Satire is unforgiving; realism is all-forgiving; and David Williamson has always attempted to merge the two, portraying people as wicked but pardonable. The more you get to know the baseness of the motives of each character, the more empathy you are intended to feel for them, as you come to realise that all people, even ourselves, despite all actions, generally mean well. As far as it goes, the good guys aren’t very good and the bad guys always fall short of the true evilness which they, in theory, are capable of. Many of Williamson’s plays start out as toughly satirical but end up merging into roughly sentimental, with even his basest, most deviant characters always having a comfortable, revealing scene; Even his nicest characters will admit to unworthy thoughts and ignoble desires. This play is a classic comedy of manners, with an almost humanist reference point.
I have traveled far and wide to be here today. Do you know why I am here? To teach you about the devils that haunt the world. Many say that the demons of the netherworld cannot exist as science would have discovered them by now. Others say that even if evil spirits existed, they would not care because they control their own lives and can protect themselves.
Sometimes the reminder why I don 't want to read only contemporary fiction comes from unexpected places. And I decidedly don 't want to limit this notion to the so-called 'classics ' - a term that ranges between ambiguous and arbitrary - but also include all those stories which are not as widely known. Because the good ones have something to say to us, even centuries later. The Hare of Inaba is a story about a sneaky hare, gullible crocodiles and cruel human princes that breaks the mould in the way it deals with transgressions. A lot of fairytales, at least in their original forms, tend to be places where layers, nuance and complexity are rarely found.
One noteworthy contrast is in their inspiration. An epic hero will just go into fight when important, while the gallant hero will set out to discover an enterprise in which he can substantiate himself overcome. The chivalrous knight will once in a while battle keeping in mind the end goal to guard his kin, but instead with regards to a specific perfect. Another real contrast between the two is in the kind of interior fight they take part in. Beowulf, our epic hero, is tried in physical fight against a monster, as epic heros need to substantiate themselves against another.
Ambiguity is a literary device used to make one sentence have two meanings; it brings uncertainty to the reader, which can be just as horrific as gore and violence. One author whom is well known for his use of ambiguity is Henry James, who used it to create chaos in the minds of his readers. Some of his uses can completely change the outcome of his novels, most notably in The Turn of the Screw, allowing the reader to decide the fates of each character. Henry James uses ambiguity through tone and diction to provide the reader with a more confusing and, in turn, more horrific story. The Turn of the Screw’s ending is considered ambiguous, in addition to being so abrupt and fast due to its syntax and punctuation.
Well some readers agree with his love interest Anastasia that he is the epitome of male beauty, while others consider him to be a deeply disturbed individual. For some Christian is merely misunderstood and meeting the right woman brought out his romantic side, but others find his abusive, manipulative and controlling side a bit harder to overlook. This means that while some considering his relationship with Anastasia to be beautiful and romantic it can also be seen as abusive and controlling. Professor Snape (Harry Potter) One of the most polarizing characters in the Harry Potter series is Severus Snape who some regard as a tragic hero while others view him as being purely bitter and conniving. While some readers can appereciate his complexity, intelligence and determination, many others find him to be abusive, petty arrogent.
In the epic Beowulf, translated by Seamus Heaney, Beowulf is depicted as a heroic figure who fights monsters and defends the weak. During its time, Beowulf would be considered a great hero, however in today 's standards Beowulf would only be considered a great warrior. That’s because a hero should value the lives of the people and not seek to be rewarded. Instead, Beowulf committed heroic acts for his own selfish reasons and never shows to values the lives of the people. From fighting Grendel to slaying the dragon, Beowulf only fought because he value the fame and fortune that comes along with those accomplishments.
Both contemporary and ancient literary works commonly use hands as a device to represent various overarching themes; for example, the possession of power or good versus evil. In the play, Macbeth, Shakespeare often uses this motif of hands to enhance the clarity of his desired message. At first impression, Macbeth appears to be a loyal and righteous character; however, his own desire for power and the influence of his wife, Lady Macbeth, both lead him to commit a relentless sequence of crimes. Along with creating this chain reaction of events, simply performing one unethical act elicits a feeling of guilt that cannot be washed away, and also corrupts those surrounding the initial wrongdoer. Through the motif of hands, Shakespeare demonstrates that the negative repercussions of an immoral action cannot be repressed and will ultimately corrupt a person’s character.
Taking a Stand In the epic, “From Beowulf” translated by Burton Raffel, a warrior from the Geats comes to rescue Hrothgar, the king of the Danes whose land is being attacked by a monster, Grendel. Beowulf succeeds and defeats Grendel. Sometimes, it isn’t the winning, but it’s the taking a stand that counts. Taking a stand is more important because you are standing up for what you believe in. When you take a stand for what you believe in, it shows bravery.
Conflicts, such as man versus nature, man versus man, and man versus self, are used in these plays. Both plays teach a valuable lesson. Oedipus and Macbeth are kings who take a challenge that can define their future due to inadequacies within themselves. However, with the major difference that one act willingly and with full responsibility for his deed and the other fails because of admiration but mostly because of destiny. Both Oedipus and Macbeth were confronted and destroyed by a set of circumstances, Oedipus by fate and Macbeth by the witches and their prophecies.