All That Glitters Are Not Gold Essay

All That Glitters Are Not Gold Essay.

All that glitters is not gold is a well-known saying, meaning that not everything that looks precious or true turns out to be so. This can apply to persons, places, or things that promise to be more than they really are. The expression, in various forms, originated in or before the 12th century[1] and may date back to Aesop.[2] Chaucer gave two early versions in English: “But all thing which that schyneth as the gold / Ne is no gold, as I have herd it told,” and “Hyt is not al golde that glareth.

” The popular form of the expression is a derivative of a line in William Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice, which employs the word “glisters,” a 17th-century synonym for “glitters.” The line comes from a secondary plot of the play, the puzzle of Portia’s boxes (Act II – Scene VII – Prince of Morocco):

All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.

Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll’d
Fare you well, your suit is cold.

Panning for gold often results in finding pyrite, nicknamed fool’s gold, which reflects substantially more light than authentic gold does. Gold in its raw form appears dull and does not glitter. “Not all that glitters is gold” is an alternative formulation.[3][4][5] The inverse of this expression, “All that glitters is gold,” is a lyric in the Led Zeppelin song, “Stairway to Heaven”, the Smash Mouth song, “All Star” and theDeath in Vegas song, “All That Glitters”. It is also used as lyrics in the song “A Guided Masquerade” by Alesana. A variation of the saying is used in Kid Cudi’s song “Pursuit of Happiness”, in which it goes: “I’m on the pursuit of happiness and I know everything that shine ain’t always gonna be gold.”

You may also be interested in the following: all the glitters is not gold essay, all the glitters are not gold essay, all glitters are not gold essay, essay on all that glitters is not gold, all that glitters are not gold essay, all that glitters is not gold essay examples, all that glitters is not gold essay

All That Glitters Are Not Gold Essay

Critical Analysis of Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech Essay

Critical Analysis of Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech Essay.

Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech Essay

Of all Shakespeare’s works , Julius Caesar is a play that hinges upon rhetoric – both as the art of persuasion and an artifice used to veil intent. The most striking of Shakespeare is his command of language. In Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Caesar, we have not only one of Shakespeare’s most recognizable opening lines but one of his finest examples of rhetorical irony at work. The speech could serve as a thematic synopsis to Julius Caesar. One of the most important and significant parts in the play is the funeral speech given by both Brutus and Mark Antony.

At first, the funeral speeches seem to have no true significant meaning. However in further investigation it is established that the speeches ultimately serve as the basis for the final outcome of the play. By exploring the speeches of both Brutus and Mark Antony we are able to focus on the important details which alter one from the other. Through this analysis we are also able to realize why Brutus’s speech becomes one of his justifications and explanations, while Antony’s becomes one of manipulation and skill.

It is known that both Brutus and Antony desired to appeal to the common people.

However, the way in which each man went about it differs drastically. Not only did it influence the outcome of the play, but each speech also offers a unique insight on each of the speakers. Brutus’s speech Brutus’s speech becomes one of acquittal, not only for the people of Rome, but for Brutus himself. He uses his “honor and nobility” as a shield to defend and justify his actions to the crowd. Brutus states that he has carried out this horrendous act because of his love for Rome, and for the good of the people.

“This is my answer, not that I have loved Caesar less, but that I love Rome more… (3. 2. 21-22). In his speech he requests that the people use their “reason” to judge him. Although this seduces the crowd, it is not until after one of the common people cry “Let him be Caesar. ” (3. 2. 51) that it is realized the speech is “merely too good for them. ” Brutus begins to realize that liberty is not what the people wanted, but rather that they desire a powerful leader. Although his speech serves the purpose for its practical effectiveness, Brutus later comes to discover that his lack of insight of human nature aided in the apparent hopelessness of his cause.

In comparison Mark Antony fully understands human nature and uses his awareness of it in his speech. Antony appeals to the passion and the grief of the people. What Brutus failed to recognize in the people, Antony used to his best interest. He realized that the people of Rome were completely incapable of acting with “reason” and he employed this inability to manipulate and control their emotions and actions. By using Brutus’ own explanations for Caesar’s death to begin his speech, Antony proves his validity to the crowd.

By questioning Caesar’s ambition, yet never actually humiliating the conspirators; He succeeds in purposely leading the crowd away from any rational defense provided by Brutus. Antony uses his own grief along with a series of lies to remove the sympathy of the people. Through his powerful and honest speech he is able to cast a shadow of doubt into the minds of the people, and the crowd begins to gaze at the true motive behind Caesar’s murder. Antony understands the needs and wants of the people and uses this to prey upon their emotions and passions.

