Kate Controls Her Own Actions in William Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew Who is primarily in control of Kate's actions in William Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew? Is Kate primarily controlling her actions, or do other characters in the play control her? If you just read through the play, but don't study it in-depth, it appears that Kate is controlled by other characters' actions towards her, but is this actually the case? Isn't it very possible that Kate is actually in control of all her
for power of his own. It is the actions that Macbeth takes in attempt to achieve ultimate authority that lead to his downfall, and it is Lady Macbeth's loss of control over her husband as he gains this independence which causes her own weakening and eventually leads to her demise as well. The struggle for power and control in Macbeth is present from the very beginning, as Shakespeare portrays Lady Macbeth as a ruthless, overpowering woman who dominates her husband and his actions. She makes Macbeth's
Chekhov's 'The Seagull'. I was fascinated by the ways this inevitability was conveyed by Chekhov and Sophocles respectively and the ways in which the actions of the characters contributed to and heightened their fate. I shall attempt to compare and contrast the way in which Oedipus and, to a lesser extent, Nina make their fates more unbearable by their own actions and choices. In each case the author uses characterisation to enhance and increase the sense of inevitability and hence the sense of tragedy in
Abigail plays a very important role in The Crucible. In fact it is likely that without her the play would not exist. She is the source of everything that goes wrong in the play and her attempts to defend herself from the consequences of her own actions ruin many people's lives. Abigail has a relationship with John Proctor before the play begins. This relationship results in her being dismissed from her job as a servant and it explains why Abigail targets Elizabeth Proctor later on in the
little. He questions his own courage when he says that his thoughts are “ but one part wisdom and ever three parts coward.” Hamlet understands that pondering on an action like he has been doing only leads to excuses to ignore the offense done to him, and it is his fear creating the excuses and leaving his honor soiled. In the second section of the passage Hamlet is still angry at himself, especially when he views himself next to Fortinbras. He juxtaposes his own actions against Fortinbras’ in lines
absolute inability of the person, once obsessed, to understand their own actions in retrospect. Both Victor Frankenstien, of Marry Shelley’s Frankenstein, and Henry Jekyll, of Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fit the criteria of one who is obsessed. With Victor Frankenstien, obsession came in the form of a lust for fame. Victor’s own word reflect his inability to understand or control his own actions. "a groan burst from his heaving breast. … he spoke, in broken
main character in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is able to assert that Mr. Kurtz was a remarkable man. This is true because of the unique values that Marlow possesses, which allow him to assert Mr. Kurtz as a remarkable individual. Through the actions and words of Mr. Kurtz, and other individuals Marlow encounters, Marlow is able to gain an overall perception of how characteristics of Mr. Kurtz deem him remarkable. Through the development of the narrative, Marlow establishes that Mr. Kurtz does
destruction of two families. At the end of this play two of the protagonists, King Lear and his loyal friend the Earl of Gloucester, die after having suffered through major injustices at the hands of their own children. These characters’ deaths are incredibly tragic because they are brought on by their own actions instead of by the circumstances that surround them. Lear and Gloucester are not bad men but rather good men that make the fatal mistake of not acting according to their positions in life. In doing
people to take action. Action, as he goes on to state, is within the very nature of our beings to do. Krishna even states that "without action you even fail to sustain your own body" (stanza 8, pg. 620 of text). Thus, Krishna feels that action is very important and key. To take this concept as a relation to ethics, Krishna tells Arjuna, the warrior he is talking to in this poem, that "Action imprisons the world unless it is done as sacrifice; freed from attachment, Arjuna, perform action as sacrifice
is one which exemplifies Dimmesdale’s acceptance of his actions. Up until this point in the novel, Dimmesdale had hidden the fact that he had engaged in a sexual affair with Hester, a married woman. During the scene, Dimmesdale, distraught with guilt after seven years of living in secret shame, joins Hester in public to show his actions publicly. He then, being riddled with sickness, dies in contentment. Having finally accepted his actions, Dimmesdale can die without the torturous guilt of living
