Katrina, if you compare your passage with the original definition of Middle English, you notice that just a few words are actually changed but the whole concept and the way the ideas are organized are parallel to your passage. In both your work and the original definition of Middle English, first the Renaissance is mentioned, and then the dates are given, following with the Norman Conquest and ending with the example of Morte D’arthur. Katrina, I hope you notice that your work is too similar to the original definition. The main concern here is that you have not cited this information. It is completely okay to use someone else’s ideas but you have not given any credit to the author therefore this is an act of plagiarism.
But that is not the direction I would like to go.) In the play indications are made that Horatio has no other objective in mind than to support and help Hamlet. We get an example of this when he tries to counsel Hamlet to make rational choices, as demonstrated in the Act I, scene 4 by encouraging Hamlet to be skeptical of the visit of an
By calling into question the truth of his stories, he disorients readers who are expecting to read a standard fiction, where the events are undoubtably false. He also shows readers why reinventing a story may be more important than telling the story just as it is remembered. Norman Bowker disapproves of O’Brien’s first attempt to describe a horrific battle, and, therefore, O’Brien feels the need to rewrite the story. Essentially, O’Brien must remember the event in a new way that makes the story more real for Bowker and other readers. Finally, O’Brien explains to readers why stories must be told, even with the risk telling the story the “wrong” way.
This is supported by the Othello by William Shakespeare and A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. Both literary works show theme of deception and characterization that convey the critical lens. If a person does a wrong thing he/she should try to fix it before it’s too late. If they will not take any steps to fix it, it will eventually affect them in a bad way. Both literary works showed how a person did a wrong thing and it has caught up to him/her.
However, what the novel fails to reveal is the answer to the deeming question “why?” Although this may be Cain’s way of allowing his readers to interpret the novel on an individual level, it seems to instead lead his readers down a path of misunderstanding and forced assumptions. For example, Phyllis initiates a dialogue between her and Walter, “‘Do you understand me Walter?’ ‘No.’ ‘Nobody could.’ ‘But we’re going to do it?’ ‘Yes, we’re going to do it’’’ (19). In this dialogue, Walter and Phyllis are confirming that they will follow through with their plan. Cain makes it obvious that Walter does not understand where Phyllis is coming from in her insistence of this plan and yet for reasons that are unclear to readers, Walter is still involving himself in the crime. The dialogue of a story is an important part of characterization because it allows the readers to see into the characters minds and examine their motivations.
Doing this is important to a modern audience as the play includes hints about future events that are unknown to the characters, so the hints are meant for the modern audience as they have prior knowledge that the characters do not have. This is device is known as a dramatic device, which is where the audience knows things that the characters in the play do not. Examples of this occurring are when Mr Birling says “Germans don’t want war” near the time of WW1, and when he says the Titanic is unsinkable. This is important as this gives the audience certain feelings such as anger, and to show Mr Birling’s ignorance towards other people. Priestley’s aim to writing this play is to convey the message that we have a responsibility for each other, and what could happen if we are ignorant about ourselves and that we are “a part of one body” as the Inspector says in his closing speech giving
Brynjar Björnsson Dr Ann-Marie Einhaus Shakespeare Level 2 28 November 2010 The Tragedy of Hamlet: Afflictions of the Mind In plays, where drama, suspense and action are all invaluable elements, playwrights often allow themselves certain plot devices to hasten or delay a play’s progress in order to keep audiences enthralled in a story; particularly in tragedy, characters can be plagued with psychological distress and hindered by personality flaws. Shakespeare’s tragedy, “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark”, has been analysed and debated ever since the 17th century without any clear resolution or full unanimous understanding of the characteristics, mind and morals of Prince Hamlet. Francis Bacon, in his essay “Of Empire” observes that “the difficulties in princes’ business are many and great, but the greatest difficulty is often in their own mind” (50). What follows is a study of Hamlet’s characteristics, his flaws and qualities in an attempt to appreciate his actions, and how his passionate characteristics often undermine his otherwise logical and educated mind. Firstly, it is important to make clear the personal background Hamlet is given as a character, if one wants to understand the approaches he takes in the story.
Thus, the ‘performance’ we will mention is not the usual exchange of pleasantries at others but the one which has a “strategic dimension”, or as George Eliot claimed; “there is no action possible without a little acting” (p. 1). Action in this line summarizes Scott’s discussion on how resistance indeed emerges offstage (p. 184 – 192: The Infra-politics of Subordinate Groups). This calls for another realm of interactions - ‘the hidden transcript’ since the public transcript alone “is unlikely to tell the whole story about power relations” (p. 2 - 4). Turning back to the context of ‘theatrical imperatives’ in public situations, which simply require giving a credible performance; the lines and gestures of the ‘libretto’ represented by the dominant is followed Creating this artistic analogy, Scott lays bare how the public transcript, by its nature is (ibid); … evidence for the hegemony of dominant discourse. It is in precisely this public domain where the effects of power relations are most manifest, and any analysis based exclusively on the public transcript is likely to conclude that subordinate groups
Alex Carney Julius Caesar Jacobs - 2nd Period April 15th, 2011 Ambition Many times in Shakespeare's “Tragedy of Julius Caesar,” Julius Caesar is accused of being ambitious. In fact, it is even the stated reason for his death. Among different interpretations, it is debatable whether or not this is a legitimate accusation. As a leader, Caesar had to do what was right for the good of Rome; however, the conspirators saw his leadership as tyranny. Ambition is used with an extremely negative connotation in Shakespeare's writing, but today, ambition is seen as a good trait for a hardworking person.