He dangles Caesar’s Will in front of the people and then quickly puts it away again, knowing that the crowd will demand that it be read. Antony also recalls memories of the cloak Caesar now wears, while revealing his bloodied body, fully aware of the havoc it will reek, but unrelenting in his quest for revenge. Antony’s Speech Antony’s performance on the bully pulpit came as no surprise. To be sure, Antony does not have it easy. He is already a man distrusted by the conspirators for his friendship with Caesar.

Brutus lets him speak at Caesar’s funeral, but only after Brutus,a great orator in his own right, has spoken first to “show the reason of our Caesar’s death”. Burtus makes it very clear that Antony may speak whatever good he wishes of Caesar so long as he speaks no ill of the conspirators. Obviously Antony has two advantages over Burtus: his subterfuge and his chance to have the last word. It is safe to say that Antony makes the most of his opportunity. He even mocks the senators and merely sets the table for dissent. He progressively hits upon the notes of ambition and honourable in a cadence that soon calls both terms into question.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears; From a rhythmic perspective, the trochaic feel of this opening immediately commands attention. The succession of hard stresses is also Shakespeare’s way of using the verse to help Antony cut through the din of the crowd. Antonoy also echoes the opening line that Brutus uses [“Romans, countrymen and lovers”],but conspicuously rearranges it; where Brutus begins with “Romans” to reflect his appeal to their reason, Antony begins with “friends”, which reflects the more emotional tact he will take throughout the rest of his speech.

Remember also that Antony has entered the Forum with Caesar’s body in tow and will use corpse as a prop throughout his oration. Antony follows with a line of straight iambic pentameter punctuated with a feminine ending [ “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him]. Here is the first irony of Antony’s speech, in that he is unequivocally here to praise Caesar. Antony is, in fact, lying. Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral,Antony returns to the actual predicate of his statement with innocuous metrical regularity. The line is all but a throway; Antony doesn’t want the crowd dwelling on the idea that he is speaking here by permission.

The preceding parenthetical insertion of Brutus and the rest being “honourable men” displace his emphasis and lessens the impression that Brutus holds sway over him. In doing so, Antony effectively obeys the letter of his agreement without yielding to its spirit. But Brutus says he was ambitious; Antony contrasts his experience with what Brutus has said. The obvious implication is that Brutus and Antony have different views of Caesar. The more subtle implication is that since both men have claimed him as their friend, they have equal authority to speak on the subject of Caesar’s disposition.

Antony, however, has the advantage of not needing to justify his actions. Instead, Antony can focus on sawing the limb out from under Brutus’s argument. And Brutus is an honourable man. At this point, Antony is still ostensibly speaking well of Brutus—at least to the crowd. A plebian might think that at worst, perhaps, either Antony or Brutus has made an honest mistake in his judgment of Caesar. On the other hand, the words says, ambitious, and honourable are becoming impossible to miss. Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; This is the third time in this speech that Antony utters this refrain.

Every time he says this, it draws Brutus in an increasingly harsher light. The recurring repetition amplifies the question in the mind of the audience, There is a rather obscure rhetorical term for this technique; it’s known as repotia, which describes using the same phrase with minor variations in tone, diction, or style. My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, The regular iambic rhythm of the line and the feminine ending both help soften this line’s tone, which contrasts the high fervor of “O judgment! ” It’s a simple metaphor that holds up well four centuries later.

To Antony’s credit, the sentiment is grounded in his love for Caesar; it’s also quite telling of the character that he’s able to use this emotion in such a cynical enterprise. Throughout his speech Antony calls the conspirators honorable men. He then says, “You [the crowd] all did love him once, not without cause. What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? ” This question goes against Brutus by questioning his speech when he betrayed Caesar. Now the crowd is starting to turn against the conspirators and follow Antony.

Even though in his speech Antony never directly calls the conspirators traitors, he is able to call them “honourable” in a sarcastic manner that the crowd is able to understand. He starts out by citing that Caesar had thrice refused the crown, which refutes the conspirators’ main cause for killing Caesar. He reminds them of Caesar’s kindness and love for all, humanizing Caesar as innocent. Next he teases them with the will until they demand he read it, and he reveals Caesar’s ‘gift’ to the citizens. Finally, Mark Antony leaves them with the question, was there ever a greater one than Caesar? which infuriates the crowd. He then turns and weeps.

