The play therapeutically elucidates the mischief that may theoretically derive from a life of solemnity and thoughtlessness. The play appears to be a simplistic comedy, and indeed it may be, featuring the typical characters and conventions expected. Moreover, Twelfth Night follows the traditional structure and form of a comedy with its pleasant resolution. In contrast, Malvolio assures the audience that the complexity of the play is much greater then what first meets the eye. It promises spectators that the theme of hierarchy is purposefully intertwined in the plot to elevate knowledge of the disturbing reminder of
The first example of Fortunato’s foolishness is his decision to accompany Montresor to the catacombs; it is quite foolish for him to impose, because the nitre within the catacombs could affect his already questionable health. He continues this foolish behavior even after Montresor implores him to leave, and again loses his opportunity to escape death. Finally, his madness is seen in his “distorted perceptions and beliefs”. After being captured, Fortunato shows signs of a distorted perception, and seems to believe his imprisonment is only “an excellent jest” (Poe 240). This however is not the case, and he is unable to fully rationalize the situation he is in.
The sentimental comedy is that Tellheim must overcome his moral trials which include bribing the saxons and feeling he is unworthy of Minna 's love. It is for this reason that the play falls into line with the comedies of the Deutsche Schaubȕhne and can ultimately be categorized as a comedy. Minna von Barnhelm has been hailed by the Goethe institution as “ein glänzendes Meteor” and has been claimed as the greatest comedy in the German Language. In accordance to this information, it has also been disputed whether or not the humor lies within the characters or the plot. One may argue that, as the reader studies this play is becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the humorous scenes through the interaction of the characters.
Arguably, Tartuffe is not only a hypocritical buffoon, but also a delusional cult leader who has somehow bent his claimed morals into excusing his irrational behavior. In Act I, Scene I of Tartuffe, Dorine asserts one of the first characterizations of Tartuffe, which is “everything [Tartuffe] does is hypocrisy” (35). Before Tartuffe even enters the stage, the audience can already infer what type of man he would be, one that presents himself as a pious saint while behaving sinfully. Tartuffe warns of the dangers of the flesh, and the mere sight of Dorine’s uncovered chest offends him to the point of asking her to cover up, but he is more than willing to engage in unholy activities with Elmire’s flesh. Simply put, Tartuffe would make a religious claim, which would be accurate in nature, implement it strictly to the point of being overly prudent,
This could be argued is where the strength of propaganda lies, as a false truth from a lie is still seen as a truth. This I will sum up with reference to Koa Tzu, who likened human nature to the flow of water taking the path of least resistance (French, 2011). Cavanagh (2012) defines two terms that can help demonstrate this point. The first is cognitive dissonance; whereby a contradiction can cause feelings of distress due to a conflict that arises from holding opposing beliefs. This conflict between harming civilians, and the governing body is always right, has to be resolved.
Wilde utilizes the play as a criticism for the upper class, which demonstrates their ignorance towards ideas and situations that actually matter to the rest of British society. Further explaining Wilde’s aesthetic writing style, Ellmann focuses on how the characters’ foolish behavior portrays an honest interpretation of the upper class. However, this aspect of the play is often overlooked by the audience due to the embellished dialogue. According to Ellmann, the analysis of the language in the play suggests, “Jack really is Ernest. The liars were telling the truth.
In reality, Desdemona in this conversation was simply trying to convince Othello to give Cassio back his position, but Othello viewed it as her purposely trying to change the topic about the handkerchief to her “lover” Cassio. This enrages Othello and confirms his suspicions, which leads him to seek vengeance. Unlike how fate is controlled by Iago in Othello, fate in Oedipus Rex is determined by the gods. “What has God done to me” signifies that Oedipus’s end was determined by gods, and his free will actions to avoid it were pointless because his fate was always unavoidable (Oed. Exo.1263).
The presence of greed utilized by Chaucer in the Pardoner’s tale presents satire as his character is meant to be honorable, yet, behind the scenes is actually the most unethical one. The first example the audience is shown of this fraud is as the pardoner explains his motives, when he states, “Of avarice and of swich cursednesse/ Is al my prechyng, for to make hem free/ To yeven hir pens; and namely, unto me!/ For myn entente is nat but for to wynne,/ And no thyng for correccioun of synne” (114 – 118). The Pardoner is extremely upfront regarding his greedy motives as seen in the quote “For myn entente is nat but for to wynne,” (117). The sole reason he is in this game is no other reason than to make money. The revelation of this goal results in an ironic situation as his job consists of preaching against greed, while the only reason of his employment is driven by his own greed.
It is only used as a means to pass the time. Absurd dramatists write in a language that is ditched from content and represents the stagnancy of life. Khaled Besbes in his work ‘The Semiotics of Beckett 's Theatre’ says, “There is a link between language and reality which undermines the very logic of representation. This is shown by most of the characters in Beckett 's plays when they play with words to spend time while this logic tends to be the futility of life. The characters are ironically playful in the use of language in order to be able to cope with their existential failure.” In Waiting for Godot the conversations between the characters seem to be meaningless.
The idea that the extraordinary narrative which has been called the Joyce-Armstrong Fragment is an elaborate practical joke evolved by some person, cursed by a perverted and sinister sense of humour, has now been abandoned by all who have examined the matter. The most macabre and imaginative of plotters would hesitate before linking his morbid fancies with the unquestioned and tragic facts which reinforce the statement. Though the assertions contained in it are amazing and even monstrous, it is none the less forcing itself upon the general intelligence that they are true, and that we must readjust our ideas to the new situation. This world of ours appears to be separated by a slight and precarious margin of safety from a most singular and