Daddy Long Legs Essay

Jerusha Abbott was brought up at the John Grier Home, an old-fashioned orphanage. The children were wholly dependent on charity and had to wear other people’s cast-off clothes. Jerusha’s unusual first name was selected by the matron off a gravestone (she hates it and uses “Judy” instead), while her surname was selected out of the phone book. At the age of 18, she has finished her education and is at loose ends, still working in the dormitories at the institution where she was brought up.

One day, after the asylum’s trustees have made their monthly visit, Judy is informed by the asylum’s dour matron that one of the trustees has offered to pay her way through college. He has spoken to her former teachers and thinks she has potential to become an excellent writer. He will pay her tuition and also give her a generous monthly allowance. Judy must write him a monthly letter, because he believes that letter-writing is important to the development of a writer.

However, she will never know his identity; she must address the letters to Mr. John Smith, and he will never reply. Jerusha catches a glimpse of the shadow of her benefactor from the back, and knows he is a tall long-legged man. Because of this, she jokingly calls him Daddy-Long-Legs. She attends a “girls’ college,” but the name and location are never identified. Men from Princeton University are frequently mentioned as dates, so it might be assumed that her college is one of the Seven Sisters. It was certainly on the East Coast.

She illustrates her letters with childlike line drawings, also created by Jean Webster. The book chronicles Jerusha’s educational, personal, and social growth. One of the first things she does at college is to change her name to “Judy. ” She designs a rigorous reading program for herself and struggles to gain the basic cultural knowledge to which she, growing up in the bleak environment of the orphan asylum, was never exposed. At the end of the book, the identity of ‘Daddy-Long-Legs’ is revealed.

Character Sketch of Bassanio Essay

Bassanio’s character is more fully drawn than Antonio’s, but it does not possess the powerful individuality that Shakespeare gives to his portraits of Portia and Shylock. First off, when one begins considering Bassanio, one should dismiss all the critics who condemn him for his financial habits. Bassanio’s request to Antonio for more money is perfectly natural for him. He is young; he is in love; and he is, by nature, impulsive and romantic. Young men in love have often gone into debt; thus Bassanio has always borrowed money and, furthermore, no moral stigma should be involved.

Shakespeare needs just such a character in this play for his plot. If Bassanio is not a powerful hero, he is certainly a sympathetic one. First, he has some of the most memorable verse in the play — language which has music, richness, and dignity. Second, he shows us his immediate, uncalculated generosity and love; this is especially obvious when Bassanio, who has just won Portia, receives the letter telling him of Antonio’s danger.

Bassanio is immediately and extremely concerned over the fate of Antonio and is anxious to do whatever is possible for his friend.

Here, the situation is melodramatic and calls for a romantic, seemingly impossible, rescue mission. When at last Bassanio and Portia are reunited, he speaks forthrightly and truthfully to her. He refuses to implicate Antonio, even though it was at Antonio’s urging that he gave away his wedding ring to the judge who cleverly saved Antonio’s life: “If you did know,” he tells Portia, “for what I gave the ring / And how unwillingly I left the ring . . . You would abate the strength of your displeasure. ” No matter how powerful the circumstances, he admits that he was wrong to part with the ring because he had given his oath to Portia to keep it.

As the play ends, Bassanio’s impetuous nature is once more stage-center. Speaking to his wife, he vows: “Portia, forgive me this enforced wrong; . . . and by my soul I swear / I never more will break an oath with thee. ” Of course, he will; this, however, is part of Bassanio’s charm. He means it with all his heart when he swears to Portia, but when the next opportunity arises and he is called on to rashly undertake some adventure full of dash and daring, he’ll be off. Portia knows this also and loves him deeply, despite this minor flaw.

Death by Landscape – Analysis Essay

Death by Landscape is a short story, written by Margaret Atwood in 1990. The Author is a Canadian novelist, poet and essayist as well as an environmental activist and feminist with many national and international awards for her writings and activities. She was born in Ottawa, Canada and started to write when she was six years old. At the age of 16 she already knew that she wants to become a professional writer. She grew up in the outback of northern Quebec, maybe that’s the reason for her love to nature and northern environments and this is what builds the frame of most of her works.

The story was first published in 1991 and is a part of her short story collections. Death by Landscape describes the uneasy living with implanted guilt because of being accused of something what never happened or of just being at the wrong place to the wrong time. Margaret Atwood writes about an elderly woman, Lois, who lives in an apartment in Toronto (page1.

block1). Lois brought her collection of paintings with her when she moved in this apartment from her former family house. These paintings are all landscapes of the Canadian outback and countryside with forests, trees, lakes and islands.

