Fahrenheit 451 Juxtaposition Analysis

Night and Day In the great history of man, there is no event committed as gut-wrenchingly ignoble as the Holocaust. Therefore, conveying the devastation and emotional trauma on a believable and personal level is a sign of fantastic writing, which can be seen in Elie Wiesel’s Night. Moreover, to take this awful situation and put an almost light-hearted twist on it is also increasable, which is seen in the film “Life is Beautiful.” Accordingly, both of these mediums portray main characters that are in concentration camps, but present them in varying ways that create stories that feel completely different.

Although Perry is responsible for the murder of four innocent people, Perry’s actions do not reflect on who he is as a person because he is easily influenced, therefore; showing how easily people can be pressured into doing something they would not typically do. Dick, a violent, cold-hearted, manipulator, has molded Perry into the person he is today. As Perry is a follower, Dick has taken advantage of that by turning Perry into the cold-blooded killer he is today. Capote displays Dick’s manipulation of Perry through symbolism to make evident that while Perry did pull the trigger on four innocent people, although the fault does not entirely lay on him, as he was taken advantage of by Dick.

During the bombing of Munich Liesel concluded her novel “I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I made them right” (528). Just like that those couple of words saved her life and all of the struggles became worth it. Overall The Book Thief has a brilliant way of integrating the power of words.

How would novels stand out or give a visual understanding if imagery never existed? Imagery sets an ideal representation to imagine words as a scene while reading a novel or script. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, imagery is established multiple times, which allows events to be seen more significantly, identifies points of views differently, and demonstrates settings with more detail. Many events in the novel have been issued ironically, which shows significance due to imagery.

Oedipus needed answers, so he sent for a blind seer named Teiresias to give him the answers he was looking for. Once Teiresias knows what’s going on he dreads to tell Oedipus that he is the killer. The two men go back and forth until Oedipus says something that triggers Teiresias “you planned it, you had it done, you all but killed him with your own hands: if you had eyes, I’d say the crime was yours, and yours alone” (1.332-334). Oedipus still given the information and basically the whole truth is too caught up in his head and ignorant to the facts. This was an example of the irony that Oedipus is ‘blind’.

Montag, the main character, is a fireman and he begins to realize that the way of life that he lives in is severely flawed and starts to retaliate against society and asks help from an old friend named Faber. Beatty, the man that goes up against Montag, is also Montag 's fire captain, later in the story Montag kills Beatty to survive. Now, Montag murdered Beatty and that is against the law, but Montag has been justified in burning Beatty, it was either Montag or Beatty, if Montag didn’t kill Beatty it seemed Beatty would kill him. Montag had also trying to protect himself and Faber, Beatty had wanted to die anyway. Montag was already in trouble, by burning Beatty he gave him a second chance to escape and run to sustain his way of life.

From the scenes, we don't see he would probably be off upping his kills per day always getting away with it. This is why I believe that Romeo and Juliet is not in fact a love story at all. Shown from the math above and the proof it is fair to say that Romeo is a serial killer. He isn't just any ordinary serial killer though he is the best at his job killing 1 person every 0.8 days.

He is justified in killing his fire chief and running from the law and hiding the books from his wife, because he had nothing to lose and he know what would happen if he was caught. Montag is justified in killing Beatty because he was protecting Faber who was a friend who was innocent. The only thing that Montag did was try protecting an innocent man who was not guilty of anything. Who was helping Montag by asking him things to make him think about and help him determine what to do. “We’ll trace this and drop in on your friend.”

A theme I wanted to show which is apparent in the scene I wrote was consequences: I wanted to show the consequences to a disaster through descriptions of the destroyed city. I wanted to show the consequences of a way of life like that of the citizens in the city through a character like Sable, who is very passive, particularly in comparison to Montag (the first scenes of the two stories are meant to complement each other somewhat) - she does not even move until someone comes to get her (less apparent in the scene but more in the actual story is how Sable and especially her friend Lucy are disconnected from the reality of the world around them, and they learn to reconnect - Lucy somehow learns faster). Other themes I wanted to explore but that were not apparent in the scene I wrote were change (not necessarily ‘good’), moving on, meaninglessness, the ability to understand, mindfulness of others, the loneliness of all beings, and the importance friendship or relationships. Symbols, metaphors, and other figurative language I used in the text I wrote are smoke, fire, music/concert, a statue, rubble, and a daffodil.

Oedipus’ pride will not let Laius’ killer get away with an unjust murder. Oedipus, believing the murderer is a sneaky and unjust man, tries to talk to him even though he is nowhere in sight. Unwittingly, his efforts are useless because Laius’ killer is Oedipus all along. The scene contributes to his downfall because as he searches for Laius’ killer he unravels the spark that will contribute to the flame. Before discovery of his personal truth he finds himself searching for lost answers all because of his pride nagging him

The other character, Montresor, so looking for revenge. He tries to lure a man named Fortunato into a trap. He tries to trap Fortunato because he insulted him and Montresor wants to get his revenge. General Zaroff 's motive for killing is more evil than Montresor 's. Zaroff 's motive was for the thrill of the hunt. He decided to stop killing regular animals and kill humans.

Vonnegut wanted to “try to write my war story, whether it was interesting or not, and try to make something out of it.” Vonnegut wanted to make a significant point across about the horrors of the war stating several times he is currently writing an anti war novel(******). The main character Billy is broken from the war, which is clearly stated in (*******). Showing what Vonnegut went through through Billy described the Dresden bombing as the worst bombing and experience that any prisoner of war had

Everyone knows what they are doing, they are aware they are ending a life, and living a life of violence, but something brought them into the gang and they focus their attention on that one thing to execute the tasks given to them. Towards the end of the video, the girl’s killer says this about the gang he wasted his life defending, “We fight to protect territory that isn’t ours to begin with. We cover ourselves with guns to show we are tough, but inside we are weak.” Like all of those guys in jail, like the girl who became a rat, and Chester who agreed to be a part of the video, they get to a point where all the killing, violence and drugs take a toll on them and they want out. To most of them there is no “out,” because they know the task of getting out is extremely dangerous and there is a slim to none chance of completing it alive.

With guns drawn and threats that they would “blow his head off”, the officers unjustly searched his car and held him at gunpoint. Stevenson explains his immense fear of these supposed upholders of the law, and how their own racial suspicions of him could have easily led to his death. The police maintain the ability to sentence civilians to death in a heartbeat, and unfortunately are guided by racial biases to at times unjustly distribute this punishment. This ability to kill is necessary for police officers to protect the community, yet continues to be grossly misused. While this right to kill is different from a judge and jury’s right to kill, misuse by both parties supports the claim that the death penalty is too powerful to be justly distributed.

This scene happens relatively early on in the book, but it is one of the most important. Clarisse’s peculiarity interests Montag and makes him start to think. Clarisse asks Montag, out of the blue, “Are you happy?” Montag then starts thinking about his own happiness. He quickly becomes in denial.