It is honorable, but his vampire sire Lestat doesn't see it that way. He sees empathy as a weakness. Lestat comes off as a masochist that takes pleasure in indulging his savage vampire needs. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Lestat and Louis are talking and Lestat says "Come to New Orleans then, the Paris opera's in town we can try some french cuisine" Louis responds "Forgive me if I have a lingering respect for life." 

It shows how drastically different their personalities are. Lestat tries to teach Louis what the life of a vampire takes, he took him under his dark wing and took the light of day. Ultimately though Louis realizes that's the price he must pay. Also along the way, they meet a young girl who completes this sorrowful family.

The Vampire Claudia as she is known is far too young to be Vampire. Her thirst is almost as terrible as Lestat's and she feeds and lives with all the zeal of youth. In the end though, Louis cannot overcome his own mourning. He mourns for the loss of his mortality, the one thing that humans fear.

What shall be the fate of Lestat, Louis, and his young child of the night? Watch and see

The first effect of Victor making the creature was Elizabeth’s death. The creature snuck into Elizabeth’s room, and strangled her violently to end her life. The creature did this to get revenge on Victor.  Initially, the creature started to make Victor miserable after Victor destroyed the second creature.  That was the turning point in the 

creature’s personality from innocent to very gothic and corrupted.  Ironically, they were getting married the next day.  In fact, earlier in the story, the creature told Victor that he would be at his wedding and unfortunately that meant killing Elizabeth. This was very demoralizing to Victor because he was so close to being happy with the love of his life.  Lastly,  Victor became enraged and wanted the creature dead.  After this incident, he decided to follow the creature and catch and kill him. This eventually led to both characters’ deaths.

The second effect was the death of Victor’s father.  He died from shock; he died when he heard the news that Elizabeth was killed. This was a very surprising and sudden event.  Victor was extremely heart broken after his father’s death.  Victor loved his father dearly and at first could not believed this happened.  Furthermore, when it sunk in, Victor just became more enraged and heartbroken.  Even though the creature didn't actually kill Victor Frankenstein’s father, he did indirectly kill him by his previous undertaking.  As a result,  the action of killing Elizabeth shocked Victor’s father enough to lead to his death.  At this point,  Victor was thinking that he needed to put a stop to this madness, and unfortunately it wasn't going to be very easy to do.  Victor states, “I had been the author of unalterable evils; and I live in daily fear, lest the monster whom I had made should perpetrate some new wickedness.” In conclusion, this shows Victor’s fear and rage that consumed him after his father’s death. The third and last effect was Victor’s own death.  Victor had nothing to live for anymore; all of his family and most everyone he knew was gone.  Therefore, Victor decided to dedicate the rest of his life to tracking the creature down and killing him.  After a long time of following the creature across Europe and other various regions near Europe, Victor eventually ended up by the Arctic and died of natural causes.  RIght before he died,  Victor told Walton, one of his friends who was at his side, to not follow his example by saying, “Learn from me . . . how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his own town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow." This quote shows the greedy ambitions Victor had throughout his life.

Ironically, the creature was standing over Frankenstein’s body after he died.  The creature realized what he did to this man’s life, and vowed that he was going to go kill himself.  Victor did get his revenge.  However, it cost him the most important thing a man can have -- his life. 

After reviewing the effects of making the creature, it is obvious that it was a detrimental decision Victor made.  For example, Elizabeth ended up dying a miserable death because of the monster.  Victor’s father died a lot sooner then he should have.  And lastly, Victor’s own life was ended because of his obsession with seeking revenge on the creature.  Victor always had good intentions, but he really didn't think out the consequences of his actions.  All the negative effects of making the 

creature were something Victor never even imaged. He had no clue what he was getting himself into, and in the end, it cost him his life.

The book is a daily chronicle of the harrowing details of that ordeal, written in the midst of the heat, cold, smell, exhaustion, as well as bullets of gun battles between the Abu Sayyaf and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, not to mention the grisly tales of murder and terror. It is a heart-gripping account. Above all, what stands out is the realization of who they were deep down inside. Although feeling the ruthlessness of their abduction, they felt this was their destiny, to the point that they knew they had to believe God's word whether they it or otherwise. But for the Abu Sayyaf, this was no ruthless undertaking, and felt that this too was their destiny.

After the book was publicly released in the Philippines, certain events seemed to have overtaken its significance. Some quarters have tried to discredit the author in her alleged clearing of the Philippine military as having been involved in wheeling and dealing with her captors. Suffice it to say that a large part of the postmortem tales was media hearsay.