Her husband Rob already died and her boys already grew up. She is living alone, alone with her memories, especially the memory to one particular happening in her youth when she grew up and went camping in a summer camp in Canada’s northern forests. She went to this camp “Manitou” since she was nine years old and since she was ten she had a special friend – Lucy – coming along to this summer camp with her. Lucy was from the United States, from Chicago, and she was brought to this summer Camp Manitou because her mother was Canadian and went also to this camp when she was young (p. ,bl. 3, par. 3/4).

Her father who lost one eye in the war was American. When Lois was fourteen they went on a one week canoe trip which was Lois first- and her last one (p. 1, bl. 2). In this year – Atwood writes on page three block three – Lucy was different. She had different interests and did other things than in the past summer camps. Her father had a new wife, her mother a new husband. Lucy had a boyfriend who was sixteen and worked as a gardener’s assistant. She wasn’t happy with her stepfather and didn’t want to live with her father either.

She wanted to run away from home (P. 3, bl. 3). When they left the camp to their canoe trip another character is introduced to the story. This is Cappie, the boss and the owner of Camp Manitou, who got the camp from her parents, and now – in the costume of an American native – sends the girls on their trip to the Canadian wilderness. Cappie wanted to be an Indian, adventurous and pure and aboriginal. The first two days of the canoe trip passed normally and nothing dangerous or spectacular happened. But then Atwood describes the third day on page 5 block one.

They reached camp three “Little Birch” and Lois remembered any details of the happenings to the present day. Lois and her friend Lucy wanted to go on a lookout point, a cliff high above the water, to have a look at the view from there. On top of the cliff Lucy wanted to take a pee and Lois gave her some toilet paper. To give her privacy she walked away and let Lucy alone, just a few steps, just a few minutes. Lois heard Lucy shouting, no shout of fear, not a scream (page 6, block 1 at the end). When she returned to pick up her friend Lucy wasn’t there anymore.

Lois got a shock and returned to the others. All searches remained unsuccessful. Lucy was gone and no one knows where she was, there was no trace of her at all. They broke up their trip and returned to Camp Manitou. The Police was looking for Lucy with dogs but couldn’t find a trace. Because of the loss of a child the camp did not survive. It was closed later. Cappie had a last questioning with Lois and asked Lois what she had talked with Lucy before she had disappeared.

Lois told her that Lucy talked about diving from the cliff but Lois answer was “you have to be nuts” (p. ,bl2). Then Cappie said, “sometimes we are angry and we don’t know it, we lose our temper”. She was accusing Lois of pushing Lucy off the cliff. This was unfair and hits the girl like a slap (p. 7,bl. 2). – Now Lois is an old woman living alone in her apartment and realizes that she lived all her life with a feeling of guilt implanted in her fourteen year old head by Cappie, the owner of the camp. Death by Landscape does not end at this point. Lois is looking at the paintings on her wall. In all her paintings she sees her friend Lucy and she still can hear her shouting.

On page eight block one Atwood writes that a dead person is a body and occupies space, a grave, but Lucy has no body, no grave. She only exists in Lois’ mind and – in her pictures on the wall. “You can’t see her exactly, but she’s there…” (page 8, block 2). Everyone has to be somewhere and the paintings are where Lucy is. In Lois’ mind she is still alive. Lois was going through the happenings of this particular day again and again, throughout her life, torturing herself with guilt and never really finding peace.

This feeling of guilt was implanted in her mind from the frustrated owner of Camp Manitou, knowing about the consequences of the loss of a child in her camp. Lois knew that she didn’t push Lucy off the cliff, but she left her alone, just for a moment, unattended and unwatched, knowing about her unhappy family situation, knowing Lucy didn’t want to return to her family (p. 5, bl. 2). When Lucy said that she didn’t want to go back to Chicago this indicates even possible thoughts of suicide. As an adult Lois was able to see this, but as a fourteen year old child, as a friend of Lucy…?

Lois had to live with this guilt all her life. Cappie, the owner of Camp Manitou wanted to have a reason for the loss of her camp. She wanted to have somebody to blame. She got what she wanted, not for the press, not for the police, but for herself. Lois said “Ididn’t! on page 7 block 2 and Coppie answered “didn’t what Lois? ” – push my friend… – left my friend… – hit my friend… – we don’t know exactly what Lois didn’t do, but Cappie planted guilt in the teenagers head, guilt the little girl had to live with for the rest of her life.

Cappie needed an excuse for her own failure. Atwood’s story is very thrilling, entertaining and exciting. There are actually two stories in one. The first one is the story of Lois, the old lady living in her apartment in Toronto, thinking of her past, of her entire life. She could hardly remember important things of her life, what her husband looked like, the birth of her boys, but one life changing event she remembered in all the details like it had happened yesterday. On the other hand is the story of the young Lois and the terrifying disappearance of her friend Lucy.