Antony then teases the crowd with Caesar’s will, which they beg him to read, but he refuses. Antony tells the crowd to “have patience” and expresses his feeling that he will “wrong the honourable men whose daggers have stabbed Caesar” if he is to read the will. The crowd yells out “they were traitors” and have at this time completely turned against the conspirators and are inflamed about Caesar’s death. Antony uses the “Ceremonial” mode of persuasion in order to convince his audience that Caesar is not worthy of honor and praise.

Antony must use “pathos” in order to appeal to the emotion of the audience. He must understand the disposition of the audience in order to successfully persuade his audience that Caesar truly was an ambitious man. “… Bear with me; / my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, / And I must pause till it come back to me. ” (JC III ii 47) Marc Antony’s speech at Caesar’s funeral was so cunning and powerful that it caused the crowd’s loyalties to sway. Prior to Marc Antony’s oration the crowd favored Brutus and the conspirators.

However, Marc Antony’s compelling discourse caused the plebeians to support him, and not Brutus. Marc Antony used three literary devices during his funeral oration, rhetorical question, sarcasm, and repetition, to successfully persuade the crowd. Although the crowd was supportive of the conspirators after Brutus’s speech, Marc Antony’s use of sarcasm in his funeral oration caused them to rethink who they should support. Conclusion Although both of Caesar’s funeral speeches seem to serve the basic purpose of appealing to the people, their dissimilarity serves as a great significance.

Brutus’ speech, which appeared to be, honest becomes a speech of symmetrical structure, balanced sentences, ordered procedure, rhetorical questions and abstract subject matter, and ultimately became a speech of utter dishonesty. This along with Brutus’ lack of human insight aided in his inevitable downfall. Mark Antony’s speech on the other hand, for all its playing on passions and all its lies, proved to be at the bottom a truly honest speech because of Antony’s unconditional love for Caesar. To that extent Antony had truth on his side, making him concrete and real rather then abstract, and with this aided in his successful victory.

Critical Analysis of Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech Essay

No Fear Shakespeare Essay

No Fear Shakespeare Essay.

In English class, everyone lets out loud groans when they hear about their next units: Shakespeare. With the class complaining about the hard language and the difficulty of understanding the plays, the teacher might grow exasperated and let them read the infamously talked about book No Fear Shakespeare. The teachers are doing question thing when they keep a supplementary text with the original. Yes, 15th century Elizabethan era is a tad difficult to understand, but that is one of the beauties of Shakespeare.

No Fear has a good translation but is missing a few key elements such as symbolism, poetry, allusions, and other literary techniques. I think the original version is much better than the translated version because it has more appeal. No Fear Shakespeare is a series of translations of the Bard’s famous works to the modern-day language that is used today to make it easier to understand. I must admit that the translation is well written and is a much easier read than the original.

No fear should be used for non-English speakers to read along but still have the original. Shakespeare’s language is broken down in the translation and takes away the finesse the original has. In the first soliloquy of infamously “emo-tastic” Hamlet, his first line in the speech is “Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! ” in the original as opposed to the translated one that says “Now I’m alone. Oh what a mean low-life I am! ” Now compare them and see which sounds more poetic and more passionate.

Shakespeare has a way of making such a self-loathing speech sound so passionately powerful and beautiful. The translated version is too literal while Shakespeare was all about the symbolisms and metaphors that was his trademark. In this famous “to be or not to be” speech is another example. “To be or not to be? That is the question. ” Is destroyed with “the question is: is it better to be alive or dead? ” The point of that line is to be used for a variety of situations it has been taken too seriously.

It’s more poetic and a bit dramatic (in a good way) to say “to be or not to be” rather than “should I kill myself to end all the hardships or just live with it miserably? ” It’s almost as if Shakespeare’s version is a pretty girl who wears a lot of make-up and looks attractive until you see her without the make-up and see what she actually looks like unmasked so to speak when it is taken into No Fear Shakespeare.

The last line of this speech is worse saying “But shh, here comes the beautiful Ophelia. Pretty lady; please remember me when you pray. Instead the original “The fair Ophelia-Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins remembered. ” The allusion to Greek mythology is one of the things that make Shakespeare’s work significant because his world was controlled by the monotheistic Roman Church. He uses a polytheistic religion for his allusions but No fear gets rid of some of it to make it more comprehensible. The No Fear Shakespeare series should not be taught in regular English speaking class because it takes away the symbolism, rhyme, and beauty of the literature.

It should be used as a reference outside of school. As one of my friend said “the teacher is supposed to teach you what it means and if you don’t get that then you can use the book translation. ” I agree with this completely. They’re supposed to be teaching Shakespeare to enlighten the students in ways that connects to them. If they have a bad teacher that is when the translator is depended on to teach what Shakespeare is writing. If the language was better understood by students you’d be able to realize that the themes and plots are so relatable.