That however should not detract the reader from the intrinsic value of the book- an unusual account of the human heart that many should not miss with the pleasure of reading. It has so much sensitivity, freshness, and delicacy that appeal to the idealism of anyone.

Two enemy families, the Montagues and the Capulets, have been in a bitter family feud for generations. No one can remember who or what started it, but pride and arrogance have kept the feud fired. The fate of Romeo, Juliet, and Paris started in the streets of Verona, where members of each family were fighting. The Prince of Verona declared that if he saw any more fighting between the families, the punishment would be death. Later, Count Paris, a young nobleman, spoke to LordCapulet about marrying Juliet. Lord Capulet invited Paris to try to attract Juliet's attention at an upcoming Capulet ball, despite her young age. At the Capulet ball, Romeo Montague and his friends sneaked in with masks. Romeo saw Juliet Capulet and they fell in love with each other. Later, after sneaking into Capulet grounds, Romeo heard a private confession by Juliet that she loved him despite her family. Friar Lawrence married the two the next day. Tybalt, Juliet's cousin purused Romeo the next day for appearing at the ball in disguise, but Romeo refused to fight him since he was now part of the Capulet family. Romeo's friend Mercutio decided to fight Tybalt, but was fatally wounded when Romeo stepped in to stop the fighting. Romeo then slayed Tybalt in anger over his friend's death, and runs away. Despite the murder, the Prince decided that Romeo should be banished, not killed, since Tybalt's killing Mercutio provoked Romeo. Juliet grieved her husband's absence.

Thinking that she was upset by Tybalt's death Lord Capulet arranged to her engagement to Paris, and threatened to disown her if she didn't agree to marry Paris. Even Juliet's nurse, once her confidant, said that Juliet should forget Romeo and marry Paris. Desperatyeahely, Juliet visited Friar Lawrence for help. Friar Lawrence offered Juliet a potion that would leave her in a death-like trance for 24 hours. He said he would send a message to Romeo to come in the crypt, save Juliet, and run away together. Unfortunately, the message didn't reach Romeo, and he learned of Juliet's “death” from a servant. He illegally bought poison from an apothecary, and visited the Capulet crypt. It appears that while Romeo was mourning, Paris came in and confronted him, and a battle resulted. Romeo killed Paris, and went back to Juliet. He drank the poison, committing suicide, when Juliet began to wake up. Friar Lawrence then arrived, saw Romeo dead, and tried to convince Juliet to leave. But Juliet refused to leave Romeo. Instead, she grabbed Romeo's dagger and stabbed herselv. In grief, the two families agreed to end their feud in honor of their children.

Where does the blame lie? Verona Tattler has looked into the story and believes that Tybalt, Juliet's cousin and Lord Capulet's nephew, is responsible. Tybalt was notoriously hot-blooded and proud of his family status. Recently, Benvolio, Romeo's cousin, had been seen trying to stop a fight between Capulet and Montague servants, when Tybalt drew his sword and claimed his loathing for the Montagues. At the ball, Tybalt saw the masked Romeo and wanted to kill him for reasons beyond wanting to protect the Capulets. Tybalt would have dueled Romeo but Lord Capulet forbade him to. Tybalt wouldn't forget Romeo's intrusion, and it now appears, planned on revenge. The rest you know. As reported yesterday, Tybalt came across Mercutio and slayed him when Romeo tried to separate them. Then Romeokilled Tybalt. If Tybalt hadn't pursued Romeo and initiated the arguments, neither Mercutio nor Tybalt would have died, and Romeo wouldn't have been banished. If Romeo hadn't been banished, Juliet wouldn't have gone to such drastic measures to evade her marriage with Paris. And if Juliet hadn't taken Friar Lawrence's potion, Romeo wouldn't have killed Paris in the crypt, or consumed the poison, and Juliet wouldn't have committed suicide. Tybalt ignored the Prince and his Lord Capulet's orders, and went overboard with his family pride. If Tybalt had thought out his actions, he could have saved his own life and three others.

To confirm our suspicion, the Verona Tattler interviewed Juliet's nurse and Lord Capulet, two members of Tybalt's house.

Verona Tattler: Why was Tybalt so determined to get revenge on Romeo?

Lord Capulet: Tybalt always was proud of his background. He probably was trying to right Romeo's wrong of sneaking into our ball. I knew Tybalt wouldn't disobey my orders on Capulet grounds, but I was hoping he would understand the importance of keeping peace in Verona.

VT:Was he always like this?

Capulet: Yes. When he was younger, he would always stop the other Capulet children from interacting with Montague children. He made enemies fast and disliked all Montagues, no matter their personality.