There is a lot of foreshadowing in the story what makes the reader suggesting that something terrible might happen. On page one block two Atwood writes it was Lois first canoe trip and it was her last one. The reader can already imagine that something bad happens to her on this trip. Another example is to read on page three block three when Atwood writes that she – Lucy – wants to run away from home. Also Lucy herself indicates later in the story that she doesn’t want to return to Chicago and finally on the cliff she tells her friend that it would be quite a dive off here (p. 5,bl. at the end).

Atwood also uses allusions in her story. On page one block two she describes the reason for Lois to buy all these landscape paintings . She wanted something that was in them, although she could not have said what it was at the time. At the end it was her friend Lucy whom she saw in all these paintings. On page three in block two the author writes that Lucy always had a surprise or two. Something to show, a marvel to reveal. The reader immediately wants to know what is it, what does she have to show? This makes the story so exciting and keeps the readers curiosity.

Canadian children go to a summer camp sooner or later in their lives. It is a part of their education. Nature is never far in Canada. Therefore everything is intimate and familiar, nothing is really strange for a Canadian reader. When the kids hang their open food into the trees to save it from eventually appearing bears the Canadians can find themselves in the story. The major happening itself is something we can find in nearly every daily newspaper. Kids disappear, are missing, being killed or accidently die. Everybody can imagine the shock of the participators.

To conclude the Death by Landscape Margarete Atwood drew a wonderful picture of her Canadian home country in a captivating story. Enhancing the reader she reminds the necessity of intact families, the taking care of growing up children and the unpredictable things that can happen. Also Atwood describes the terrifying feelings of guilt which can drive someone to delusion and madness. Lois never forgot her friend in all those years, she still hears her voice and sees her image in her landscape paintings. This gives her friend Lucy a place for her body which has never been found in the Canadian wilderness.

Romeo and Juliet vs Macbeth Essay

In the first scene of Romeo and Juliet is set out in town, whereas Baz lurhman’s interpretation of Romeo and Juliet it is set out in a petrol station which is also a public place but the main reason this is used as the opening scene is to show that it’s modernised version. In Macbeth the first scene is set out on heath, however in palanski’s 1960 film version is set out on a beach. In both Romeo and Juliet there is violence but of different types.

In Romeo and Juliet the violence is a feud between two families, it is gang related violence whereas in Macbeth two countries are at war, it has control and order unlike Romeo and Juliet.

In both plays the main characters are not seen in scene 1 of the plays however are mentioned and we gain knowledge of the characters through the voice of others. In Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is fist mentioned by his mother, Lady Montague when she says “O where is Romeo? Saw you him today? ” also when lady Montague asks Benvolio where Romeo was he replied that he was up an hour before dawn, walking west of the city and trying to calm his troubled mind, when he saw Romeo in a grove of sycamore.

Benvolio walked towards his friend, but Romeo spotted him and went further into the woods, out of sight.

This shows that he is trying to isolate himself away from everyone. Benvolio knew how Romeo felt so wanted to leave him alone, however lord Montague doesn’t agree that Romeo should be left alone. He tells Benvolio that Romeo is often out in the sycamore grove: “Many a morning hath he there been seen, with tears augmenting the fresh morning dew, adding to clouds more clouds with his deep sighs”. Not only does Romeo wander about, weeping and sighing, he also locks himself in his room and makes it dark.

In Macbeth, Macbeth is first mentioned by the witches, which is not a good sign because in Shakespeare’s day if you are connected to witches in any way its bad. In scene 2, the captain describes Macbeth as “brave” and that his sword is “smoked” with blood. This suggests that Macbeth is a violent and cruel killer. In both plays we can identify that conflict are very close to both Romeo and Macbeth although Macbeth has a greater involvement in it because Romeo isn’t interested in his family feud.

As his father is worriedly talking about him, Romeo appears. Benvolio asks Romeo’s parents to step aside so that he can find out what’s wrong with Romeo. Benvolio promises that if he doesn’t discover what Romeo’s problem is, it won’t be for lack of trying, he says, “I’ll know his grievance, or be much denied” . Benvolio is now seeking out Romeo to find out what’s wrong with him . Though he hasn’t been saying anything to his parents, Romeo is open with his friend.

Benvolio asks questions to Romeo to help the audience find out what’s wrong with him, and Romeo tells him that he is “Out of her favour, where I am in love” Then follows a long discussion of love, during which we find that Romeo is in love. The fact that Romeo confides with Benvolio shows their true relationship . For a moment, it appears that Romeo is tired of talking about love. He asks Benvolio where they are going to have lunch, and then says, “O me! What fray was here? ” But neither food nor fighting can really turn Romeo’s thoughts away from love.

Rather than let Benvolio say anything about the brawl, Romeo says, “Yet tell me not, for I have heard it all. Here’s much to do with hate, but more with love” . In saying, “I have heard it all,” Romeo does not mean that he has heard all about the fight that just took place. He means that he has heard all about fighting in general. And he doesn’t care. Romeos language to benvolio shows his state of mind, he using oxymorons, “feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health” this suggests that he has a troubled mind, he is confused and he has a lack of direction doesn’t know what to do this is where benvolio helps him.

