Basil warns Lord Henry n... ... middle of paper ... ...d not exist. Lord Henry Wotton’s meddling influenced Dorian’s morals, and his personality. Although Lord Henry was the reason for Dorian’s life going astray, Dorian made the ultimate choices. In the end allowing himself to succumb to all of Lord Henry’s awful philosophies and changing who he was as a person prompted his tragic downfall. He was a true tragic hero in the fact that in the end he did see that he was wrong.
This nihilistic approach, however, not only disregards many of the play’s moments of philosophical insight, but it also completely misinterprets Shakespeare’s intent. That is not to say that Lear is without fault at the end of the play; as Shakespeare surely understood, Lear is still human, and as such, he is subject to human frailty. What is most important about Lear, however, is not that he dies a flawed man but that he dies an improved man. Therefore, although King Lear might first appear “bleak,” Shakespeare suggests that Lear’s life, and human life in general, is worth all of its misery because it is often through suffering that people gain knowledge about the true nature of their individual selves and about the nature of all humanity (Roche 164). From the very beginning of the play, Shakespeare suggests that King Lear has much to learn.
A tragic hero's misfortune is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime. Macbeth does not totally deserve to die as a result of these incidents. He begins the work as a good man, but later declines because of the desires of his wife, and bad choices. Macbeth does not want to kill anyone, but does it.
Romeo’s “problem is not with the intensity of the emotion, but the inability to control and direct that emotion in a positive way” (Kerschen 261). To explain, Romeo goes with the flow and does not think about the effects of his actions which lead to ... ... middle of paper ... ...Romeo is rash in his actions, and Juliet has issues with loyalty. Undoubtedly, Shakespeare has incorporated all the key parts of a tragedy because he has the single tragic flaws in each tragic character and he has the elements of a tragedy. Tragedies are an imitation of real life, but it has to be something that is possible and has very strict rules. This means that it is not something that has happened, but rather, it is something that can happen.
I believe that it is a tragedy because of Hamlet's tragic flaw. Hamlet's tragic flaw is that he cannot act on impulse for things that require quick, decisive behavior, and that he acts on impulse for things that require more contemplation than is given by him. Hamlet speaks of his father's tragic flaw that ultimately led him to his death, but it applies equally well to himself: So, oft it chances in particular men, That for some vicious mole of nature in them, As, in their birth, wherein they are not guilty (Since nature cannot choose his origin), By the o'ergrowth of some complexion, Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason, Or by some habit that too much o'er-leavens The form of plausive manners--that these men, Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect, Being nature's livery, or fortune's star, Their virtues else, be they as pure as grace, As infinite as man may undergo, Shall in the general censure take corruption From that particular fault. The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal. (1.4.23-38) Hamlet speaks of the one defect that is in particular men from birth, and the fact that that one defect is his "particular fault".
However being too cruel to people will cause hatred to spread and will do more harm than good. So when comparing Shakespeare’s characters we can see that this is true. When comparing Duncan of being clemently, we can see that he was being too nice to the point where he trusted everyone and had developed his tragic flaw; being the inability to see past someone’s appearance. This further proves Machiavelli’s idea’s on being too kind. So when we compare Macbeth to Machiavelli’s ... ... middle of paper ... ...g feared and respect to being hated by your subjects.
Aristotle's rules of a tragedy state that the character of a tragedy should be good but not exceptionally amazing, he must not be a perfect character but instead they need to be the victim of a common flaw which is called 'Hamartia'. The idea that even the protagonist of a story can have a tragic flaw allows for the reader to have a stronger connection to the story and as a result it would be better interpreted by them their own way. In the play Oedipus the King by Sophocles the Hamartia displayed by Oedipus is that he makes very rash decisions without thinking of the consequences and this negatively his life and the people around him. Firstly the characters in the play are blinded by their pride and ambition, the Greek word for this is Hubris and it often shows protagonists who do not accept their reality and overestimate their own capabilities and this is most common in characters in positions of power. This pride and ambition is what makes people blind when making their decisions and they regret it in the future proving that it is better to think before acting.
No Tragic Flaw in Hamlet It was my observation after reading Hamlet, that the play and its main character are not typical examples of tragedy and contain a questionable "tragic flaw" in the tragic hero. I chose this topic because Hamlet is a tragedy, but one that is very different from classical tragedies such as Medea. I also found quite a lot of controversial debate over the play and its leading character. While reading through my notes, I found that, according to Aristotle, "the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor evil but a mixture of both; and also that the tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is better than we are in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of a mistaken act, to which he is led by his hamartia ("error of judgment") or his tragic flaw."
Macbeth turns evil because he is so consumed with the idea of power. Dunn explains “People do not choose evil itself but choose a lesser good over a greater one by choosing selfish satisfactions over moral duty” (Dunn 3). Often times a person does not choose evil, but they choose to do something bad over what is morally right because it will benefit him in some way. The person is so overly consumed with himself that he does not care that he is hurting people around him because in the end he will have gained something from it. However, choosing selfish needs over what is morally right, influences a person to continue to do bad things and will eventually turn him evil.
Because of his good qualities, we experience pity for him and feel that he does not deserve the severity of his punishment. His actions are not brought on by any corruption or wickedness in him, but by an error in judgment, which, however, does arise from a defect of character. Lear has a tragic flaw: egotism. It is his egotism in the first scene that causes him to make his error in judgment - the division of his kingdom and the loss of Cordelia. Throughout the rest of the play, the consequences of this error slowly and steadfastly increase until Lear is destroyed.