Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Quotes about conflict in literature
Violence in mid 20th century literature
Violence in literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Quotes about conflict in literature
“Interlopers,” by Saki, is a dark, and suspenseful short story about two men who share a grisly demise. The two men’s families had been in an unrelenting feud for decades. Naturally, they loathed each other, before they were even born. Even though the men were crushed and devoured, the nemeses deserved their fate. Georg and Ulrich deserved to die because of three reasons, it was the only way to end their feud, neither cared what harm they inflicted on others, and they insisted on killing each other.
Georg and Ulrich’s families had been fighting for so long, the only way to stop feuding was for both of them to die. When they were eaten by the wolves, an age long war of hostility and contempt suddenly ended. The feud could not have reached a peaceful end any other way because the men were so prideful. This could be compared to Romeo and Juliet. If Romeo and Juliet had not died, their families would have gone on feuding for centuries. While living, neither Georg nor Ulrich would have dared admit that the other was right. “The feud might perhaps, have died down or been compromised if the personal ill will of the two men had not stood in the way.” They obstinately refused to make amends, and so were killed. Even though the men apologized to each other, the apology could not be a promise until it was set in blood. “If my men are the first to come you shall be the first to be helped, as though you were my guest.” Ulrich says to Georg. This apology was not genuine. The only way for the feud to be stopped was to end it in carnage.
Ulrich and Georg did not care about what their fighting did to the people around them, and so they deserved their destruction. Neither of the two considered the horrific effect that the fighting could have on ...
... middle of paper ...
...erlopers to come between us.” When Georg says this, he is practically asking for death. In many people’s opinion, this is why they both deserve to die with their wish to not have interlopers come between them, Ulrich and Georg set themselves for death. It is unlawful to hunt, or kill anyone. A person who seeks to inflict harm on another should be killed or imprisoned immediately.
Georg and Ulrich both deserved their deaths. It wasn’t a matter of personal attachment, but rather for the greater good. If the men had not been killed, people would have remained in danger. They were a liability to the town they lived in, and also to each other. Georg and Ulrich deserved to die because of three reasons, it was the only way to end their feud, neither cared what harm they inflicted on others, and they insisted on killing each other.
Works Cited
The Interlopers by Saki
The tone and mood of this story is pretty dark when it comes to the main event in the assembly when Georg’s dad and other innocent people were killed. I personally think the main purpose of this book is to teach the reader how not only Jews were affected horribly during this time but many other innocent people and also to show the things these people would of done to be safe, for example, in the book Georg had to stay still in a suit case for a whole night so he could get on a train that is leaving the country, during that time he was not being allowed to move he would be in pain but he cannot make a sound either since he could get caught so he just had to me cramped in a suit case for hours in pain unable to speak. I personally feel like this part truly in depth showed what people went through just to be
Why would you kill your best friend that has been with you through thick and thin? Lennie Small was killed by George Milton at the end of the book Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. “Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don't belong no place....With us it ain't like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us” (Steinbeck 13-14). That quote basically describes Lennie and George's relationship to each other. Murder is something done with anger and to end a person’s life that should have not been ended. George had all the aspects of a murderer, he basically planned the murder of Lennie Small. George was not even accused for killing Lennie, everyone was happy and that is not right. Also George should have let Lennie escape to the cave and let Lennie live freely. Being said, George in all right, should be considered a murderer and not a savior.
The book “The interlopers”, by Saki, is a story about 2 men (Ulrich von Gradwitz and
Twenty lives were lost, including two of the striker’s wives and eleven children, but only one of these lives belonged to the National Guard. With this in mind, it can be debated whether or not this event should be considered a battle or a massacre. Some have argued that, because of the striker’s retaliation, the event should be considered a battle, but because of previous abuse and the guard’s disregard for who they were firing at it and careless destruction, it should be considered a massacre.
