People are responsible for the way they manage their freedom and for accepting the consequences of their actions, but Hrafnkel subconsciously limited his own freedom when he swore an oath to kill in case someone wronged him. Although the saga takes a different turn that makes the reader wonder whether he is guilty or not, the evidence clearly proves that he is indeed guilty. After hearing of his son’s death, Einar’s father Thorbjorn pays a visit to Hrafnkel in order to ask him for compensation for his son. Hrafnkel admits that this was one of the most dreadful acts he has ever committed and in return offers Thornjob several materialistic renditions, which Thornjob turns down. By admitting that this act was one of the worst he has ever committed, he states that he himself feels guilty as well.
They can see how he lived during the time he served and how awful he made it seem. The best way to have a convincing argument is to make the audience see through the eyes of the author, and to make them envision a mental image of what the author has seen. Gurganus tells how he was, “dressed in ugly clothes exactly like 4,000 others, to be called a number, to be stuck among men who will brag and scrap and fight but never admit to any terror, any need” (606). This flashback makes the war sound very unappealing and an experience that most of his readers would not like to experience themselves. Through this detailed description, Gurganus adds to his argument, making the war sound even more horrific.
In the beginning of the play Ajax claims, “...My name is Ajax:/ agony is its meaning. And my fortunes/ are cause indeed for agony of wailing cause” (Ajax, 24) He believes that he burdens the people around him by continuing to live. He finds justice in taking his own life because so much of his society already holds so much animosity towards him. Not long after Ajax’ slaughtering took place, Tecmessa says to the Chorus, “He is freshly miserable. It is a painful thing/ to look at your own trouble and know/ that you yourself and no one else has made it” (Ajax, 17.)
The second example, is when a brawl was insitigated by the antagonist Iago. Othello then appears. He saw Cassio as the main attraction of the brawl, went up to him and slapped him because of his actions because Cassio was chosen by Othello to be his Liutientant. Both of these examples showed these tragic heroes their view as men in charge. The next similarity both Oedipus and Othello shared is their passionate love for their family.
His ignorance was his flaw leading to his downfall, fulfilling the prophecy he “tried” so hard to avoid. Sophocles’ use of irony helps the audience develop the characters of Oedipus Rex. Verbal irony shows the audience his many tragic flaws such as ignorance, pride, and his egotistical attitude. Situational irony showed us Oedipus’ ignorance of his birth parents and of himself. Dramatic irony showed us the actual truth of Oedipus’ wife/mother and him fulfilling the prophecy because of fate.
Along with his horrible fate was an equally tragic prophecy. The prophecy revealed he would be the murderer of his own father, and married to his mother. The fatal flaw of Oedipus being his ignorance and ego blind him from seeing the true consequences of his actions, but he acts as if he knows what he is doing. All through the play this is proven and paired with a cocky pride that becomes more visible for the reader. Robert Kane
This play sends a strong message of fate and free will to the audience. Oedipus’ free will to pursue knowledge of his identity is significant; fate is responsible for Oedipus’s incest and many of the other devastating events that accrued to him thou out the play. By the importance of fate, Sophocles sends a message across that his characters cannot be fully responsible for their actions. A perfect example of this is blaming Oedipus for marrying his mother, his ignorance was his flaw leading to his downfall, fulfilling the prophecy he tried so hard to avoid. Sophocles’ use of irony helps the audience develop the characters of the play.
Claudius on the other hand has decided to take his position on the throne by marrying Gertrude in the short time span since the king’s death which is seen as a dishonourable act by Hamlet. We can see that Hamlet does not just want to kill Claudius for his own satisfaction but also for the sake of honour. He wants to redeem his father as he has been told that Claudius has killed him using a cowardly method, the poison in the ear, and during the time in that era it was seen as a cowardly tactic and therefore dishonourable. Laertes also seeks vengeance on Hamlet for his own father as well going as far as doing a dishonourable act of poisoning his sword in what is supposedly a friendly fencing match. Even today honour still matters a great deal, being honest, doing what you believe is right and
However, during his vengeful acts against the two families, Heathcliff becomes even more dark and unhappy inside. While he truly believes that revenge will justify his existence, he is actually making himself more miserable than Hindley ever did. What is Bronte, then, saying about revenge and it’s manifestations in Wuthering Heights? Is it possible that Heathcliff’s search for revenge actually hastened along his death? Thesis Statement / Essay