Catch-22 and Dr. Strangelove Essay

In Joseph Heller’s novel, Catch-22, and Stanley Kubrick’s film, Dr. Strangelove, the bureaucrats are illustrated as illogical and untrustworthy. Heller’s attention to administrations such as the hospital and the military-establishment are recognized for their unreliable rationality and logic. Similarly, in Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick mocks the absurdities of the nuclear arms race and of the officials of the United States and The Soviet Union as he conveys the malfunction of highly placed government bureaucrats. Catch-22 and Dr. Strangelove, are two satirical and somewhat historical works that effectively comment on the corrupt and perhaps insane bureaucrats.

The lives of Yossarian and the men in his squadron in Catch-22 are not determined by their own decisions but instead, by the decisions of the impersonal bureaucracy. The bureaucrats are absolutely oblivious to any attempt the men make to reason with them logically. Major Major, for example, will only see people in his office if he is not there and sends them away when he returns.

Doc Daneeka refuses to ground Yossarian for his “insanity” because Yossarian’s desire to be grounded reveals that he is sane.

Doc Daneeka elaborates in his discussion of Orr, Yossarian’s tent-mate. “Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.” (46)

Yossarian and the others in his squadron find that what they say and do has little effect on their fate when the bureaucracy controls them. Their only option is to follow the illogical rules and use what is expected of them to their own advantage. Yossarian’s superiors are more concerned with getting a promotion than they are about winning the war. Colonel Cathcart, the colonel in command of Yossarian’s squadron, tries to impress his superiors by “bravely” volunteering his men for dangerous combat. Cathcart’s only concern is being promoted to general. Cathcart continually raises the number of combat missions required of the men before they can be sent home. Yossarian argues with Doc Daneeka who explains, “…regulations do say you have to obey every order. That’s the catch. Even if the colonel were disobeying a Twenty-seventh Air Force order by making you fly more missions, you’d still have to fly them, or you’d be guilty of disobeying an order of his.” (58)

Similarly, Dr. Strangelove also criticizes the malfunctions of bureaucracy and the inadequacy of officials. General Jack Ripper gives the command to attack the Soviet Union without permission from his superiors or the president. Instead of discussing the idea of an attack with is supervisors, Ripper orders the attack because, according to him; Clemenceau… said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. -Criticizes the malfunction of bureaucracy. (Dr. Strangelove)

Mr. President’s embarrassment about the issue demonstrates bureaucracy does not function appropriately because those lower in command should not determine the launch of nuclear powers. Further exemplifying the inadequacy of the bureaucrats, the Joint Chiefs in the war room show their unprofessional and blatant prejudice, especially toward the Russians. General Buck Turgidson clearly states, “I’m beginning to smell a big fat Commie rat,” and later refers to them as “a bunch of ignorant peons.” The Germans are also referred to when Turgidson, upon learning Dr. Strangelove’s original German name, passes it off as “…a Kraut by any other name.”

Dr. Strangelove, the character, also calls into question the reliability of people in power. Strangelove is clearly the Presidents scientific adviser in the war room whose appearance copies the mad scientist stereotype with his wild hair, black gloved hand, and his clearly brilliant yet insane mind. Through their presentation of bureaucracy, Heller and Kubrick display why officials and politicians are unfit to make important decisions concerning the safety of the country. Catch-22 conveys this notion through the bureaucracy’s enforcement of impractical rules and Catch-22’s on the eccentric men in Yossarian’s squadron. Kubrick suggests the same concept in Dr. Strangelove by frequently demonstrating the disorder, madness and prejudice of the officials. In either piece, the reader carries away the certainty of the instability of the men in control of important military and national decisions.

Sula Good vs Evil Essay

Toni Morrison writes the book Sula with the intention of questioning the idea of good versus evil. “The novel invokes oppositions of good/evil, virgin/whore, self/other, but moves beyond them” says Deborah E McDowell( 82). The characters in Sula give the novel its great interest by using different behaviors and qualities for each character to prove the author’s intention. Sula has established its purpose in writing through the characters to inform others on good versus evil. Toni Morrison makes sure to identify several different characters in this novel as conventionally good and others as conventionally evil.

The character Nel is a small town conservative and quiet girl. She hides behind innocence, when in actuality her heart is evil. Sula is a city girl that is completely independent and blunt. Though she does seemingly evil things, she is still honest and prideful which makes her heart good. The book Sula goes from the time periods of 1919-1940. During this time we read about two girls, Sula and Nel, as they grow up.

The book takes place in “The Bottom. ” White landowners promised freed slaves a piece of heaven by living in the hills of Medallion, Ohio.

