The Crucible and 12 Angry Men are two plays with the same theme of justice that is expressed differently throughout each play. From their differing time periods and setting, both plays explore the justice system within society and the role people play within the system. Both 12 Angry Men and The Crucible have similarities, both plays have main characters that are attempting to right wrongs that they see being committed in their respected plays. Once the authors introduced the characters to us they then showed us how they implement the justice system in their plays and the effect it had on the plays societies. The outcome of these stories are different and they express varying effects the justice system can have on society.
An internal struggle is a “psychological struggle within the mind of a literary or dramatic character, the resolution of which creates the plot 's suspense” (dictionary.refrence.com). In the drama Macbeth by William Shakespeare one could go as far as saying that the internal struggle of the main character is the base of the plot itself. The entire drama revolves around the facets of Macbeth’s internal struggle and the actions which he takes as a result of this. Catalysed by low self esteem a struggle begins in which Macbeth seeks to be admired by attempting to take power in ways which conflict with conscience. This struggle is manifold and complex but for the purpose of analysis can be divided into three governing factors.
The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people. Petition of Right is when they King become answerable to others and not just God. The King said they were only answerable to God. The divine right of the Kings was a very unpopular thing among the people because the King couldn't be wrong, but they didn't want to disobey the King or God. Article 1; Section 9 is an example of the many ways the Constitution limits our government.
Most of the levied taxes and implemented laws are believed that they were unconstitutional and that Great Britain did not consider their opinions. As the tension between the British and the American colonists grows, the colonists become more fearful of the British’s rule. According to document five, the British has a huge advantage over the colonists because it states that they have the authority to make laws that the colonists must abide by at all costs. The colonists believe that there are only two choices to defend them - the colonists- from the enormous power: “choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated [British officials], or resistance by force” (Document five). According to document four, the colonists were that they will become slaves to the British.
The Crucible by Arthur Miller is a play which contains a multitude of complex characters . In the play, the characters’ motivations and inner processes are explored. Because of the historical setting, the characters live in a society of judgement and extreme religious devotion. This is a factor that places any of the characters’ choices and morals in a public balance to be judged by others. Abigail Williams is the main character of the play and acts with an utter selfishness and obsession.
There are many reasons why I think Equality will not adopt the rules of his old society. Throughout the story he is struggling against the rules. Furthermore, he tries to conform but simply cannot. He then realizes that it's okay and even good to be your own person. He wants to show people how to think for themselves and fight for what they believe in.
In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, written by William Shakespeare, motivations are the basis of many of the critical and consequential decisions made. Motivations prompt the action of questionable decisions and give rationale to the behaviors of key characters throughout the play. Marc Antony’s devotion to Caesar and his longing for revenge on the conspirators is the motivating force behind his actions. From the very beginning, Antony’s
The city is the king’s-that’s the law! (823-825) Again Creon shows that he is self-centered and can’t fathom that his duty as king is to rule for the people and do what’s best for them. Creon is unable to see that the law is not always fixed and that he needs to change the way that he is currently ruling so that he adapts to do what’s best for the people. Creon shows a certain stubbornness and inability to want to rule for his people instead he wants to do what he desires and is always established in his
The scene in which King Henry IV confronts Prince Hal is a pivotal moment in their relationship’s development throughout the William Shakespeare’s account of the rebellions against the King’s rule in the play Henry IV Part I. Act 3 Scene 2 offers an insight into the ruling ideologies of Henry and his heir apparent Hal, as rulers, while each character considers the upcoming battle and attempt to determine what makes worthy ruler. Henry expresses unresolved anxiety about how he came into his throne, and his uncertainties about Hal, his successor, while Hal is desperate to recover his father’s trust in him. My group decided to include this scene in our performance because it embodied the evolution of the father-son relationships within the play. Tanya, Gillian and I focused our performance on the dynamics of Henry and Hal’s relationship, and how their relationship informed our understanding of their characters.
In his play, 1 King Henry IV, William Shakespeare is concerned with the popular concepts of power and legitimacy, or the right to rule. Shakespeare specifically calls into question the concept of legitimacy of power through one of the main characters of his play, Prince Hal. Prince Hal’s public image challenges the notion of this concept. In this essay, through the analyzation of various passages, I argue that Prince Hal upsets the notion legitimacy of power because his public image contradicts King Henry’s mode of being and mirrors the problematic reputation and actions of Richard II, which adds to King Henry’s fear of losing the throne, and ultimately results in King Henry’s hesitancy to make him heir to the throne. Largely due to his public
Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification. Thomas Jefferson also asserts that he doesn’t like the fact that there is no rules and regulations in regard to office terms, and how the officers could get re-elected and serve for like, thus, will result with corruption
Velasco clearly would not have wrote the letter had he not felt it necessary. The reason he wrote the letter is because he feels something needs changing and feels he wants his voice to be heard. Velasco although trying to get his point across while still attempting to show King Charles is still superior because it would be a criminal offense to disobey or bad mouth the King. The document is clearly a letter due to the direct approach of text “Your Majesty” he is writing directly to him. His story has specifically chosen words to impact the point he is making.
In this heated conversation, the King claims that Hal is up to no good; the King does not have confidence and assurance that he is fit to run a kingdom. Hal already knows how he should act but does not, so he can impress people like the King. He promises the King, “I shall hereafter, my thrice gracious lord, be more myself.” (III.2.92.) Hal’s plan to get into mischief before he changes disappoints King and ruins the potential for the King to be proud and assured that Hal will grow up to make use of, “the greatness of thy blood and hold their level.” (III.2.16). This engenders Hal to finally commence his new perspective on how to act, or perhaps one that he already knew was within him.
Creon once suggests how “[a person] cannot judge unless [one] know the facts” (Sophocles 515) when he is the one being accused by Oedipus. And yet, Creon commits the same action that he advises others not to do which reveals his dishonesty and insincerity as a monarch. Moreover, Creon does not value the guidance that his subjects has to offer; instead, he values his own opinion, which consequently hinder him from knowing his own mistakes. Creon once trusted Teiresias’s advice, but once Creon becomes a monarch and hears what he does not like to know, he accuses, “But old Teiresias, among human beings the wisest suffer a disgraceful fall when, to promote themselves, they use fine words to spread around abusive insults” (Sophocles 22). Creon becomes arrogant to admit his own mistake to keep his reputation as a wise prince.
In this conversation between Bernard and Lenina, Bernard wants freedom to do what he wants, however, the world state does not allow this to happen. If the world state allowed the people freedom they wouldn’t be able to hide the truth from then. This demonstrates a problem with the brave new world and is a reoccurring problem with totalitarian states because people will never be as happy as they could be without freedom. This dissatisfaction is demonstrated by Helmholtz when he says,