Abigail was also mislabeled as a good character when she was really a huge liar and careless of anything that happened in the story. Lastly Marry Warren was a character who was good she liked a little power here and there but she did what was right , but this obviously didn't get her no where . So to save her from being executed she started to lie. In the play being the opposite of good was the way to go , being innocent and staying drama free wasn't going to get you anywhere but executed . Everything was backwards , the concept wasn't right and there wasn't any evidence to prove the witchcraft trials .
I think its best that one is intolerant of ignorance but understanding of illiteracy because they are different. In the story, Mrs. Johnson and Maggie are not portrayed as ignorant people, but illiterates who though do not have the kind or experience Dee has. Mrs. Johnson and Maggie are capable of forming cognitive opinions quite as ... ... middle of paper ... ...rs. Johnson drags Maggie into the room because she realized that she cannot always get what she wants every time she demands for it. At the end of the day, I see Dee's character as a weakness because with all the education and sophistication she does not know the true importance of family and heritage.
And although Penelopeia seems to be a helpless victim, she is quite the opposite. Taking control of every situation that she can, Penelopeia hopes that Odysseus will return to finally put an end to all of this chaos. First off, Penelopeia did not want the 117 suitors to stay in her home and become dependant upon her family’s wealth and resources. However, her will was not taken into consideration when the suitors decided to do so. And although Penelopeia was a good host, the suitors never showed her any respect.
Heavens!”(109). He does not expect anything out of “the women”, but gets his fateful job nonetheless. His point is even more obvious when he reflects about his aunt, “It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a world of their own, and there had never been anything like it, and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset,” (113).
Later, she insults Aunt Julie's new hat, pretending to mistake it for the maid's. Hedda seems to despise everything about George Tesman and his “bourgeoisie” life. She demands much more class than he has been able to provide her. After all, she was the beautiful and charming daughter of General Gabler and deserved nothing but the finest. As the character of Hedda Gabler develops, the reader learns that she has only married George Tesman for one selfish reason; Hedda’s father's passing left her no significant financial wealth, nothing but a respectable legacy.
(Shakespeare 5.2.324). She dies because of the same reason why she even got herself into the whole mess, her bemused and abstractedness. Queen Gertrude was much too out of the picture to have been involved in any of Claudius? plots. She may have been unfaithful to King Hamlet and made some mistakes, but that does not mean she was involved in his murder.
She was an irresponsible mother who didn’t let her children to make their own choices in their lives. The best way to describe Amanda is Domineering, to summarize it all up, Amanda Wingfeild was not such a good mother, expecting to much. Not just accepting her children for who they were and loving them for being all they could be.
Friend had given no reasoning to her point besides the fact she obviously did not like it. Jackson did an excellent job trying to describe how traditions can easily consume a town, no matter how pointless they are. Another reader who had written to Shirley Jackson, was Camilla Ballou, “I read it while soaking in the tub… and was tempted to put my head underwater and end it all” (Franklin). Once again, nothing Ballou said was about anything specific in the story, she just stated how it made her feel. This story is not supposed to be all sunshine and roses, because it falls under the genre of horror.
Her inability to provide significant details makes it hard to decide if our narrator is indeed being totally honest with us. She claims that she left Emily with a woman in the same apartment building to “whom she was no miracle at all.”, implying that this woman had ... ... middle of paper ... ...out on her life. The other sees her as someone who was so focused on making everything perfect that she drove her child into imperfection and early adulthood. An experienced reader will find only slight challenge in the process of identifying an unreliable narrator. All in all it is unsurprising that the mother and narrator of “I Stand Here Ironing” is unreliable as a narrator.
She knows it, but she does not accept it. Too involved in her own looks and existence, she cannot see why she is in hell. When Estelle is first asked about why she was condemned to hell, she answers with, “I tell you I haven’t a notion. They wouldn’t tell me why.” (23) She is an adulteress with a dead baby and a suicidal partner to account for but, she still cannot fathom why she possibly could be in hell. Sartre specifically set up Estelle to have no redeeming qualities and out of all three characters, her past life, as far as moral behavior, is the most atrocious.