However the white landowners would take the richer version of the valley leaving the freed slaves with a rough life. In the beginning of the novel at 1919, the two girls Sula and Nel just begin to meet. They become very attached to each other in their adolescence years. In Nel’s family, they believe in social conventions. Her home is stable and more traditional than Sula’s. It is represented as good because the family goes to church; they seem outwardly respectable, and the house is neat and tidy. Sula’s home is different.

She lives with her grandmother and her mother Hannah, who later dies; both are seen as odd and nontradional to the town because the house is chaotic; the women freely love men, and there is no dominant male figure in the home, a recipe for the stereotype of evil. Despite their differences the girls become best friends and live life together. One day a tragic accident occurred. Sula swings her friend Chicken Little into a nearby river and he drowned. Nel and Sula agreed to nerver tell anyone about the accident.

After that the two girls starts to grow apart. Later Nel reflects on this incident remembering “the good feeling she had had when Chicken Little hands slipped (Sula170). While “Sula had cried and cried when she came back from Shadrack’s house. But Nel had remained calm. ” Sula 170. ” With this quote it shows us who’s heart is really evil while Sula is showing remorse, Nel is excited to see the boy drop in the river. Time goes by and Nel settles down and gets married and have children. However, Sula lives and independent life.

Sula eventually travels for ten years and then returns. Throughout the novel the theme, good versus evil is shown. Nel is known as good overall. She is innocent, while she is also conservative and shy. She is married with children which makes her follow the female patterns of the town. With those qualities, she is an all American good woman. In society Sula is showed as evil and offensive. She decides to go off to college and does not come back for ten years. When Sula returns she comes back with a plague of robins. This was a sign in its own words.

The robins came with “to much heat, or to much cold , to little rain, rain to flooding”(Sula 81). Sula was also assigned the role of evil because she was free with her sexuality and freely flaunted her sensuality and her independence. “She attracted the glances of old men sitting on stone benches in front of the courthouse, housewives throwing buckets of water on their sidewalks, and high school students on their way home for lunch…. There were scattered hellos and nods but mostly stares. A little boy ran up to her saying, “carry yo’ bag, ma’am?

” Before Sula could answer his mother had called him, “You, John. Get back in here. ” At Eva’s house there were four dead robins on the walk. Sula stopped and with her toe pushed them into the bordering grass” (Sula 90-91. ) This is an example of Sula being offensive. The housewives find Sula to be unlady like, while the men find her as temptation which makes women jealous and offended. Sula is not afraid of her sexuality. She sleeps with different men only once which in society is considered wrong. She commits adultery with Jude (Nel’s husband) which is a sin or evil.

However Nel sleeps with her husband Jude because she feels as if it’s another job of hers. She is not free of her sexuality. She is confined to think her only goal during sex is to please her husband. During this time it is normal for women to think that way. That was considered being a good wife. However, Sula did not want to fall into that catorgory. ” Sula’s sexual expression is not attached to anything outside herself “(McDowell 83). Therefore she does not see it as being sinful o r evil she sees it as being free of herself. In the story, Sula gets blamed for a number of things.

The towns people blamed her for the malnutrition boy falling, the man choking on a chicken bone, the lady getting a sty on her eye by looking at Sula and for bringing the plague of birds. These things considered Sula evil. However, what the towns people did not realize is that Sula brought a presence that improves the community. Sula was different. She embodied what all the wives wanted freedom which was something weird so that all cast her as evil. A true evil person would just bring a dark cloud to the community with a heavy unpleasant emotion.

After the incident with Jude, Nel became like the towns people. She judged Sula because she did not live by rules or containment. She was simply free and everyone was jealous of that. Soon Sula falls in love with Ajax. He is the only person to see Sula for what she really was and independent women. She reminded him of his mother. He loved the fact that she was not domestic and that they considered each other as equals. Sula soon falls under the pressure of being domestic which is everything she is against and he soon leaves her. Sula is a book about uncertainty.

It questions good versus evil. Sula was blamed for being evil and bad, but she lived her life honestly. Nel lived her life private and as a lie. Honesty is a trait of someone with a good pure heart whereas a lie reflects someone with an evil heart. This book definitely questions beliefs about what is good and what is evil. Work cited page McDowell, Deborah E. ” ‘The Self and the Other’: Reading Toni Morrison’s Sula and the Black Female text. ” Critical essay on toni Morrison. Ed. Nellie Mckay Y. Boston: Hall 1988. 82,83 Morrison, Toni. Sula. NY: Vintage, 2004.

Macbeth Good vs Evil Essay

“Look like the innocent flower but be the serpent under it” “let not light see my deep and dark desires” “to alter favour ever is to fear” “The service and the loyalty I owe” “Point against point, rebellious arm ‘gainst arm” 1. How are they corrupted by the evil in them? After reaching the highest level success Macbeth still desires more and is willing to fall to any level to achieve it. When the evil presents Macbeth with the opportunity, he puts all his trust in it later to find out evil has played a double game.