VT:Was it just family pride that made him want to go after Romeo?

Capulet: If I remember correctly, he always seemed jealous of Romeo. Romeo was an exceptional swordsman and always had a lot of friends. I suppose Tybalt was always looking for a fault in Romeo.

VT:Did you understand the family feud?

Capulet: I don't think anyone did. Tybalt was raised with his family always against the Montagues. From when he was little, he was taught that the Montagues were sworn enemies.

VT: Do you think he's ultimately to blame for your daughter's death, along with Romeo and Paris?

Capulet: To be honest, yes, I do. He never thought before he acted, and in the end it cost him his life, along with my daughter's. He was a great person though, and I will still grieve for him.

Verona Tattler:What do you know about Tybalt?

Juliet's Nurse: He was very vengeful, but a great friend of the Capulets and Juliet especially. He seemed to always want to protect her from harms' way. He'd always try to get back at those that harmed him or his companions.

VT: So do you think that Tybalt thought of Romeo as someone harmful to Juliet?

Nurse: Probably not anyone especially harmful, but he seemed to think that all Montagues were dangerous.

VT: Did you ever know of his plan to get revenge on Romeo?

Nurse: He often spoke in mutters of Romeo. I overheard him talking to one of his companions that he was going to try to get Romeo alone and battle him one-on-one. Oftentimes, I tried to convince him to obey the Prince, but he'd always ignore me and walk away.

VT:What did he think of Mercutio?

Nurse: He always said that Mercutio was a jokester who was all talk but no action.

VT:Would you have ever guessed the outcome of Tybalt's need for revenge?

Nurse: No. I knew Tybalt was going to get himself in trouble eventually, since he would disobey the Prince's order of peace, but I never envisioned him bringing three others with him.

VT:Was Tybalt friendly with Paris?

Nurse: Tybalt was cautious around Paris, since Tybalt was so protective of Juliet. I think they would've become friends because they had some similarities. I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to harm Paris.

As you can tell, because of the long-lasting family feud, Tybalt seemed born to battle the Montagues. It was only nature that put him against Romeo and urged him to seek revenge on the enemy house. Even though he was trying to do the best, he led himself, Juliet, Romeo, and Paris to their untimely deaths. The Verona Tattler believes that Tybalt was unintentionally responsible for the tragic ending to this love story.

 

 

 

Macbeth and his wife were both considered protagonists despite their progressively wicked and sinful personalities. Although some might see Macbeth as a comedy in view of its happy ending for the inhabitants of Scotland, in reality, it is a tragedy, as the play tells a story that ends on a cheerless note. Although the play concluded with a positive outcome for the citizens of Scotland, Macbeth and his wife died terrible deaths as a consequence for their actions. This play is considered a tragedy because the protagonists could not overcome the forces which were arrayed before them.

Both protagonists were tainted by an overpowering ambition. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth is quite skeptical of the three witches' prediction that he will become the Thane of Cawdor, then the King of Scotland. Much to his surprise and intrigue, the then-current King, Duncan, awarded Macbeth the title of Thane of Cawdor, after hearing of his various exploits and bravery in the battlefield. Thrilled that the witches' projections came true, Macbeth soon began to ponder the possibilities of fulfilling his prophecy as King. After hearing of the three witches' prophecy, the protagonists were convinced that their original plan to murder Duncan was justified. Macbeth decided that he could not wait to become king, and his desire consumed him with greed and temptation. After much prompting from his wife and the confirmation of the prophecy, Macbeth was able to summon the courage to kill Duncan in order to succeed the throne quickly. Lady Macbeth played a vital role in murdering of the king, as she coaxed and manipulated her husband into carrying out her will. She had shown her profound resolve to kill Duncan on the very night when she exclaimed:

O, never

Shall sun that morrow see! (I,v,67-68)

Lady Macbeth means to say that Duncan would not see the light of the next day, as he would have passed away by then. It is important to note that Banquo, Macbeth's close friend, was also told that his sons would become kings. This led him to have ambitious thoughts. However, unlike Macbeth, he never enforced these thoughts with actions, and never felt the urgency to murder Duncan for the success of his family. He explained to Macbeth that he was willing to do anything to become a father of kings, as long as he could have done it with a clear conscience:

So I lose none

In seeking to augment it, but still keep

My bosom franchised and allegiance clear,

I shall be counseled. (II,I,32-35)

Several actions that the protagonists took during throughout the play portrayed their immoral intentions and decisions; their mindsets changed, and bordered on the lines of madness and insanity. Macbeth, a once-honorable general to the King, corrupted his mind with murder of his monarch. After the first murder, he became heartless and unfeeling, and eventually mustered the ability to kill large numbers of people, even families, without burdening conscience. He shows his determination to eliminate the ruler to become king when he explains:

If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well

It were done quickly. If the assassination

Could trammel up the consequence, and catch

With his surcease success; that but this blow

Might be the be-all and the end-all here,

But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,

We'd jump the life to come. (I,vii,1-7)

He was so consumed by greed that he was willing to risk his life for the opportunity to become the king. He proved himself foolish by trusting the words of three strangers, recent acquaintances that he had never met before. Although the three witches' prophecies ended up being fulfilled, it would have been wise for Macbeth to see through the evil intent of such evil women. By pondering their predictions so deeply, he succeeded only in obtaining guilt, and his eventual downfall. Furthermore, he allowed his overreaching ambition to cloud his judgment; had he controlled himself, he would have realized the gravity of the implications of murder. When Macbeth realized the extreme seriousness of his crime, he lamented:

Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself

And falls on th' other. (I,vii,27-28)

In a moment of regret, he contemplated the ways that people who rush ahead of themselves often succeed only in advancing themselves towards their own demise. Lady Macbeth, too, lost control of her normal self, and allowed her ambitions to impair her clear thinking. She attempted to "desex" herself, in order to be capable of assisting in the King's assassination. A once loving wife who was tempted by power, Lady Macbeth became intoxicated with power, and began to control her husband into carrying out her will. After aiding in murdering Duncan, she felt sentiments of extreme guilt that carried her to the point of unbearable pain, the cause of her suicide. She stated that she would have been perfectly capable of completing the tasks herself, had there not been the fact that King Duncan looked like her father:

Had he not resembled

My father as he slept, I had done't. (II,ii,16-17)

While tormented by her memories of the murder, Lady Macbeth walked and talked in her sleep. She rubbed her hands together, as if she were washing them with water. While the doctor was examining her "illness", she stated:

Out, damned spot! Out, I say! One: two: why,

The, ‘si time to do't. Hell is murky! Fie, my

Lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we

Fear who knows it, when none can call our power to

Account? Yet who would have thought the old man

To have so much blood in him! (V,I,32-37)

Lady Macbeth, unable to cope with the heavy weight that her heart was carrying, had subconsciously let out her emotions while sleeping. After some time, however, she had become an insomniac, for fear of the visions of the murder that haunted her. As a direct effect, she soon became frail and unhealthy, causing her to take her own life.

The deaths of the protagonists caused the genre of Macbeth to be considered a tragedy, and a loss for the audience. The plot did not end happily for the protagonists, though some may, mistakenly, see the play as a comedy in sight of the positive resolution for the Scottish people. However, the overall setting, mood, and outcome of the play were extremely gloomy and bleak. Due to the corruptive nature of the evil intentions that stemmed from an overpowering ambition, the protagonists were cast into great disorder and confusion. The sorrowful and hapless circumstances in which they found themselves led Macbeth and his wife to feel very guilty, the indirect cause of their untimely deaths. When ambition is great enough to cloud one's judgment, the actions that are driven by it will often lead to ruin.

The West Side Story is set in Upper West Side Manhattan. It is about rivalry between two teenage gangs of different backgrounds. Anton, a member of the white gang, fell in love with Maria, the sister of the leader of the rival Puerto Rican gang.

Romeo and Juliet is undoubtedly the most popular romantic love story to ever hit the literary world. It talks about intense passion between the star-crossed lover Romeo and Juliet. Their love was doomed from the start because of their feuding families- the Montague represented by Romeo and Capulet, by Juliet.

The overriding theme, of course, between the two stories - Romeo and Juliet and The West Side Story is love - deep, intense and passionate love. The kind that defies everything even families and loyalties.

The love Tony felt for Maria and Romeo for Juliet made them defy their families, their friends and their social world. Their love is strong and forceful, so much so that it made them revolt against the very world they revolved in and, sometimes, even against themselves.

Intensity of thoughts and feelings dominate both stories. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo's character takes on intensity to another level. His capacity for deep passionate love is merely an extension of his capacity for intense feelings of all kinds. His intensity is evident when he sneaks into enemy's territory to seek Juliet. Or, when he kills his wife's cousin in a duel. And finally, when he committed suicide upon erroneously believing Juliet is dead.

The same way, Tony of the West Side Story is capable of extreme emotions. This is when he killed his lover's brother Bernardo in a heated argument. He also challenged Chino to kill him when he thought Chino killed Maria which as we know led to his untimely demise towards the end of the story.

