This still does not change the fact that Iago is a manipulative trickster whose desire for power and revenge leads him to destruction. When it comes to manipulation Iago knows best. Iago goes out of his way to basically destroy Othello, the man who trusts him the most. Iago spends most of his time planning revenge towards Othello and we are left wondering why. When people do bad things it is usual... ... middle of paper ... ... it was in fact a loss because although he was powerful he was banished into a tiny lamp where his powers were useless.
Macbeth fails to realize the witches never promised happiness, contentment, or safety in their words, but rather they managed to lure him in because he convinced himself that being ... ... middle of paper ... ...that he damns all who have faith in the dark forces, basically cursing at himself that he was able to be manipulated by evil. Macbeth begins to understand that he could not have it all, after all. Equivocation eventually fairly wins against our ambitious hero. The consequences of equivocation can be observed through Macbeth’s vulnerability to evil, overconfidence in dark forces, and irrational ambition. An honourable man is destroyed before our very eyes as “instruments of darkness” deceive him by their warped honesty.
Though the narrator of The Tale Heart can be argued as clinically insane, but if we take what he saying as truth because we have no reason not to, we would see that the narrator had no hatred for his victims. He even said in the opening "Passion there was none. I loved the old man"(Poe 1843). So it 's obviously he loved the old man but it was the eye that drove him to murder. Unlike in The Cask of Amontillado" where it 's quite clear he 's had a seeded hatred of Fortunado.
Othello had the right idea in a lot of things in his life, but if you have tragic flaws like he did, he was doomed from the beginning. Iago may have had the last laugh, and orchestrated the madness, but in all honestly Othello was truly to blame because he was weak, controlled by jealousy, was an easy target, and eventually let Iago have complete control of him. Common sense should have saved the day, but Othello seemed to be lacking this critically. All in all, Othello was truly to blame for his own demise , his own destruction. He caused his own death, and well now, he isn’t coming back.
It always has and always will be. Not that I didn't find this poem funny, as a matter of fact, I got a headache from laughing at it so hard. To take an alternate view did show me how mentally screwed we as a species can be. Will there ever be an end to humor like this; humor that has reprehensible people in situations that have them paying the price of their vice at the end of the tale? I hope not, I like it.
I didn’t particularly care for the lawyerly torrent of words that were used, either. I am not ignorant and appreciate the need for words of longer than two syllables when discussing literature (or anything more serious than an episode of “Friends”, in fact), but I found it more difficult than usual to get through this article. I found it unconscionably wordy and it felt at times as though he was just stringing fancy words together because they looked all important lined up. However, that’s just my opinion. I was gratified to see that this critic agreed with my interpretation of the Duchess’s demise, viz., the Duke had her murdered.
This is not exactly negative critisim, but it is not recognizing Poe as a magnificent poet as most other people do. Shoshana Felman does not give her own opinion of Poe, but tells how the rest of society sees him. She states the Poe is both highly acclaimed, and violently disclaimed as a poet. She also says that he is the most controversial, and thoroughly misunderstood figure in the American literary scene. Not only are Poe’s poems controversial and misunderstood, but so are his short stories or “ tales “.
In “The Cask of Amontillado” Poe writes from Montresor’s point of view (work cited – grade saver). In general the villains are not the ones to tell the story, but this makes the story far more sinister because there is no trace of regret or sympathy from Montresor (work cited – poe decoder). The audience is unaware why Montresor is telling of his evil actions fifty years after they occurred, perhaps he is so old he no longer fears punishment or maybe he is on his deathbed and wants people to know what he has done (work cited – grade saver). Another theory, Montresor is telling this morbid story someone in confidence (work cited – grade saver). The audience is given no background information on Montresor and Fortunato, only that Montresor has been insulted greatly by Fortunato and wants the ultimate revenge (work cited- story).
I am not a fan of the topic of suicide. I feel that in general we need to figure this out and quickly. As I read others takes on suicide I have been noticing a pattern. I’ve learned there are two pretty opposite takes on it. It only seems silly to those who have not had to deal with these types of problems.
Edgar Allan Poe is known for his short stories and are told by narrators who are reliable but, “The Tell-Tale Heart” the unnamed narrator is insane and has a mental disease and there are many reasons why he is insane with evidence to prove it. He claims that he is not mad but he is very nervous. Even though he tries to convince that he is very careful on murdering the old man. A reliable narrator would not be pressed to justify his act, but only to tell it simply and without embellishment. We can clearly see that the narrator is an obsessed man of active senses, the narrator is not mad, we say he’s extremely a clever man is suffers from a mental disease.