‘The avenger of us all. A name to remember.” The barber would be seen as both a hero and a murderer, but not the great barber that he is. If he committed murder, he would forever be changed. The barber knows that his “destiny depends on the edge of this blade.” Two choices, to become a murderer for the revolution, or a barber for
While Montresor pretends to be a good friend to Fortunato, it is strange that Fortunato does not realize the problems between them. In order to be believable for readers, the insults must be very painful for Montresor, so it urges him to commit such a crime. “The Cask of Amontillado” is missing an important element of Montresor’s motivation to punish Fortunato by burying him alive. Montresor neglects to explain how Fortunato insults him as the story lays the foundation at the opening paragraph, “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.” (Poe 866); however, no evidence to be found in the story to support Montresor’s claim. No one would not know what Fortunato did to Montresor and should the insults lead to
Question One - Not killing (Pros and Cons) He believes that murder is wrong because he identifies as a “revolutionary” and in his opinion, this is quite different from being a murderer. “I am a revolutionary, not a murder” The barber realizes that murdering Captain Torres will create more problems than it would solve. The barber, when making the decision, asks himself “What do you gain from it?” he answered “nothing”. So, the barber would not gain anything from killing him. He would not have to worry about the army hunting him down after killing the Captain.
Macbeth is a doer, his deeds and his reaction to them define where he is as a character, because of his lukewarm morals and ability to be influenced by others, he - through the course of the play - becomes desensitized and detached to reality. Macbeth’s morals are characteristically unimpressive. At the beginning of the tragedy, he knows right from wrong and understands that his actions should be thought through logically. However, Macbeth does not follow this logical thinking and relies on emotions for his true decision making. For instance, Macbeth knows that killing the king is morally wrong, and talks many times of why he should not do it.
Having seen how Javert has served legally, attempted the best he could while under the government’s thumb, and even how he tried to stop Valjean under the false interpretation of what he stood for, we can see that Javert is in no way a villain. In fact, Les Miserable’s true villains are the horrible Thenardiers, as well as the corrupt government of the time. Both Valjean and Javert are stuck in a miscommunication loop of what is good and evil. Javert is not a villain in the novel, but rather a warning. Although all may seem grim, his silence did not solve anything around him.
The true question is will Hamlet ever get his revenge or will he delay until it is too late? Hamlet is presented with several opportunities to pursue his vengeance, but delays each time for multiple reasons in which reveal his true nature. There are many reasons Hamlet restrains from killing Claudius. Firstly, Hamlet does not know whether the ghost should be believed or if it is just the devil in disguise trying to trick him. This is a valid reason because if the ghost is the devil, then Hamlet’s soul will be damned to the Hell.
This "disorder and moral darkness into which Macbeth [has] plung[ed] himself" (Knights 41) into is still a little unsettling to him. With obvious distress from his own actions, Macbeth isn't able to finish the plan of the murder properly or go back and fix it. However, this uneasiness does not appear to be regret for his action, but uncertainty of what might happen to him now. Distraught from the murder, Macbeth is only just beginning to get used to the idea of murder, which will become a more common thought to him as he becomes more consumed by his
Lay violent hands even on me and soon. I act for the murdered king in my own interest”(134-144). This statement from Oedipus is an example of situational irony because Oedipus does not know that he will end up being the murderer of King Laius. This impacts the story because the audience has no clue that the killer will wind up being Oedipus
Do you share my madness?” (Shelley 28). After everything he went through, Victor still thought that the quest for knowledge was worth the death of his entire family because male identity is tied to his romanticized quest, “Do not return to your families with the stigma of disgrace marked on your brows.” (215). We must ask, what shifts Victor’s purpose from a warning to a doubling down on his male hubris? In part, it is a refutation on his own feminine nature. His inability to except feminine qualities within himself causes him to fail at caring for his creation, to separate himself from the domestic life, and to view femininity as a
The next example is ironic and an unknowing internal conflict when Oedipus speaks to Laius’ killer as if he is actually right in front of him and commands him “ to turn his hand against [him]” even though Laius killer is himself (KO 29). 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.