Both male characters seem defined by their extreme emotions and capacity for deep love. This deep intense emotion shared by both male protagonists is what propels both stories forward. Had these male characters, Romeo and Tony, did not have such intensity of feelings in the first place, the love they feel for their women - Juliet and Maria respectively, would not have existed.

The women, on the other hand, exhibit logic, objectivity and strength. Juliet, for instance, showed her determination when she first obeyed her parent's request to try to love Paris, their favored suitor. The same way, Maria showed force of will over emotions

when she agreed to marry Chino.

Their objectivity comes across when Maria decided to flee the city with Tony to leave the chaos behind them. When Romeo killed Tybalt, Juliet did not follow Romeo right away. Instead she made a logical decision to allow her love for Romeo to guide her priorities. Both Juliet and Maria, in essence, decided to cut themselves loose from their social connections when they decided to follow their love. Juliet cut herself off from her Nurse, her parents and her social status when she followed Romeo. Maria cut loose from her family, her dead brother's memory and her social circle when she decided to run away with Tony.

Juliet killed herself upon finding out that Romeo is dead not out of weakness but out of love. She stabs her heart with a dagger which showed a lot more courage than taking down pills. Maria, on the other hand, did not commit suicide upon seeing Tony killed by Chino. She used the tragedy to point out to the feuding groups Jets and Sharks how their hate led to Tony's death. The two groups declared truce in the process.

There is no specific morale that one can gather from both stories on love and relationships. Both stories seek to portray the chaos and obstacles that surround passion and love.

Violence brought about by love is another theme that permeates in both stories. In both stories, love is linked to death. As in the case of Tony who died at the end of the story in West Side Story. The same goes to Romeo and Juliet, who met untimely death at the end of the story.

Violence is very pronounced in both stories as we are being made painfully aware from the very start that the two protagonists come from feuding clans such as in Romeo and Juliet or feuding culture such as in The West Side Story. We have this unshakeable feeling that trouble is brewing as soon as the story commences.

Another theme in the story is the conflict of individual self with society. What the protagonists in both stories Romeo and Juliet wanted were different from what the society expected from them. Romeo and Juliet fought for their private feelings to the end by committing the ultimate act of privacy- suicide. In the same vein, Maria and Tony fought for their private love but they did not really resort to extreme means. Tony's death is not brought about by suicide although he challenged the villain Chino to come to kill him when he thought Maria was killed. Still, Tony's death is not self-inflicted or voluntary as in the case of the lovers Romeo and Juliet.

For many years there has been a great deal of controversy over the character of Othello in Shakespeare's play. Critics have debated the extent to which Othello can be considered a tragic hero, but there are two critics, whose views are held within higher consideration than the others. The first of these critics is A.C. Bradley who believes that Othello is one of the greatest of all tragic heroes. The latter of these critics is one F.R. Leavis who believes that Othello does not truly qualify for the tragic hero status.

Bradley and Leavis both agree on the fact that Othello never reaches a complete Peripateia, but for vastly different reasons A. C. Bradley's argument is that “The Othello of the fourth act is Othello during his downfall. His fall is never complete but his grandeur remains almost undiminished”. This demonstrates to us that Bradley accepts the fact that Othello's downfall is never truly complete, but he remains steadfast in his view that Othello retains some form of nobility and honour. He sees Othello as “Virtually faultless”. We can see this when he says “Othello does not belong to our world, and he seems to enter it we not know whence - almost as if from a wonderland”. This displays to us the extent to which Bradley sees Othello as a pure, faultless figure.

Leavis's argues that Othello is “Overly aware of his nobility” and thus lacking in the requirements of a true tragic hero. We can see this when Leavis says that “Othello's "like a pontic sea" speech is overblown and self dramatising” This shows us that Leavis holds a genuine disrespect for Othello, and that he is able to interpret what we would normally consider to be a virtue, as a flaw through thorough analysis. Leavis says that “Eloquence is a form of arrogance” this can be seen when Othello says that he is “rude in his speech”. This shows us the extent that Leavis analyses Othello's virtues and is able to interpret them as flaws. My opinion is more towards that of A.C. Bradley. My reasons behind this are that Othello is descended from royal blood and was taken as a slave. Is this not an utter and complete downfall from a high status?

