Firstly it is not based on evidence from plays and secondly it is self contradictory. The inherent contradiction in Johnson’s criticism of Shakespeare’s moral aspect becomes evident. He emphasizes the role of literature to be morally instructive as it should bring positive change in man’s life. Meanwhile, he also wants the writer to present human nature vividly, truthfully and clearly. We know that life in reality gives no obvious moral lessons to the observer.
Bettering Myself for The Ones I Love According to learner.org, “Setting is created by language. How many or how few details we learn is up to the author. Many authors leave a lot of these details up to the reader's imagination”. I do agree that authors purposely leave out details, so the reader is able to form their own opinion and be creative within guidelines. To some readers, they may think they are reading the story a certain way and not realize there is more than one “correct answer”.
Though hidden in the footnote, to avoid creating a tangent in the overall argument and worse falling to the counterargument that “it's just semantics,” Foster Wallace throws these pieces in as curveballs- evidence that a reader was unlikely to expect nor be prepared to process. While intentionally he intentionally trespasses’ the readers comfort zone of their own communication, he makes his article relate, if only through these footnotes, to the ways in which they’ve previously engaged with the matter. As Foster Wallace situates the reader in the moral conundrum, he draws from the them a greater awareness of self and skepticism of the multiple party’s motivations which contributes to the overall multidimensional analysis of the
In The Things They Carried, O’Brien’s story-telling method is an attempt to show that the lines between fiction and reality are often not that far. Even though the names or details may not be fully accurate, this does not change the fact that they are a reality for many. Additionally, he challenges the importance that we place on war and links it to a storytelling aspect because he’s pointing out that not every story has a moral to it. With tragic events, we typically want some sort of meaning behind them, some sort of assurance that the incident was not for nothing. However, this is not always true, as a character “Yeah, well…I don’t see no moral”…“There it is man”.
One might be that Sima Qian, due to his official capacity, does not have the time nor reason to delve too deeply into another culture; his main job is to chronicle the empire for posterity. Having said all that, it is still clear that the voice of a historian is different than that of the storyteller in Aladdin. Despite his less charitable account of foreigners– in comparison with Herodotus– Sima Qian still records with the intention of telling the truth and preserving the acts of man. In no place is this clearer than in his Letter to Ren An, where he states his fear that “my writings will not be known to posterity” (Watson Qin 235). Here we can see that the man is at least trying to be genuine in the purposes of his
Even the woodcutter’s version of the story omits a tiny detail about the ornate dagger – and the story was not told to the court to protect himself from the law. What we see here in Rashomon is that there is there are various interpretations of facts by various individuals – everybody has their own personal version of the truth. Without the context or a proper understanding of each person, we may find it difficult to understand the motivations as well as one’s version of the truth, much less the truth itself. Facts are objective and can change the interpretation of the truth in events as shown in Rashomon, and this is reflected in various accounts of historical events. Gone Girl similarly plays with multiple interpretations of a single event – the disappearance of Amy Dunne from her family home in Missouri.
In realising he is a ‘thing that thinks’, he is discovering an ontological truth – his model of knowledge fails when applied to others. He cannot proof someone else’s existence because he thinks, and whether or not they think is irrelevant because he cannot project thought from their perspective. Truth is only known to Descartes because he concluded it in his own conscious mind and this subjective reality does not lead to objective reality beyond his own mind. His claim for self-realization proves little to some other self-conscious being. To say “I think, therefore, I am’, cannot be proven my anyone other than him.
There are misleading clues, which is designed to either distract the audience or hint towards a deeper meaning (Klein, 2016). This film is experimental because of the unreliable narrator challenging the audience to make their own conclusions by only providing information the he decides to share. What breaks the convention of a classic narrative structure is that the tale is told backwards, which can be very misleading to the viewers. It uses the convention of flashbacks to break from what might seem to the present and past. The film’s chronological order of events was done in the way Leonard, the protagonist, perceived his information he received with the people around him.
However it is a win-lose situation due to the conflict being unresolved as I had to put down my dignity and let him call me names and talk bad about me throughout the clinical attachment. Be that as it may it got the best of me as I was more reluctant to go for clinical attachment. Hence this approach was not the best solution for this situation. (Marquis & Huston) Going with a different approach realising that my previous strategy made no significant improvements in managing the situation, I went with avoiding as it was a small misunderstanding and I did not want to confront him as it may turn it into rivalry between us peers. Furthermore, we may become future colleagues.
Nowadays, it’s a little more difficult to speak your mind without your words being plagiarized. James Porter in “Intersexuality and the discourse community” from Writing about Writing, argues “that these common ideas about authorship, originality and plagiarism don’t account for how texts actually work and how writers actually write.” What this is basically saying is that if a writer borrows ideas from other writing without acknowledging that borrowing, that is considered plagiarizing. My question is, so how do we make sure what we’re genuinely writing hasn’t already been said before? Genuine originality is difficult because there’s so much that has already been said. However, it isn’t impossible.