2. Is Lady Macbeth totally evil?

Lady Macbeth is not evil she is only trying to help her husband in his ambition, she takes support of evil to fulfil her ambition when she pushes Macbeth to kill Duncan and challenges his manhood that she forgets her morals because she is too lost in her ambition. 3. Find examples in the play in which characters try to hide the truth from around them? Macbeth hallucinates about Banquo’s ghost who symbolises Macbeth’s goodness but to hide his guilty conscious he becomes cruel towards others.

Banquo hides the prophecy from the rest of the kingdom because he doesn’t believe them to be true, but still doubts Macbeth for Duncan’s murder.

4. Why do they do it? Macbeth hid his 3 prophecies from others because he didn’t know whether it would be true or not and because once he heard that Malcolm will inherit his father’s throne. He and Lady Macbeth planned to kill the king therefore, if people knew about his prophecies they would have suspect him in an instant the King is dead. 5. What does this tell us about the world around them? The world is very small and they would go to any limits to protect themselves and achieve their goals. 6. Macbeth and Banquo’s reactions to the witches’ prophecies are very different.

In what ways? Macbeth doesn’t believe at first but when he is promoted he starts to believe and uses the prophecies as guide towards his ambition whereas Banquo never believed in the witched and always thought they were evil. 7. What are the different consequences of their attitudes? Macbeth believed in evil and let it guide him into an instant of success which eventually leads him to his own destruction, death. Banquo doesn’t believe in evil and let good guide his way, but is murdered by Macbeth because he was so good that Macbeth got scared for his safety. 8.

Would you consider Macbeth’s ambition to be flaw in his character? Macbeth ambition is too great for him to handle, and he put all of his trust on those prophecies which lead to his downfall. Those prophecies can be seen as hallucination and instead of trusting his surroundings, his friends. 9. What about Lady Macbeth’s ambition? Is she ambitious for herself or her husband? Lady Macbeth’s ambition only started when she got the letter from Macbeth and she wanted to help her husband make the prophecies come true. The only thing that’s in the way to make the prophecy came true is Malcolm.

10. What has the play got to tell us about selfish, unchecked ambition? The play tells the audience that being selfish will display and illusion success would disappear if the person stops to feel human emotions. 11. Why does Banquo’s ghost only appear to Macbeth during the banquet? Banquo’s ghost only appeared to Macbeth during the banquet is because it was Macbeth’s conscience and guilt that take shape to form Banquo’s ghost. No one else in the banquet knew that it was Macbeth who plotted his friend’s death. 12. What does this tell us about Macbeth’s conscience?

It tells us that Macbeth is guilty of the crimes he had committed, and soon realises that once his left alone no one he could trust, like Banquo. 13. Find examples in the play to comment on this theme When Duncan is King of Scotland, it seems that the place is peaceful and everyone can trust each other. Whereas when Macbeth is King there are chaos everywhere and people couldn’t trust each other because they afraid that the other person might be Macbeth’s spies and their lives would be in danger if they said anything against Macbeth. 14.

Consider Banquo’s sense of honour Banquo might as well be a little responsible for Duncan death because he hide the prophecies from the kingdom though he always remained loyal to his serving king. 15. Why is Malcolm so suspicious of an honourable character like Macduff? Malcolm was so suspicious of Macduff because the former Thane of Cawdor was an honourable man and yet he betrayed Duncan. Malcolm wanted to make sure that when he would be surrounded by trustworthy and loyal Thanes and not the ones that would be power hungry like Macbeth. 16.

Review and list again the qualities Shakespeare thinks are needed by a king to govern a country Honesty Kind Fair Loyalty Generosity Courage 17. List the things that are not what they seem to be, and people whose reality is different from their appearance •Duncan visits Macbeth’s castle and was amazed at the view of the castle but didn’t know that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth plotted to kill him. •The old Thane of Cawdor seems like he’s very noble but he ended up being a traitor. A dagger – A A wood – B False promises – A A ghost – A Two guilty grooms – A A wicked prince- A A ‘foul and fair’ day – B.

You may also be interested in the following: good vs evil macbeth, good vs evil macbeth essay, macbeth good vs evil essay, macbeth good vs evil

The Relationship Between Good and Evil in Beowulf Essay

Throughout Beowulf I have been intrigued by the theme of good and evil and their relationship. Primarily how there are a number of different ways to think of the relationship between the two. I think that in Beowulf there are many interesting ways that evil and good are portrayed. For the most part Beowulf represents good/ heroes and then there are three main representations of evil that Beowulf faces. One thing I realized about the relationship between the two is that you could not have one without the other.

For example, the reason that Beowulf becomes so well known and famous is because he defeats an evil demon (Grendel). A hero is someone who possesses a vast amount of courage and someone who is known for overcoming a certain obstacle(s). An evil figure is often the obstacle that the hero must over come; it is someone or something that is often thought of as immortal and feared by the public.