With regards to Hamartia, Bradley argues that Othello is a practically “faultless hero”, whose strengths and virtues are used against him by the character of Iago. Bradley argues that Othello's only trait of character is his strong and absolute trust. He argues that Othello's trust can be seen through his words to Iago when he says “My ancient, a man he is of honesty and trust to his conveyance, I assign my wife”. Although it could also be argued that Othello illustrates another flaw in his character in that he regards his wife as a possession. With regard to Othello's action, Bradley exonerates Othello away from all guilt when he says that “[Othello's] opinion of Iago was the opinion of practically everyone who knew him”. This demonstrates to us that Othello was not the only one that was deceived and manipulated by Iago. Another example of this can be seen through Iago's manipulation of the character of Cassio

When Iago says “Your Dane, your German and your swag bellied Hollander - drink, ho! - are nothing to your English”. This is a clear example of Othello not being the only one that was manipulated by Iago, in the sense that Cassio trusted Iago to take care of him in the event of him getting drunk. Iago abused this trust by allowing him to get into a fight. It shows us that it was not through fault of Othello that he was manipulated; so much as it was through the strength of Iago's will power. This is very similar to my own opinion of Othello in terms of Hamartia. I do not for one second believe that Othello is “virtually faultless”, but I do agree with the idea that it was not through fault of Othello that he was manipulated by Iago, I agree that it was Iago's immense will power that corrupted him.

The idea that Othello's character is much more complex is argued by Leavis. Leavis argues that “Othello's trust is not strong or “absolute” as Bradley proposes, and therefore can't be Othello's fatal flaw. This can be seen in Othello's inconsistent treatment of Cassio, Iago and Desdemona”. Looking at this, I agree with Leavis on the subject of Hamartia because Leavis does put forward a solid argument on the subject. Leavis sees Othello as a character that is full of flaws. He argues that Othello is “egotistical…with a habit of self-approving dramatising.” This puts forward a very strong view of Othello. We can see what Leavis is talking about when Othello says “My parts, my title and my perfect soul”.

The question of whether or not Othello truly experiences Anagnorisis remains in debate to this very day. Bradley argues that in killing Desdemona, “Othello sacrifices Desdemona to save her from herself in honour and love”. This shows us that Othello does at least have good intentions behind his evil deeds. Another example of this is when Othello says “She must die, else she'll betray more men”. Once again this demonstrates honour and nobility on Othello's part. Bradley justifies Othello's actions by placing all of the blame upon Iago's head, which he supports with Othello's impassioned cry “But what serves for the thunder! Precious Villain.” Subsequently, Bradley does not attempt to see that Othello achieves Anagnorisis, as he is not to blame for the tragedy that occurs during the play.

We can see that Bradley is disinclined to affiliate Anagnorisis with the character of Othello because he believes that Othello “Is quite free from introspection, and is not given to reflection”. This shows that Bradley's argument for Othello in terms of Anagnorisis is rather weak in the sense that it contradicts Bradley's argument of Hamartia. This is where Leavis is able to exploit the weakness in Bradley's argument.

Leavis, on the other hand argues that Othello struggles to reach complete Anagnorisis because of the fact that he doesn't take full recognition or responsibility for his actions, and he fails to see the faults and traits within his character. “But he remains the same Othello, he has discovered his mistake but there is no tragic self discovery”. This shows us that Othello has made no inclination that he has realised his mistakes or the faults within himself.

Leavis says that when Othello does attempt to show some form of regret it is self dramatisation as opposed to complete and genuine remorse. “Othello's noble lack of self knowledge is shown as humiliating and disastrous”. We can see from this that Othello's self dramatisation is very over the top and inappropriate. Leavis argues that Othello doesn't at any point acknowledge his“gullibility and stupidity” during his downfall and Desdemona's death. Leavis shows us how Othello has great misconceptions about what has taken place. He generally believes that his actions were entirely honourable. We can see this when Othello says “For nought I did in hate, but all in honour” yet evidence that is given is entirely to the contrary when Othello says “I would not kill thy unprepared spirit; No heaven forefend, I would not kill thy soul” . Despite this, Othello does not allow Desdemona to pray once more despite the statement “I would not kill thy unprepared spirit”. This once again shows us that the character of Othello is completely full of contradictions.

The question of whether Catharsis takes place within the character of Othello remains in debate between A. C. Bradley and F. R. Leavis. Bradley's argument is that by Act 5, “Othello's anger has passed, and sorrow has taken its place”. This suggests that Othello does meet Aristotle's characteristics of a tragic hero in terms of Catharsis because through this, the audience are purged of all negative emotions towards Othello. It also shows us Othello's character being purified because of the fact that by this point in the play, we generally feel sorry for Othello. Bradley says that “His sufferings are so heart rendering that he stirs, in most reader, a passion of mingled love and pity.” We can see an example of this when Othello says “Desdemon, dead!” The affectionate use of the word “Desdemon” suggests authenticity and adds poignancy. Bradley shares the same opinion as me on the subject of Catharsis in Othello. I believe this due to the fact that I, as a reader am able to view Othello as the audience would. So I as a reader feel that I am purged of all negative feelings towards Othello by the end of the play.