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
The violent actions of the Germans during this event force an image upon them that conveys the message that the Germans had little respect for the life of a person, specifically that of a follower of Judaism, and their capability to act viciously. If the Germans are acting so cruel and begin to act this way as an instinct towards the Jews, they are losing the ability to sympathize with other people. This would be losing the one thing that distinguishes a human from any other species, and this quote is an example of the dehumanization of the victim, as well as the perpetrator. Later on in Night, all the Jewish prisoners discover their fate at the camps and what will happen to people at the crematorium. They respond by saying to the people around them that they “...can’t let them kill us like that, like cattle in the slaughterhouse” (Wiesel 31). This simile develops the theme by comparing the Jewish prisoners to cattle in a slaughterhouse and emphasizes what little value their lives had to the Germans, implying they are not worthy of human qualities. The Germans are once again not able to emphasize with the Jews that are around them and being murdered, which over the course of the novel leads to them being
“The old man mumbled something, groaned, and died. Nobody cared. His son searched him and took the crust of bread”. But then two men saw the boy and killed him to for the crust. The people in the cattle car were no longer people, but animals who only cared for food. The people outside the cattle car also painted a dark picture of human nature. People gathered around the cattle car to have a glance at the fights happening over the piece of bread. Soon the spectators continued to toss bread inside the cattle car and watched the effects of their action with great interest. They observed those monsters who were ready to kill for a crust of bread. The circumstances that allowed this dark side of human nature to emerge was the instinct to survive. The Jews did everything to survive and no longer cared about anyone else. They went through so much suffering that they didn't listen to their conscience and didn't care if they killed somebody. The people outside revealed their dark side too because they enjoyed watching people kill each other for food and they encouraged the fight instead of stopping it. They watched in awe because at that time Germans didn't see Jews as humans. They enjoyed seeing the Jews
In conclusion, George killing Lennie was a murder because of lack of consent and Lennie was not suffering physically. In this society, people are scared of the unknown, and that is how they lived. No one realized what they were doing was wrong. But Lennie was just like everyone else, only different because of a small, mental setback. The characters did not seem to realize that Lennie believed in a future ahead of him, and that he had hopes and dreams just like them. Life is incredibly short, and no one should deserve
When Mulisch sends Anton to visit Takes and discuss what happened on the night of the assault, the reader learns that Cor Takes and Truus Coster risked their lives to assassinate Fake Ploeg because they thought it was the right thing to do. The two came to the conclusion that it was time to liquidate Ploeg because he had “killed God knows how many people, and sent many more to their deaths in Germany and Poland” (111). Anton also learns that Ploeg “had a whip with barbed wire braided into it that ripped the skin off your bare ass, which he then shoved against the blazing stove” as a form of punishment (111). Learning of Ploeg’s transgressions helps Anton understand why Coster felt the need to sacrifice her own life to eliminate some of the “Fascist gentlemen” that had brought turmoil to her country, and brings him to the realization that Takes’ motive for participating in the crime was revenge (113). Takes even suggests kidnapping children because “all the love and happiness and goodness in [the] world [cannot] outweigh the life of a single child” or the children of his enemies (113). Although their motivations were different, they worked together to eliminate Ploeg. They both kne...
...rest of Anton’s family and why the assault ever happened, “although there are no ashes in sight.” (Mulisch 84).
Shakespeare’s play, The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, depicts an ancient feud ended by a pair of star-crossed lovers’ deaths. A lord and lady from warring families seek a forbidden love with guidance from a friar and nurse. Due to a tragic course of mischances and fateful errors, their attempt of eloping led the lovers to a tragic end. Because of rash decisions, the four characters are torn apart by miscalculating events and misunderstandings. Ultimately, the four characters encounter a heartbreaking ending, as a result of their hastiness.
First, society’s absurd focus on honor and disgrace is culpable for the continuation of the Capulet and Montague families’ “ancient grudge”, which forces Romeo and Juliet to sneak around this to be together, following a precarious plan that ends in their deaths. (Prologue 3) Society’s unreasonable obsession with dignity threatens to disgrace either foe who steps down as cowardly and gutless, so that the two families, who cannot even remember the reason of their inane feud, are burdened to continue fighting or face absolute social humiliation. If this fixation was eradicated, the two foes would have made peace years before, and most importantly, Romeo and Juliet’s lives would be spared, since their families’ harmony would render their risky plan unnecessary. Is the senseless death of innocent young people worth ephemeral glory? Society obviously thinks so, and plants these toxic doctrines into its people’s minds, creating a vicious cycle of unnecess...
Lennie shows how his great strength brings harm to him when he kills. George wanted Lennie to be at peace and thinking of good things when he met the end of his life instead of being afraid of being killed by people who did not understand him. It was an act of unselfish kindness at a time when people of mental illness such as Lennie, was seen as undesirable, and often monsters. Does George have the right to kill Lennie? Legally? What about ethically? What does George's action suggest about justice within the play and in the world as a
Reckless actions lead to untimely deaths. In Shakespeare’s tragedy “Romeo and Juliet”, both protagonists fight for their hopeless love. Bloodshed and chaos appear inevitable in fair Verona; Romeo and Juliet come from enemy households, the Montegues and the Capulets, who have sworn to defeat one another. The young and handsome Romeo weeps over his unrequited love for Rosaline, until he lays his eyes on Juliet. Strong and independent, Juliet seeks to escape her family’s will to marry her off to Paris, a kinsman of the Prince. Fate ties these adolescents’ lives together binding them to witness the ill-fortunes of Romeo and Juliet’s love. Romeo and Juliet prove themselves woefully impulsive through their words and actions, which ultimately lead them along a series of unfortunate mishaps.
...thin the Empire. The situation escalated when the mysterious murderer could not be found. Christian residents took to the streets shouting anti-Semitic slurs such as, “Jews out” and “beat the Jews to death” (Smith 179). In the case of Konitz Smith states, “Not the Jews but their Christian accusers performed the ritual murder”, the Christian residents made the story, the Christian residents rioted in the street with clubs, and the Christian residents prompted the government to intervene using military force. Meanwhile, the Jewish community, per usual, remained silent with no retaliation to the remarks made by the Christians. The culprit of the crime was never found, Smith writes, “But even if we do not have the ‘dead certainty’ to hang a man, we can see that in this West Prussian town, although there was only one corpse, there was more than one crime” (Smith 206).