Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The beggar's opera analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Wrought with double irony and an overall sense of mock-pastoral, English playwright John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera (1728) has its forefront of irony vividly expressed between the dynamic of the central characters Macheath and Peachum. Even the names of the characters comically resemble their occupations within the play, Peachum’s being a play on the word “peach” which means to bring one to trial, while Macheath’s meaning “son of heath” and being a play on the heaths of London, which were prime places worked on by highwaymen (Tillotson, et al.). While both characters were used as a political satire towards Jonathan Wild and the then Prime Minister Robert Walpole (after all, The Beggar’s Opera was a political satire first and a potential literary …show more content…
I beg you, Gentlemen, act with Conduct and Discretion. A Pistol is your last resort. (1.2)
Due to Macheath’s lifestyle as a criminal, one would think that he would throw such characteristics of “Conduct and Discretion” aside, much like how fellow criminal Peachum does. However, he abides by such standards, resulting in surface irony. The double irony is how intensely he believes in this. If he were a villain who joked at how his actions were righteous while clearly knowing they were not, then the statement would only be surface irony. But, much like Peachum (but perhaps more rightfully so), Macheath views he is the hero of the story, and one can see him as a hero as well. Act III, Scene XI expresses this dichotomy well as Macheath’s and Peachum’s interactions with other characters are side-by-side for comparison. After being betrayed and peached by one of his many hussies Jenny Twitcher, Macheath prepares for his impending demise and speaks to his wives, Polly and Lucy: MACH. What would you have me say, Ladies? —You see, this Affair will soon be at an end, without my disobliging either of
…show more content…
There’s Comfort for you, you Slut. Afterwards, a scene is dedicated to Macheath’s lament in which he expresses his tragedy through the use of various airs: MACH. Since Laws were made for every Degree, To curb Vice in others, as well as me, I wonder we han’t better Company, Upon Tyburn Tree!
His words signal that he understands that he is deserving of his punishment, knowing that he had the chance to redeem himself, but did not: qualities of the tragic hero. Finally, within the hypothetical last scene of the play (Act III, Scene XIV), Macheath faces a tragic hero’s end. Unlike Peachum, who wins by trickery and deceit he believes is justified, Macheath does not receive a happy ending. However, despite this, Macheath remains strong and delivers a heroic final message to his fellow gang member Mat of the Mint and Ben Budge: MACH. Peachum and Lockit, you know, are in- famous Scoundrels. Their Lives are as much in your Power, as yours are in theirs.—Remember your dying Friend!—’Tis my last Request.—Bring those Villains to the Gallows before you, and I am
Austen’s recurrent use of satire conveys the flawed system regarding marriage and social class on which the society in the Regency Era runs, which is juxtaposed by characters who do not follow these set standards.
The irony then develops into more interesting and intriguing uses meant to keep the audience, especially the groundlings, interested and wanting more. And then finally, he uses dramatic irony to point out some of the reasons why this is a tragedy during and before the climax. In the beginning you see irony without much apparent consequence, which can be seen as amusing in some views and helped to draw people in. Some examples of this would be Romeo and Juliet talking to each other and falling in love? before realizing that their parents apparently hate each other.
Hamlet is one of the greatest literature pieces of all time, there is no doubt. But what makes Hamlet such a well known play? The main reason so many people read Hamlet is because of Shakespeare’s great use of literary techniques. The two main literary techniques that turn the play into a work of art are the use of character foils and irony. Shakespeare’s use of the literary techniques foils and irony turn Hamlet into a work of art.