Leavis completely dismisses Bradley's argument, believing that he is “Clouded by his manifestations of perfect nobility”. He says that the only way in which the audience might feel any sympathy for Othello is because of the fact that Othello is strongly manipulated by Iago. Leavis does not believe that Catharsis occurs because in Othello's final speech, he talks in third person, keeping the audience at a distance, and throughout this speech, Othello is “preoccupied with his emotions rather than Desdemona in her own right”. We can see this when Othello says “Speak of me as I am”. From this we are able to see that despite the tragedy that has occurred by this point in the play, Othello is still concerned with his own losses and his reputation, rather than the loss of his beloved wife Desdemona.

In light of the two main arguments for and against the idea of Othello as a tragic hero, I have drawn the conclusion that Othello, despite his traits, is indeed a tragic hero. It is true that he is egotistical, overly aware of his nobility, and he is easily manipulated and jealous to the extent that he murders his wife. But it is also blatantly obvious that he is emotionally distraught about what he does. So much to the extent that he takes his own life. Othello isn't perfect. He is a human being who suffers from faults of character as we all do. Leavis says that Othello is wrong to trust Iago, and because of this holds a lot of prejudice against him. But the fact is that we only see this fault because we witness the plot from an all seeing point of view. Without the knowledge that Iago is a deceitful villain, we would hold nothing against Othello. He was mislead, used and manipulated through his immense trust in Iago. But is trust not a virtue? It is through his utter and complete trust that Shakespeare creates a character so pure, poetic and articulate which is Othello. Othello doesn't meet all of the requirements for a tragic hero, but he does achieve most of them to a certain extent. I believe that Bradley and Leavis are both ignorant in their judgments of Othello. They both hold the same traits that Leavis associates with Othello, in the sense that there is no middle ground. Othello isn't a complete tragic hero, but he is without a shadow of a doubt a hero, who falls victim to a great tragedy which leads to his own death and the death of his wife. Does this not sound like a tragedy? I personally believe that Othello, despite all of his traits and errors is a tragic hero.

Shakespeare's main characters are humanistic thinkers and raise questions regarding the realities of their time, they meditate on life and man , on man's social duties.His characters are complex human beings, such men and women as are to be found in real life.Most of his women characters are typical of the Renaissance period , emancipated, clever, affectionate and resolute.The skillful constuction of the plots , the variety of the style , the language rich in metaphors , similes and other figures of speech , the masterly use of the English vocabulary , the variations in versification are great merits of Shakespeare the poet and dramatist.

In "Romeo and Juliet", Shakespeare artistically mirrors the rivalry and hostility that divided the feudal aristocratic families fighting for power and privileges.He condemns the feudal divison because it weakened the central State power , the feudal monarchy and caused useless bloodshed.

The scene of Romeo and Juliet is laid in mediaeval Italy, at Verona.The strife and hatred between the two noble families , the Montagues and the Capulets had tragic consequences on the young lovers Romeo, of the house of Montague ,and Juliet , a Capulet.Juliet rose against the tyrannical authority of her parents , she refused to marry the rich count Paris whom her parents had chosen for her;she secretly married Romeo whom she truly loved , though he was a Montague ,Juliet realized that what really mattered was Romeo the man , his moral qualities , his conduct and his feelings;Romeo's name and the family he belonged to did not matter to her.Likewise, Romeo fell in love with the pure , beautiful Juliet, regardless of the hatred between their parents.The two young people 's devoted love could not lead to a happy union because of the social prejudices and social barriers which they disregarded and which they fought against.

Romeo and Juliet's death led to the reconciliation of the two noble families at the end of the play.Though they died tragically , Romeo and Juliet were ,therefore ,
morally victorious;through the sacrifice of their lives they prepared the triumph of the humanistic morality regarding love, friendship, the relations between parents and their children.The play ends with a brief elegy for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe / Than this of Juliet and her Romeo."

So when he sees Juliet he dances with her and does a lot of cool things together. He also finds out that he has a lot of cool thing s in common with her. He ends up in Juliet's room after the party. They sit down and talk about each others life, and then Juliet finds out that Romeo is a Montague. She starts to get upset but then Romeo calms her down. They then both fall in love and swear there love to secrecy. Juliet tells him to meet her Nurse at the church in the square of Verona, Italy at a certain time the next day. He agrees.