Without Grendel or any short of evil figure, Beowulf would not have made a name for himself. When it comes down to it; evil is what makes someone a hero.

In this story, the idea of evil is presented through the three monsters and the action of killing, the idea of good is represented threw Beowulf and comitatus. Universally, pretty much all folk tales, stories, and epics that involve good and evil are about the two battling it out. It is a way of enhancing the story, no one wants to hear a story about a hero achieving a goal easily, the idea of a challenge and struggle is what really interests people. In Beowulf it is more that Beowulf is defending the people from the evil.

It is not a pleasant scene when Grendel comes storming into the mead hall; he starts attacking everyone and everything, killing many in the process. Beowulf makes a boast that he will defeat Grendel in battle, but it also seems he just defends the peace of the community at hand, “So times were pleasant for the people there until finally one, a fiend out of hell, began to work his evil in the world. Grendel was the name of this grim demon. ” (99-103) An interesting question to ask is how do you know who is the hero and who is the evil figure?

In real life there is no one side to anything. Some people may consider a person a hero and some people may consider that same person the evil figure. It is all about putting it in too perspective, and who the “hero” is benefitting. For example, Beowulf is a hero to the Danes because he defeats Grendel and that bennifits them because it means they are safe for the mean time and will not be disturbed by Grendel again. Later though in the epic, Grendel’s mother battles Beowulf, and for what reason? She was avenging her son. Avenger a lost love one, seems like something a hero might do.

So you cannot say that Grendels mother’s reasoning was very unreasonable, because in the end she was just honoring her son, in that sense Beowulf could even be considered the evil figure, its just all about perspective. Really though Beowulf it would be hard to imagine Grendel, Grendel’s mother, or the dragon as anything else except evil and monstrous, but too some in the story these characters may not be considered evil, so too sum it up, at first it may seem very straight forward too who the “good guy” is and who the “bad guy” is, but in the end the line between good and evil can often get blurred.

Without a hero you could not have evil, with out evil you could not have a hero. Although we look at good and evil as opposites they need each other to define one another. A hero needs to conquer some sort of evil to earn the title of a true “hero” and Beowulf is a perfect example. Once he defeats Grendel the Danes adore him, he achieves a task that appeared near impossible. When he does end up finally defeating Grendel he earns the title of a true hero.

Beowulf and Grendel are similar in the sense that they share a very similar level of physical strength and this is true with all the monsters Beowulf faces. All of the monsters are very evil and immortal, with Beowulf, since he has such grand power he is also thought to be a little bit immortal in some senses, “The monster wrenched and wrestled with him but Beowulf was mindful of his mighty strength, the wondrous gifts God had showered on him: He relied for help on the Lord of All, on His care and favour.

So he overcame the foe, brought down the hell-brute. ” (1269-1274) So another characteristic that Beowulf and these monsters share are that they are all not normal human beings, they all share some sort of paranormal power and strength, which could either be very good or very bad depending on how one utilizes them. I find the idea that Beowulf and the monsters have similar traits and characteristics very interesting, because their power is what makes them similar but what separates them is how and what they actually use that power for.

Like Uncle Ben once said in Spiderman “With great power, comes great responsibility. ” When it comes down too it, it is about who has more moral strength, between the hero and the evil figure who is going to use their power for “the right thing”. Beowulf lives a life of greatness and glory, he gets known as a hero and he dies a hero. When he fights the dragon, it seems that that is the way he would want to die, defending the community.

Too be a hero you must take risks, risks that may be considered by the average person too dangerous to even consider taking. Although, these risks are not always about fighting a monster. Heroes do not always come in such an obvious form; some one does not have to have godly strength or any kind of super power to be a hero, most heroes are the every day people. A hero does not have too kill a demon beast or save millions, a hero is just someone who is willing to make a difference, no matter how big or how small.

The Grapes of Wrath: Good vs Evil Essay

The Grapes of Wrath is a novel about the Dust Bowl migration in the harsh times of the Great Depression. It is the story of one Oklahoma farm family, the Joads, and it is also the story of thousands of similar men and women. The Joads are forced off their land, so they move West to California. When they reach California, they are faced with the harsh reality that it is not the Promised Land that they hoped in a beginning.

Steinbeck’s purpose in writing The Grapes of Wrath was to inform the public the migrants’ difficult situation hoping that it would cause social change. Steinbeck employs the theme of the rich versus the poor to accomplish his purpose. It is a classic conflict between good, portrayed by the poor, and evil, portrayed by the rich. One of the ironies of Steinbeck’s novel, The Grapes of Wrath was that, as Ma Joad said, “If you’re in trouble or hurt or need — go to poor people.

They’re the only ones that’ll help — the only ones.