Susan Gable’s Trifles is focused on discovering the killer of a local farmer in the twentieth century. In this play the amount of irony is abundant and the irony always relates to solving the murder. The two types of irony that are most easily discerned in Trifles are verbal and situational irony. Irony is when an author uses words or a situation to convey the opposite of what they truly mean. Verbal irony is when a character says one thing but they mean the other. This can be seen in the way the men dismiss the women. Situational irony is when the setting is the opposite of what one would think it would be for what the play is. This is seen through the setting being in a kitchen and various other aspects of the
“Have more than you show, speak more than you know”, a quote from King Lear, written by the great man himself William Shakespeare, explaining how you may have lots but show little and you may not know a lot of things, but put forth that you do. Such as in Hamlet, the entire play is themed around dramatic irony and how you show more but the characters know less. This affects everyone in the play, and directly coincides with the madness of Hamlet. From Act 5 Scene 2 the quote “Let four captains/Bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage,/For he was likely, had he been put on,/To have prov’d most royal; and for his passage,/The soldiers music and the rite of war/ Speak loudly for him./Take up the bodies. Such a sight at this/Becomes the field, but here shows much amiss. /Go, bid the soldiers shoot” has a direct impact on the context
Irony in The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde The play The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde is full of irony. Jack Worthing and Algernon Moncrieff, the protagonists in the play, get themselves into a complicated situation called Bunburyism (as Algernon refers to it). They pretend to be someone that they are not to escape their daily lives. They lie to the women they admire, and eventually the truth is revealed.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
Shakespeare’s complex play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar contains several tragic heroes; a tragic hero holds high political or social esteem yet possesses an obvious character flaw. This discernible hubris undoubtedly causes the character’s demise or a severe forfeiture, which forces the character to undergo an unfeigned moment of enlightenment and shear reconciliation. Brutus, one of these tragic heroes, is a devout friend of the great Julius Caesar, that is, until he makes many execrable decisions he will soon regret; he becomes involved in a plot to kill the omniscient ruler of Rome during 44 B.C. After committing the crime, Mark Antony, an avid, passionate follower of Caesar, is left alive under Brutus’s orders to take his revenge on the villains who killed his beloved Caesar. After Antony turns a rioting Rome on him and wages war against him and the conspirators, Brutus falls by his own hand, turning the very sword he slaughtered Caesar with against himself. Brutus is unquestionably the tragic hero in this play because he has an innumerable amount of character flaws, he falls because of these flaws, and then comes to grips with them as he bleeds on the planes of Philippi.
the play, it seemed that Othello was the only one who didn't know the truth.
One example of dramatic irony is when Oedipus is looking for the killer of the king Laius-his father. The irony here is that he is looking for himself because he is the murder of his father. Oedipus knows that he killed someone, but what he does not know is that it was Laius, the one he murder. Oedipus wants to punish the person who killed Laius, but we, the audience know that Oedipus was the one who killed Laius. Also Oedipus married Jocasta without knowing that she is his mother. We, the audience knew that he was Jocasta's son, but he was unaware of that.
Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something the characters do not. Again we see this type of irony when the family is sitting around the fire talking about their futures. At this point in the story the reader has problem figured out that the family will not make it. This makes the family, particularly the children talking about their future goals ironic as they will not have any future. The changes in “fate” also show dramatic irony. If the guest had gone faster on his journey then he would not have stopped at the families home, and he would have lived. Likewise if the travlers that came late at night would have been quieter the father might have let them in and they would have
Shakespeare's use of irony helped make him and his plays so popular, so popular three of
The Tragedy of Romeo & Juliet written by “William Shakespeare” in the late 1500’s in which two exquisitely beautiful lovers took their lives taken. (add details)In the play; Shakespeare shows how young love can lead to unexpected consequences.
Otis Wheeler describes how the surge in sentimental dramas was a direct reaction to the coarse comedies of the Restoration wherein man was depicted as ridiculous and nonsensical. In contrast “the drama of sensibility” was a display of the infinite promise of man. In this way the beginnings of the Cult of Sensibility is inextricably linked to the birth of Romanticism, yet where Romanticism preferred the superfluous and exaggerated the Cult of Sensibility preferred the delicate, softer emotions that would bring people together in harmony. As such it is fair to say that although these two styles were borne of a similar distaste for the neoclassical, they developed into very different types of drama. Romanticism created antagonistic protagonists, such as Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights.
This is about the idea of humor and irony to contradict and shape stories, then goes further in depth with how Shakespeare uses this in Twelfth Night. Ulrici mentions how comedy forms external nature and intrinsic fancifulness. Then he acknowledges the sudden change in comicalness and uses this as his argument that humor shapes external and intrinsic issues. Ulrici add details from the story to support his claims. He also compares the crossing of caprice, folly, error and perversity to a web that causes the subject caprice to be paralyze and be paralyzed by objective chance. Ulrici also adds to the essay later in that the web was carefully spun by Shakespeare that the characters harmonize so well that if there was any change then the it would