Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
123 essays on character analysis
The nature of humanity in the metamorphosis
123 essays on character analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 123 essays on character analysis
The tailor proves to be the “good”/positive person out of the two travelers especially since he shares with his traveling companion, has faith in all that he encounters, and gets a reward for the way he lives his life. The tailor, when he first travels to a town with the shoemaker, gets a job before the shoemaker and, “shared all he got with his comrade” (487). This evidence provides reasoning for the the tailor being good because he shares all he has with his companion despite later evidence proving that the shoemaker does not share with him later or repay his kindness, however, this example also shows that he is good because he does not worry about whether or not his comrade will repay him, but the tailor just shares out of the goodness …show more content…
The tailor does not bring enough food and begs for bread from the shoemaker, but the shoemaker says, “‘You have always been so merry, now you can see for once what it is to be sad…’” This quote proves the spitefulness the shoemaker is and how this makes him a bad person because earlier when the shoemaker did not have much, the tailor, “shared all he got with his comrade,” but when it came time for the shoemaker to return the help he chose to let the tailor suffer for a while simply because the tailor is always merry and is good-spirited. Once the tailor can no longer stand the shoemaker agrees to give him food but not for free he takes out his right eye, but hunger strikes the tailor again and the shoemaker says he will give him food for his left eye now. “The shoemaker, however, who had driven God out of his heart, took the knife and put out [the tailor’s] left eye” (490). The evidence presented here proves how much of a negative person the shoemaker is because he chooses to take out the eye of the person who has been nothing but kind and shares all he has with him without asking for money or something …show more content…
The shoemaker becomes weary that the good and kind tailor will seek revenge on him and begins to try and sabotage the tailor;s life so that he can not seek revenge. The shoemaker tells the King that, “‘Lord King, the tailor is an arrogant fellow and has boasted that he will get the gold crown back again which was lost in ancient times’” (492). The shoemaker tries to sabotage the tailor’s life by telling lies to the King and this demonstrates that the shoemaker is the bad one of the two travelers because he adds more hurt to the tailor’s life, since before he took out the tailor’s eyes. The shoemaker shows no regard to the tailor and what he might have to go through, he only cares about himself and trying to protect himself from the revenge he believes the tailor may inflict on him. The shoemaker does this three more time, but each time is foiled by the tailor’s faith and goodness in the creatures that help him avoid the King’s wrath and the shoemaker’s bad deeds. The shoemaker gets a punishment that is parallel to what he gave the tailor for know reason. The tailor says to the shoemaker when the shoemaker takes out his second eye, “‘Do what you will, I will bear what I must, but remember that our Lord God does not always look on passively, and that an hour will come when the evil deed which you have done to me, and which I have not deserved of you,
Kittredge points out that the pardoner is "too clever a knave to wish others to take him for a fool. " The pardoner, rather than being an unrealistic fool, understands that the other members of the pilgrimage perceive him in a negative light. He does not wish to seem like an ignorant fool, handing out pardons for sins he also commits. Therefore, he decides to tell the truth, revealing his false trade, fake ... ...
takes the form of “an eye for an eye”, meaning that the offender should be punished by an act of
In “The Pardoner’s Tale,” Geoffrey Chaucer masterfully frames an informal homily. Through the use of verbal and situational irony, Chaucer is able to accentuate the moral characteristics of the Pardoner. The essence of the story is exemplified by the blatant discrepancy between the character of the storyteller and the message of his story. By analyzing this contrast, the reader can place himself in the mind of the Pardoner in order to account for his psychology.
p. 106. This passage reminds me of when my grandma was on her deathbed last year and saw her the day before she died. She looked like a different person. Her eyes were shut and her mouth gaping as she spasmodically gasped for air. “And even when we were no longer hungry, there was still no one who thought of revenge.”
The Cask of Amontillado is an 1846 short story by Edgar Allan Poe, which gives an account of Montresor, a man who executes a plan of vengeance against his friend, whom he claims insulted him. As the narrator in the story, Montresor provides a vivid image of his plan to lure Fortunato to his death, which ends in the eventual live burial of Fortunato. The theme of revenge is the most prominent element of this story, which enables the reader follow the narrator’s character, thus gaining a comprehensive understanding of the story. Similarly, the development of William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, is founded on the theme of revenge. From the onset of the play, the ghost of Hamlet’s father appears to him and asks that he carries out revenge on Claudius, who killed him and took the throne from him. However, unlike The Cask of Amontillado, the theme of revenge in Hamlet is mainly manifested through the protagonist’s inability to execute vengeance till the very end of the play. The theme of revenge is an integral aspect of the two literary works, to enhance the development of characters and their role in bringing the specific stories to life.
Most can agree that random evil and suffering, such as accidents, war, illness, crime, and many more, have the power to disrupt human happiness. Most would also agree that it is not the evil and suffering that affects one, as much as it is how one responds to the evil and suffering that occurs in one’s life. It is undeniable that suffering occurs to everyone in some shape or form, and while others may not believe that it is suffering, it all depends on one’s life. There are many examples a reader can draw from in recent and ancient literature that provides examples of other’s suffering and how they responded to those stimuli. This essay explores how the problem of evil is addressed by Greek tragedy and by Western monotheistic tradition.