” The irony is that if you need something you have to go to the people who have almost nothing. And the poor people in this book are shown as the good people because of their generosity, their family union, their humbleness, and most importantly, their connection with God. In the other hand, there are the evil people, known as the rich; and the reason they are portrayed as the bad people is because of their selfishness, bad temper, their greedy nature, and their desire to get rid of the migrants in California.

One, and I think the best example of the struggle between good and evil was that in the novel, as well as in the real life back in the 30’s, the bankers took all they could from the farmers and then when they could give no more they were kicked out of their homes, making the Joad family move to California; but somehow, thanks to this evil act, the Joads could move forward with their lives, and this majestic book was born thanks to that and also by the Great Depression.

Later on in the story there are so many examples of generosity as well as evilness. One example of generosity is in at the truck station in chapter 15 when the restaurant owner and waitress give the family bread at a discounted rate, and candy two for a penny when it is actually nickel candy. The truck drivers then leave large tips to the waitress. Neither the truck driver nor the restaurant owner and waitress are very rich but they are generous anyway. In contrast to that, the novel also shows an example of evilness, as

when the Californians tell the Joads “Okies”, which means scum, and they wanted to get rid of them because they feared that the migrants would steal their jobs, and the Californians started riots and many other things in order to get them off their land, this seems really bad, and evil, but I have to admit that somehow that was the right thing to do, not the riots, but the desire to get rid of them because not everyone had jobs in that time period, and the ones who do, fought in order to keep it to earn money and raise their families.

However, there were also signs of generosity in the story, as in chapter seventeen the person at the car dump gives Tom and Al things for way discounted rates. Ma Joad is also an example of this. The Joads are poor and yet they give what little they have to the children who need it. These acts of generosity are contrasted to how the rich people are trying to rip off the migrants. Another example of evilness is in chapter seven, that shows how the car dealer rip the people off by selling them pieces of junk for high prices.

Chapters nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-five are general chapters that show how the large land owners are cheating the migrants and smaller land owners to make a larger profit. They show how the land owners hire guards and lowered the wages to break their spirit and keep them from organizing. These are just facts that I remember from the story, but there are a lot more in it, which I am sure that are even better in the case of good, and worse, talking about evil.

To conclude, I would like to say that this world is full of generosity as well as evilness, it is something like fifty-fifty, but we, the good people cannot do anything about it, well, we can encourage the people to do good things, but we cannot force them, and that is the problem that affects the world we live in now, and the world in the time when the book The Grapes Of Wrath was written, but at the end of every story, the good beats the evil, and the Joads lived happily ever after, although they were still struggling with their economic issue, some life problems, they dealt with death of Grandpa and Grandma, but somehow they managed to live a harmonious life.

Good vs. Evil in King Lear Essay

Life will always bestow us with choices which we must wisely choose either a moral or immoral response to. Shakespeare exemplifies goodness and wickedness in King Lear. The play presents a powerful manifestation of loyalty, specifically through the characters Kent, Edgar, and Cordelia.

Kent’s unrestricted loyalty to Lear remains stable throughout the play. He recognizes Lear’s tragic flaw and remains faithful, even after being banished. His reliability is further divulged when he attacks Oswald, Goneril’s loyal servant. Kent’s defensive actions result in him being placed in the stocks.

This sacrifice adds to his loyal attitude of pursuing the King’s well-being and safety. Oswald is loyal to Goneril, and acts well as a contrasting character to Kent.

They both share the attribute of loyalty; however Oswald’s loyalty is based on immoral decisions, while Kent’s is not. Following Lear’s death, Kent foreshadows that he too will pass on, reuniting himself with Lear. Furthermore, Edgar is betrayed by his evil, manipulative brother, and he is forced to disappear.

Edgar’s goodness is displayed when he treats Gluocester with kindness, regardless of his father’s misjudgment.

In addition, Edgar gives his father strength by saving his life making him believe a deity has saved him from jumping off a cliff. This renaissance causes Gluocester to think and act more wisely in future endeavors. Edgar and Kent’s morality and loyalty are not affected by their mistreatment provided by their superiors, which ultimately verifies them as accurate symbols of good.

Cordelia is an exemplar for true virtue in her acts of forgiveness and loyalty towards her father. Lear, distressed by his beloved daughter’s response of “nothing” to his love test, banishes Cordelia and denies her any land and power. Lear turning his back on Cordelia foretells destruction, since she is one of the only people in Lear’s life that is loyal and express’s genuine feelings towards him. Furthermore, she foreshadows her death by returning to the kingdom to the aid of her father. She understands the dangers of returning, but despite these dangers she continues to emanate loyalty.

Shakespeare delivers the existence of suffering through the presence of good and evil. Through Kent, Edgar, and Cordelia, Shakespeare has made it apparent that evil is unavoidable, yet virtue, loyalty, and forgiveness is rooted to everyone. It takes certain individuals to have the courage and power to be able to express these moral characteristics.