Wiesel’s speech shows how he worked to keep the memory of those people alive because he knows that people will continue to be guilty, to be accomplices if they forget. Furthermore, Wiesel knows that keeping the memory of those poor, innocent will avoid the repetition of the atrocity done in the future. The stories and experiences of Wiesel allowed for people to see the true horrors of what occurs when people who keep silence become “accomplices” of those who inflict pain towards humans. To conclude, Wiesel chose to use parallelism in his speech to emphasize the fault people had for keeping silence and allowing the torture of innocent
His surroundings are conducive to the situation he finds himself in. The word "chamber" itself implies a cold, rigid feel, like the narrator has shut himself away from everything in order to be alone to brood and torture himself. The words "ghost" and "dying ember" give the reader a feeling of discomfort, like something is not quite right with the situation. The narrator opens the chamber door into darkness, deep darkness, and silence. He stands there, fearing what is before him, "dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before" (732).
Brutus was one, if not the only one, who helped kill Julius Caesar for reasons that were not selfish. Cassius tells Brutus that Julius was a greedy man that needed to be killed for the good of Rome. Brutus believes Cassius and gets the last blow at Julius which is the stab that ended Julius’ life. Later when Brutus finds out the truth he is angry at Cassius for lying and leading him to kill his good friend. Although Brutus did end up killing Julius Caesar but he did do it for what he thought was a good cause.
Victor also allows Justine to die for the murder of his younger brother because he’s afraid of what people will think. “My tale was not one to announce publicly; it’s astounding horror would be looked upon as madness by the vulgar”(83). He’s more concerned with what will happen to him, someone who actually had something to do with William’s death, than to Justine, who is completely innocent. Lastly, the monster says he will leave Victor and his family alone if Victor makes him a female companion, but he can’t even do that. “I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged”(180).
I believe that the killing of Claudius was justified but the waiting was not. In DOC F it talks about if Hamlet were justified, in some people’s eyes it was and others it was not. One of the reasons that Hamlet had to wait too kill his was because after the play Claudius was praying and Hamlet wanted to kill him when he was doing something bad (DOC E). In the end I think Hamlet was justified in the killing of Claudius because he killed his father. I believe that Hamlet did the right thing killing Claudius because he killed Hamlet’s father.
I think it was his eye! Yes, it was this He had the eye of a vulture.” (page 381, Poe) The man had thought to kill the man because of the look of his eye, though he said he loved the old man because he had never wronged him. For a prosecutor that wants to put him in an institute, they could argue that he was sick and had a disease that sharpened his sense to destroy. For instance, while he was planning to kill the old man he had felt an awful drumming, a hellish tattoo. A further example can be, when the officers had come in he had become anxious, nervous and all these mad thoughts filled his head.
I think that because, at the end he got his revenge and killed him, it might’ve took a long time to do it and it did cost people’s lives, but he got his revenge. In document F it says, “For God only can take vengeance of the sole,” In document e, it says, that Claudius, started praying because he knew that hamlet knows about his murder. At the end of his prayer he says, “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” In document A, it says that the killing of Claudius is justified because, Claudius lied about killing the old king, Claudius also stole his brother’s wife, life, and his crown. The ghost of the king said, “The serpent that did sting thy father’s life Now wears his crown.” To hamlets face. I believe that hamlets actions were not justified but one is, because revenge isn’t a good thing, but Claudius is not just a murderer he is a stealer too.
After bringing out Caesar 's Dead body. Describing what a honorable man his was. And showing them how brutal his killing was. In act three the people are angered and overwhelmed the people kill an innocent man simply because he had the same name as one of the conspirators cinna . the complete chaos ensures rhom may not look seem like a positive reaction to antony 's speech but it is in fact what he wants which is shown through soliloquy through the lack of almost no reaction to brutus logical and ineffective speech it is obvious that antony 's speech is more effective over the people of rome as speeches as a whole this shows that emotional appeal causes a much bigger reaction than logic and reason.
This made the higher rank in society abused their own powers. This statement can be proved from the story Hamlet. An example is when Hamlet killed Polonius hoping it was King Claudius in Act 3, scene 4 line 24. Someone in a higher rank cannot be punished for their sinful doing. Hamlet said sorry for killing Polonius by “accident” but, he doesn’t seem to be sorry at all, he just dragged Polonius across the floor behind him (III.iv.207-20).
At first, he second guessed the bloody murder of his king. However, his wife, Lady Macbeth, talked him into this by calling him a coward and asking if he was a man. To prove to her that he was a strong individual, he followed through with the act of killing King Duncan. This confirms that the pressure of others persuaded Macbeth’s actions. Macbeth wanted the blame to be placed on someone other than himself so the people showed loyalty to him as the new king.
Instead of abandoning them and taking their supplies to kill them, he just did it to benefit himself. Either way, they would’ve died, and he would’ve deserved his death. General MacArthur: He “deliberately sent his wife’s lover, Arthur Richmond, to his death.” Here is another case where the person didn’t kill someone themselves, but caused their death intentionally. He sent Richmond because he knew that anyone who went would be killed, and therefore technically commit murder. If he believes Richmond should have died for doing something to him, then he deserves his death because he did something to someone else as well.