile and all, is best understood as a dance of
The author preferred to deal with the latter. As a matter of fact, dramatic irony is the leading stylistic device of the whole story. The self-deluded young writer doesn’t see how ridiculous she is, whereas her much-praised “power of observations” are only a fancy of hers. In this way the author criticizes the erroneous tendency that everyone “with some reading” can become a writer. On the other hand, he disapproves of the young generation’s lack of patience and seriousness in everything they do, including