‘Are you sure?’ asked the Savage. ‘Are you quite sure that the Edmund in that pneumatic chair hasn’t been just as heavily punished as the Edmund who’s wounded and bleeding to death? The gods are just. Haven’t they used his pleasant vices as an instrument to degrade him?’
The lesser of good evil arises in the film. Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) has been on death row for six years and now his time has come. He has taken the lives of two young teenagers and the families want revenge. The families are for the death penalty and that is what they have been waiting for, for Matthew Poncelet. In Dead Man Walking, there is a scene where the nun, Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) is outside of the prison with protestors and the camera angle focuses o the protestors sign. It says “an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38-39), a life for a life”. The quote comes form the Old Testament also known as the Hebrew bible. The New Testament states “whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also”(Luke 6:29). The director is trying to show us how the Old Testament and the New Testament contradict each other yet; they have a relation beca...
As said by Gandhi “An eye for an eye would make the world blind.” Bibliography Shakespeare, William. The. Othello. I am a sassy Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Throughout Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, the revelation of Claudius’ betrayal of the late King Hamlet becomes the causation of a slippery slope of events that revolve around a revenge on Claudius for his betrayal against the late King. Consequently, this key act of betrayal forms the plays overall theme of revenge while also showing the connection between power and corruption and the idea that ‘”what goes around, comes around.”
Throughout Hamlet, each character’s course of revenge surrounds them with corruption, obsession, and fatality. Shakespeare shows that revenge proves to be extremely problematic. Revenge causes corruption by changing an individual’s persona and nature. Obsession to revenge brings forth difficulties such as destroyed relationships. Finally, revenge can be the foundation to the ultimate sacrifice of fatality. Hamlet goes to show that revenge is never the correct route to follow, and it is always the route with a dead
The path one takes to seek a personal reward may result in the treacherous acts that causes devastation for others. In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the moral corruption that occurs between family members causes animosity that results in their downfall, and eventually their ultimate demise. More specifically, the tainted view of an individual in a family may result in the downfall of the other family members involved. Evidence of the tainted view of a family member causing undue harm can be found in the relationship between Hamlet and Claudius, Hamlet and Old King Hamlet, and Hamlet and Gertrude
Genuine people are few and far in between. Honesty is always hidden under the mystery of corruption. Wherever you go, people seem to put on mask and hide who they truly are become hidden from the outside world. Their motives are unknown but they have a deep, dark necessity to act and play a different role when they are in the presence of others. However, this doesn’t pertain to just people in the real world, it also occurs in the world of Shakespeare. The audience quickly finds that just like in their everyday life, fictional characters can also play a different role to achieve what they truly desire. Consequently, these characters develop a sense of dishonesty throughout the story and this dishonesty eventually leads to the destruction of their plans. Just like a weak foundation of a building, a weak personality will eventually crumple in ruin. In order to capture the recurring theme of dishonesty, William Shakespeare uses the death of King Hamlet to force a façade of security and responsibility on the major characters in his play, Hamlet.
A young man called Melibee, mighty and rich, had a wife named Prudence and a daughter Sophie. One day while he was in the fields he left his wife and daughter in his house. Three of his old foes broke into the house, raped his wife and left his daughter for dead by wounding her in five places her feet, hands, eyes, nose and mouth. When Melibee returned he began to weep. Prudence consoled him, then asked him to desist and to be as patient as Job. She tells him to call on the counsel of his true friends. His physicians vowed to cure Sophie. They advice him to set guards at his house, but not to attempt vengeance. The younger men, however, advised him to declare war. Prudence agreed with the elders, who did not want to attack the perpetrators in haste. However, Melibee cites Solomon, who advised that no wife or child should ever have mastery over a husband. Melibee and Prudence continue to debate on the subject, discussing every bit of minutiae in the subject debated. Finally she advises that he delay his attack on his enemies, telling them that if they will accept peace they shall be forgiven. They came to the court of Melibee and he gives them an option: they can put the punishment in the hands of Melibee or Prudence. The wisest of his enemies admits that they are unworthy to come into his court, and submit to his judgment.
Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known tragedies. At first glance, it holds all of the common occurrences in a revenge tragedy which include plotting, ghosts, and madness, but its complexity as a story far transcends its functionality as a revenge tragedy. Revenge tragedies are often closely tied to the real or feigned madness in the play. Hamlet is such a complex revenge tragedy because there truly is a question about the sanity of the main character Prince Hamlet. Interestingly enough, this deepens the psychology of his character and affects the way that the revenge tragedy takes place. An evaluation of Hamlet’s actions and words over the course of the play can be determined to see that his ‘outsider’ outlook on society, coupled with his innate tendency to over-think his actions, leads to an unfocused mission of vengeance that brings about not only his own death, but also the unnecessary deaths of nearly all of the other main characters in the revenge tragedy.