The next day he meets the Nurse at the Church. The church has to fight to get to Romeo because Romeo's friends are all trying to get her mad and upset. They do but Romeo stops all the nonsense. So they go into the Church and they sit down to talk to the priest. They kneel and they say some live words about each other. Then they leave and the Nurse tells Romeo to meet Juliet somewhere the next day. Romeo also agrees to that to.

So the next day he meets Juliet in the place that Nurse told him to go to. He tells the Nurse everything that happened once he left. The Nurse and Romeo make up this extraordinary plan to trick Juliet's family and his family into believing that him, and Juliet were dead. If they believed them it would lead them to being on there own and stay wit each other. That's how passionate their love was for each other.

So Romeo accepts to the plan and the Nurse then had to give Juliet the letter so that she wouldn't think the other way around (Romeo killing himself that way). Well Romeo goes and buys the poison at the apothecary. He goes back to the grave and drinks it. Juliet at the time hadn't received the letter. She goes to the graveyard and sees Romeo and starts to cry out. She grabs Romeo's dagger and stabs herself to were her heart resides and kills herself. Romeo wakes up and kills himself to. This is the story of Romeo and Juliet!

Zenobia, at the start of the story, is full of life. She is at her prime. She is very successful as a magazine writer in which she used the pseudonym Zenobia. That is how the name came to be so popular. She holds the esteem of not only a few but most people in her place. Her committing suicide then comes as a huge puzzle. Even her friend, Mr. Westervelt, who knew Zenobia well, questions the very reason why she would commit such a grave mistake. This adds to the idea that a cover-up could have occurred. That Miles could not have narrated the whole truth about what had transpired. In the last portion of the story, we find Zenobia, a strong-willed woman, died because she committed suicide which prompted her long-time friend Mr. Westervelt to raise suspicions on such claims ("She was the last woman in the world to whom death could

have been necessary”). This part is the subject of debate and the reason why questions surrounding Zenobia's death arise.

Miles depiction of Zenobia at the middle part of the story showed her as woman of strength but is also capable of weakness (how can she be happy, after discovering that fate has assigned her but one single event, which she must contrive to make the substance of her whole life?). Zenobia questioned Miles statement as he commented on how happy Priscilla had become and he lamented that women are happier than men.

Zenobia unfortunately fell in love with Mr. Hollingsworth who, as the story unfolds, reveals that he wasn't in love with Zenobia. At one point of the story, when Miles criticizes Hollingsworth, Zenobia comes to the latter's defense. She believes that Hollingsworth actions stem from nobility and greatness of mind and not otherwise as what Miles believes. But Zenobia's love is unrequited despite her efforts. And this is believed to be the cause why she committed the ghastly act of suicide.

The conclusion of the story though seems to give a whole new twist as Miles admitted a long-held secret ('I--I myself--was in love--with--Priscilla!'). As Miles announced his real feelings for Priscilla one could not help but wonder if Miles could be hiding the truth all along. He is so good at convincing the readers that he has feelings for Zenobia throughout the tale that his admission in the end for his feelings for Priscilla practically takes them off-guard. The conclusion kind of unravels the mystery. It holds the key that shed light on what really happened to Zenobia on the faithful night. It is prompts the reader to ask more questions instead of enlightened them. Did a cover-up really occur? Is Mr. Coverdale telling the truith all along? Given the situation that the

narrator Miles is actually in love with Prisicilla and not with Zenobia, it leads one to believe that a cover-up is possible. For how can one explain the deadly choice Zenobia made given the kind of woman that she is - strong, intelligent, wealthy and successful? What Mr. WEstervelt said is true. There was no probable cause for her to commit suicide. And there were no signs that she even entertained the thought, even if she felt sad over her apparent failure in love. As a matter of fact, in her conversation with Miles she revealed that she was going to become a nun.

The story is full of twist right from the very start. Zenobia's character is one of them being strong and weak at the same time. There is also the mysterious presence of Priscilla and as you get involved with the story you begin to wonder how this sweet little

girl figures in the plot. As it turns out, she is Zenobia's sister. Mr. Moodie, the stranger talking to Miles at the start of the story, turns out to be Zenobia and Priscilla's father who hides from the public because of the crime of murder she committed in the past. Even Mr. Hollingsworth becomes the target of a twist when he opens to Miles that he intends to establish a School of Reform for prisoners at the community to which Miles strongly resisted.

Nathaniel Hawthorne's Blithedale Romance is a moving and haunting tale of pursuit of happiness and perfection. They build a community to reach their goal. This small community is actually a group of idealistic people. In the end, their pursuit ended tragically in Zenobia's death.