That’s why I don’t like, hate it even though those stories were so lame. In Conclusion, I hope I never get old and greedy like a republican. People should follow the ideas of transcendentalism and use romanticism in their creative forte, it will help make the world a better place or whatever it’s cool
2. Would you hire Robin Phillips? Why, why not? Personally, I would not hire Robin Phillips. While he has a good reputation and ideas for evolving the strategic direction of the theater, I believe they are self-centered in their motivation and would put the theater in the red for longer than Mr. Phillips would be willing to stay.
The aberrant perspective of Gilgamesh which I am presenting may seem divergent and atypical when analysed in accordance to our modern values and principles, but to Gilgamesh this would be quite natural. The values and ethics that contemporary readers hold shape their perspective of characters as they respond in various ways to the adventures that said characters undertake. A perfect example of this is when the narrator speaks of the state of Uruk and says “No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all”. From this, the contemporary audience frames Gilgamesh as an immoral tyrant, as their value of free will is being challenged. However, Gilgamesh’s intentions were in the interest of the people, as he moulded the sons into warriors to protect the city.
* Question the degree of the influence Edie has on him and his future. * He turned Edie away from being a nun. Both of them had an equally important influence on each other. This is where the subtlety and nuance. * Its more revenge and self-interest rather than the driving force behind his moralities * He is uneasy about taking on the role as whistle-blower * Struggles with the decision to abandon the code of D & D * He is indecisive until Charley’s death * Rage and desire seem to drive him rather than any desire to address a moral failing * After inquiry Terry is transformed into a stronger more positive version of himself.
This explains why Miller would choose to make John Proctor a modern hero, as opposed to the classic hero. Whereas traditional tragic heroes such as Oedipus or Hector would seem too ideal, a more American character with whom the audience can relate to better would inspire more empathy. Also, the reason that Arthur Miller chooses not to make John Proctor’s fate inevitable could be that by giving John Proctor a final chance at redemption, Miller is also trying to show the sacrifice that he made himself. Proctor’s fate is a result of his choices and his sins, but he chooses to meet his end with dignity and loyalty towards his friends, just as Miller felt he was
9. He could enjoy it but also dislike it. He might like the fact that is gives a different point of view. He might be upset that this book was even written at all because the point of it was to display a great hero, rather then a hero with no pity for other living creatures. 10.
There is no way to ‘clean up’ Twain without doing reparable harm to the truth of his work.” This quote clearly shows if Twain were to be alive and see that his masterpiece was being completely reproduced, he would be infuriated and emotionally hurt. Changing his beautiful masterpiece without his permission is ethically inappropriate. As a result, The editors of Huckleberry Finn cannot
How important is Odysseus’ as a beggar to the success of the Odyssey? The word disguise means giving someone or yourself a different appearance in order to hide their identity. While success means accomplishing a purpose or an aim. In this essay I am going to be discussing how important Odysseus’ disguise as a beggar is important to the success of the Odyssey. In Book 14 Odysseus returns to Ithaca and Athena disguises him as a beggar, without this disguise Odysseus would have been killed by the suitors and it also delays the final confrontation between him and the suitors and also delays the recognition scene between him and Penelope.
Scott Fitzgerald offers a unique and creative perspective about dreams, wealth and time and how they were perceived and valued in the 1920's. The book personifies the lack of moral values of society and how that lack can lead to increased greed and obsession. Dreams, though they may seem bold and beautiful, are not reliable and do have an expiration date. In addition, time and wealth are not things to be played with as they can do more harm than good. Finally, Fitzgerald's novel shows the reader how even the most heroic and "great" characters can suffer a tragic and unsettling demise if they are not
Arthur Miller begins by criticizing a Aristotle's belief that “someone of the common mold cannot be a true tragic hero.” Arthur Miller sees this an old quote that is no longer relevant due to the fact that Aristotle said this many centuries ago, in a much different world than what we know today. His thesis statement is excellent in that it molds the entire paper, by stating that Aristotle was a genuis, but in his own time; “Things do change, and even a genuis is limited by his time and the nature of his society.” In the next paragraph Miller also justifies Aristotle's logic, with his own “simple logic.” On the grounds of his simple logic, Miller denies Aristotle's contentions only because he lived in a slave society. Miller also make a clear distinction between stature and rank, which according to Miller are often confused. The question of rank is significant only as it reflects the question of the social application of the hero's career. A great exampled used by Miller was that of an opening scene of a movie.