story of a man who was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. The ancient Greeks believed that their gods decided what would ultimately happen to each and every person.Man was free to choose and was ultimately held responsible for his own actions. Both the concept of fate and free will played an important part in Oedipus' destruction. Although he was a victim of fate, he was not controlled by it. Oedipus was destined from birth to someday marry his mother and to murder his father. Since
The Victim of Fate in Oedipus Rex The question has been raised as to whether Oedipus was a victim of fate or of his own actions. This essay will show that Oedipus was a victim of fate, but he was no puppet because he freely and actively sought his doom, although he was warned many times of the inevitable repercussions of his actions. When first considering this topic, I speculated that maybe it was the destiny of Oedipus to suffer, but a friend asked me to explain why Oedipus, in the act
sorry, it will never happen again. My unnecessary behavior as totally unacceptable. This essay taught me to fully respect my teachers, and peers. There is no excuse for why I acted like I did in he cafeteria. I am completely responsible for my own actions. I was in the wrong to laugh while you and the other teachers were speaking. I am completely sorry I learned my lesson and I will never act the way I did towards you and the other teachers ever again. I have decided to write this because I really
since even before his existence. A man who with no power of his own, was put into situations that forced him to behave the way that he did. His actions were just mirror reflections of the behavior that he was taught, and seeing how he was perceived as being a monster rather than human, he soon began to fulfill the role of the monster he was seen as. Mr. Frankenstein had not the power nor was he given the ability to control his own actions. He has been made a victim of circumstance. In conclusion, I
preacher, Samuel Parris. In an effort to avoid getting in trouble, the girls begin to make accusations against the townspeople, saying that these people are witches who forced them to dance. As the hysteria grows in Salem, people begin to question their own neighbors, simply out of spite and vengeance, among other things. The Crucible is certainly historically accurate in it's portrayal of the townspeople's beliefs and attitudes. It is a film that should be seen to view the way people were in the seventeenth
makes him responsible for his own actions and inevitable downfall. It must be remembered that Macbethis a literary work of art, and as a peice of art is open to many different interpretations, none of them right and none of them wrong. But the text of the play seems to imply that Macbeth is indeed responsible for his own actions which are provoked by an unwillingness to listen to his own conscience, the witches, and his ambition. First, Macbeth ignores the voice of his own psyche. He knows what he is
are important and relevant to keeping fair to all. Punishing criminals by putting them in a correctional facility such as prisons can be successful in repenting the criminal as they would reflect on their own actions, allowing the guilt to make them better people, probably even seeing their own faults through other prisoners. Prisons give criminals a chance to rehabilitate themselves by using the facilities there present such as the counseling and seminars given. The fact that prisons house a lot
prejudice world around him. In contrast, Roskolnokov, in Crime And Punishment, is his own enemy, and struggles with his two separate identities. One which feels he is superior to ordinary men and the other which is kind, caring and sensitive to those around him. Existentialists are responsible for their own actions and their own fates. While the outside world affects their lives, these characters inevitably choose their own fates; which are all quite different. Invisible Man is a novel, which takes
The Wars by Timothy Findley Justification. Defined as the act of justifying something. To serve as an acceptable reason or excuse for our actions, based on actual or believed information. Throughout the history of not only the modern world, but certainly back to the “barest essentials of reason” our species have made decisions that have effectively shaped our world into what it is today. Or have not. The judgments made in the past may also have been relatively insignificant to a larger picture
examine some of the concepts which Greek tragedy frequently made use of. In both plays the trouble that befalls the lead characters are due to their own actions Oedipus commits a series of huge mistakes the significance of which are not really understood until it is too late. In "A Doll's House", Nora borrows a sum of money, an action that will tear her family apart. The idea that the tragedy of a play begins with a hug... ... middle of paper ... ...2-838. O'Brien, Michael J. Introduction