Many literary scholars have struggled with the “truth” in one of O’Brien’s most famous works, The Things They Carried, a collection of twenty-two tales on the Vietnam War that stand alone just as strongly as they tie together. Although O’Brien is a Vietnam War veteran, unwillingly drafted in 1968 and serving until 1970, he purposively fictionalizes the war experience throughout The Things They Carried while simultaneously insisting that the essence of the work is true, a notion that many scholars question. Teasing out which experiences O’Brien describes are true, which are folklore, and which are imagination would be a near impossible task because
The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy Historians and scholars since the time of the Renaissance have questioned the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. This controversy surfaced mainly because it is so hard to believe that a man who led such an ordinary life could be the genius who is known as the world’s greatest poet and playwright today. Ralph Waldo Emerson summed up this controversy in one quote, “I cannot marry this fact to his verse. Other admirable men have led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought; but this man, in wide contrast.” The entire reasoning behind William Shakespeare's claim to the authorship is based upon inference and speculation. Because of the lack of evidence to give any one person the title of Shakespeare,
Pacino’s Looking for Richard (LFR) draws on Shakespeare’s play King Richard III in his ‘docudrama-like-thing’ pursuing the goal of making Shakespeare more accessible for a notoriously uninterested 20th century audience. Through the connections implicit and explicit between the texts my understanding of the idea of legitimacy and language have been enriched through a relationship between the two texts where the appropriation affects the original text as well as the text influencing the appropriation. Despite differing contextual circumstances, the contestable nature of legitimacy and its fabrication of credibility is reflected in both LFR and RIII, whether it be over Shakespeare or monarchy. The reshaping of ideas in RIII has also illustrates
A comparative study of Al Pacino’s ‘Looking for Richard’ and Shakespeare’s ‘The tragedy of King Richard the 3rd’ reveals to the audience the relevance and freedom of interpretation surrounding such profound pieces of literature such as Shakespeare’s plays. The vast majority of the modern audience feels distant to Shakespeare, many with a tainted outlook on his works due to a lack of understanding and unfortunate experiences studying his work. ‘Looking for Richard’, through the use of many cinema techniques conveys transcendence ideas on Richard’s role in modern society whilst supporting the idea that Shakespeare’s literature is timeless and germane. Looking for Richard reconnects us to the world of Shakespeare presenting the ideas and values of ‘King Richard 3rd’ to this post-modern era. ‘The Tragedy of King Richard the 3rd’ was a revolutionary play of its time due to its appeal of all classes ranging from the noblest Queen to the street pheasant.
“Thou art not what thou seemest” Playing a part is the only way to gain power in Henry IV part 1 In William Shakespeare’s, King Henry Part 1, role playing and he act of being a counterfeit aid key characters in their success. The 16th century play, written for an Elizabethan audience clandestinely address the vital question of the qualities and characteristics that the next leader of England should have as the 64 year old “virgin queen Elizabeth” had no close relatives. Shakespeare shows that sometimes people are not what they seem through all the major characters and shows the direction in which the modern world is heading. Calculative and deceiving behaviour are often the traits of the modern man, which can help them to succeed. Power is a privilege and should only be given to those who can handle it.
One of the numerous examples was David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman and Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist. Of course these books are two different text and you wouldn't read them the same way. The biography has text which is made for you to believe every word. If David decide to put false statements about Harry Truman, not only would his biography be invalid; it would also lose its genre as a biography. While in Dickens's Oliver Twist we know that what were reading isn't entirely true.
Author O’Brian also confuses the reader by writing his novel as if everything that was told took place in the real world. For example, just by saying “this is true” (64) doesn’t always make it true. O’Brian leaves it up to the reader to distinct what they see the story as: reality or fiction. It is said that “a true war story… makes the stomach believe” (74). Author and character O’Brian tell the story in such a way to make it believable that the two different people are really the same person.
ENG2DB Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Word Count: 1287 The Allocation of Responsibility for Immoral Actions in Things Fall Apart and Macbeth Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe and Macbeth by William Shakespeare both demonstrate the ill effects of excessive ambition and pride. The protagonists of both texts act in a way that would normally be appalling and unforgivable. However, the authors make the audience tolerant, and even sympathetic, towards Okonkwo and Macbeth. This is done by portraying the characters as not fully responsible for their actions. Okonkwo and Macbeth are both heavily influenced by other characters, fuelled by the expectations of their societies, and driven to act based on their tragic flaw.
So back in old ages, Shakespeare didn’t write in the modern English style. He had unique style of writing, it was slang English. So as you could see this quote is missing some words. If this quote to be translated into modern English, then it would be, “ Everything in the world, from objects to jobs, is a stage towards your future or could help you shape your future.” It basically mean, is well everything in the world is stage could provide a future to you, and you have to be brave, strong to get on the stage. This is what Shakespeare was trying to state to
Were the Roman poets merely propagandists for Octavian/Augustus? Propaganda is the ‘active manipulation of opinion and some distortion of the truth…[designed to] change attitudes…[and/or] reinforce them’ (OCCC, p.573). The works of contemporary poets such as Horace and Virgil appear to extol Octavian/Augustus and his achievements and endorse his beliefs and policies. However, I do not believe that this necessarily indicates that they were merely propagandists for him or conclusively proves that they were propagandists to any extent. Firstly, neither author can be categorized as merely propagandist for Octavian/Augustus as both produced a variety of works on other subjects.