In this way, the reader starts to feel anger towards the creature for causing their deaths, but as the point of view is switched, the creature’s feelings and reasoning for the events he caused becomes clear. If the narrator had been the creature, the reader would sympathize with him for creating him to be alone vs feeling bad for Frankenstein’s loss. The different point of views offer more evidence to support the author’s message about companionship. Shelley writes from Frankenstein’s point of view, “I have but one resource; and I devote myself, either in my life or death, to his destruction” (Shelley, 1818, p 188). In this quote, we can see how the lack of his wife, friend, and brother has driven him insane with anger and revenge for the creature.
The creation was driven by revenge and became a real monster. He swears to take revenge on his creator, Victor, so he killed Victor’s friends and family one by one. In the end, the monster also killed Victor’s wife Elizabeth. It wanted Victor to know how it felt during its life, lonely and misunderstood. In the middle of the novel, Victor makes a statement to Walton about his destiny, trying to use his own experience to exhort, change, and prevent Walton’s desire and passion for adventure.
According to Machiavelli’s standards, Adolf had part of a good leader right. Adolf was extremely fierce like a lion, which is how Machiavelli wanted a prince to be, but Adolf was just too fierce by going to the point where he was killing people for no good reason. When Machiavelli says he wants a prince to be fierce he isn 't talking about killing people, he is more so talking about having the courage to make a risky law change or do something people may not like, but will help them in the long run. He was not smart in any way like a fox is. Throwing people into
Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection?, keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as
A normal person probably wouldn’t feel “an impulse to cry aloud with joy” when they hear a scream of pain. This also links back to my claim that he changes over the course of the story. It relates to the claim because my first quote showed him saying he does not approve of Zaroff murdering people yet this quote shows he is very violent himself. “ ‘Splendid! One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds.
Revenge and Shakespreare Revenge is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as ”to avenge (oneself or another) usually by retaliating in kind or degree.” Many pieces of literature use revenge as a primary plot point but one of the most famous works of literature about revenge is “Hamlet”. “Hamlet” is a story that completely focuses on the act of revenge. It is about a prince who contemplated avenging his father by killing his uncle. There are two main characters that driven by revenge in the play. These characters are Hamlet and Laertes.
Examples such as prejudice and guilt are very conspicuous between Victor and Creature; their actions cause them to view each other as a target of hostility and anathema as Victor says, “ For this purpose I will preserve my life: to execute this dear revenge will I again behold the sun and tread the green herbage of earth, which otherwise should vanish from my eyes forever” (173). Both despise each other for their actions, Victor desires the Creature’s death since it brutally murders his friends and families leaving him tormented, while the Creature wants Victor to experience its pain from loneliness and retaliation destroying the female creature who would be his salvation. In the end, guilt from their actions plagues both of them resulting to their ends. Christian bible references consisting mainly of God, Satan, and Adam and Eve apparent throughout the Creature as it compares itself , “[...] no Eve soothed my sorrows nor shared my thoughts; I was alone. I remembered Adam’s supplication to his Creator [...] He had abandoned me, and in the bitterness of my heart I cursed him” (119).
Are we responsible for the actions of our offspring? Marie Shelley's masterpiece “Frankenstein” poses the question to its readers, although the lines are blurred and grey. It would appear at first that Frankenstein's monster is to blame for the deaths; A closer look reveals otherwise, that Victor is responsible and that he is the real monster of the story. Looking only at actions, the monster did all the actual killing of the book, but his actions were in response to Victor’s mistreatment. It was his hands that choked William, Clerval and Justine.
The id seeks instant pleasure through sexual and aggressive behaviors, paying no heed to societal or moral requirements. Claudius’s id is the driving reason behind his murder of the king and seducement of the queen, as both were impulsive acts that are forbidden by society that he did only for the sake of enjoying the pleasures of a king. The ghost of the former king explains to Hamlet how “The serpent that did sting thy father’s life / Now wears his crown,” meaning that Claudius had killed the king for the sake of gaining his crown (I.V. 38-39). This behavior arose from Claudius’s id because it the aggressive behavior of murdering his brother that allowed him to receive the immediate pleasure of access to his deceased brother’s wife, and in turn, kingship.
Both of these werewolves were forced to become a dangerous beast without having a choice. There is also the sense that when one becomes a werewolf they leave all their humanity behind. They have the same bloodthirsty characteristics. Remus states, “It is very painful to turn into a werewolf. I was separated from humans to bite, so I bit and scratched myself instead.” He discusses of how he “became a fully-fledged monster once a month.” Another layer of fear is added when reading about the werewolf because Rowling states, “the werewolf actively seeks humans in preference to any other prey.” The modern version of a werewolf is that a man becomes a blood-thirsty creature once a month when a full moon is out.
The discussion of saying The Vampire Diaries is a horror television series can help to explain my research topic theme, violence. The article also supports my claim on how vampires are defined vaguely and their transition to human make them harder to identify. Chase and Teasley reveal the hidden meaning and the history of The Little Red Riding Hood to show that the choice of path leads to different decisions. Authors compare the little red riding hood to the prostitute that was used to describe women who didn 't follow the norm in the 16th century. Also, authors suggest that wolf is the werewolf and point out sexual contents from the original text.
The obvious conflict to the reader is the external conflict of man versus man. Zaroff determined to prove his skill as a hunter hunts Rainsford, while Rainsford fights against Zaroff to stay alive. Likewise, Rainsford and Zaroff also differ from the other in terms of their ideology, where Zaroff believes that hunting humans for sport is natural, and Rainsford disagrees. The subtle external conflict is the conflict of man versus nature, where Rainsford must battle against the conditions of the jungle to elude Zaroff. In addition to the external conflicts, Connell also includes the internal conflict of man versus himself in this story with Rainsford.
Even worse, Jerrod and David, two wolves on opposing sides, make noise about claiming her—and each other. She has problems beyond capture and a highly annoying lust for Jerrod, the werewolf ranch hand who stumbles over her, and David, Solomon’s sexy beta who openly despises her for killing his pack mate. An old enemy returns: sons of Blaise Forrester, who was instrumental in tearing Jayel’s family apart, plan to reclaim the territory—and kill any who stand in their way. When they attack the ranch where she’s being held, David becomes her unlikely rescuer—and they find passion beneath animosity. Jerrod joins in, and they bond.
The Theme of hatred and revenge is shown in these lines of Othello because Iago is admitting the second part of his plan to seek revenge on Othello. After already getting Cassio fired, Iago plans to further his revenge on Othello by trying to manipulate him into believing that the only reason Desdemona is asking Othello to hire back Cassio, is because they are having an affair together. Portrayed in another way, the theme of hatred and revenge is displayed in Frankenstein when the creature and Frankenstein are talking to each other on the Alpine Valleys of Chamounix. Frankenstein tells the creature that he hates him and that he wishes to kill him, while the creature wishes to seek revenge on Frankenstein for living a miserable life. He is also seeking revenge on Frankenstein by threatening him to choose between complying with his demands or letting your family die.
They both have to go head to head with their evil uncles and they must overcome moral conflict within themselves. Simba and Hamlet have their obvious difference, but also share more unique traits in their stories than some would think. Every family has a black sheep. Both Simba and Hamlet had an evil, diabolical uncle who killed their father, married their mother and then tried to kill them. Simba’s uncle, Scar, killed Mufasa, Simba’s dad.