What teenager doesn’t relate to Hamlet with his depression or with his feeling of being misunderstood? As Alexandra Petri’s article “On the Bard’s Birthday: Is Shakespeare Still Relevant? ” it states “If we want to do a modern staging of his work, we’ll have to stipulate that ‘In fair Verona, where we lay our scene/the cell reception was spotty/from ancient grudge that brake AT&T. ” Sure we can’t exactly relate because most teens have cell phones to communicate, but it gives us a feel of if this was to happen in the “electronically deprived” centuries. It gives a link from the 21st century to the 15th century.

The translation’s text book definition of Shakespeare does not give you that link, it just tells a story; it doesn’t have meaning behind it. Shakespeare has great insults as well, so why insult in modern language when you can confuse a fellow peer with beautiful Elizabethan. We shouldn’t fear Shakespeare we should learn to love him. He brings beauty and richness into literature that no other could do, especially in this age. He is thought to be a genius of the theatre. He has this originality that has influenced a lot of famous authors of modern-day literature so I say “Long live Shakespeare! ”

No Fear Shakespeare Essay

Dr. Johnson’s Criticism of Shakespeare Essay

Dr. Johnson’s Criticism of Shakespeare Essay.

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), a flamboyant and versatile scholar, expresses his view of Shakespeare in his edition of Shakespeare’s plays which are enriched by his prefaces. But like other critics he does not eulogize the poet; on the contrary, he dwells on the faults in his plays. He shows a very balanced and unbiased mind capable of judging the merits and demerits of his plays without being influenced by the hallow effect. He reads neither to admire everything, nor does he contradict his excellence; he performs the task of weighing and considering what he reads and offers his comments which have a moral bias.

In “The Preface to Shakespeare”  he admires him as  “the poet of nature, not of learning; the creator of characters who spring to life; and a writer whose works express the full range of human passions” (Norton.1255)

 His judgment of Shakespeare has both the positive and the negative aspects and he does not indulge in “bardolatry” like other critics.

He believes that dead writers are unnecessarily glorified and the living ones are neglected. He rightly says, “The great contention of criticism is to find the faults of the moderns and the beauties of the ancients.” (Norton.1256) He also advocates the critical theory that an author can be evaluated only by comparing his works with others, “so in the production of genius, nothing can be styled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind.” (Norton.1256) He  also upholds the view that a literary work can be called great only when it has stood the test of time.

He thinks, “Shakespeare is, above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature, the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and of life.” (Norton.1257) It is difficult to surpass this succinct summing up of Shakespeare’s genius. But Johnson disparages the uncritical acceptance of Shakespeare as perfect; he points out his faults as well, without undermining his genius.

Johnson praises Shakespeare’s art of characterization highlighting their variety, depth, credibility and the power of delighting his readers. Using his comparative method, he observes, “they are the genuine progeny of common humanity …In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual: in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.” (Norton.1257) The characters and the situations are so impressive because “Shakespeare has no heroes, his scenes are occupied only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself have spoken or acted on the same occasion;”(Norton.1258) This culminates in his view, “his drama is the mirror of life.” (Norton.1258)

Being a believer in didactic function of literature, he appreciates how his plays are full of “practical axioms and domestic wisdom” (Norton.1257) but for the same reason he criticizes him when it is absent, “He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is so much more careful to please than to instruct that he seems to write without any moral purpose.” (Norton.1259)  It is clear that he does not believe in “art for art’s sake” like Oscar Wilde and Walter Pater. Johnson vainly castigates Shakespeare for not being a moralist, “he that thinks reasonably, must think morally, but his precepts and axioms drop casually from him; he makes no just distribution of good or evil…” (Norton.1259)

Dr. Johnson’s Criticism of Shakespeare Essay

Posthumus and Innogene Essay

Posthumus and Innogene Essay.

The following passage is from Shakespeare’s ‘Cymbeline’ Act 4 Scene 2. In the quoted lines Innogen identifies Clotens to be Posthumus due to Posthumus’ garment worn by Clotens. Innogen looks at Clotens’ body and his garments and says “I know the shape of`s leg; this is his hand”. According to her, his foot is ‘Mercurial’ and thighs “Marcial’. From the first act the audience is accustomed to see a chaste Innogen who is attracted only to her husband, Postumus. However in this passage Innogene is made to speak admiring words about Clotens which is ironic to the audience.

Her instant decision based on the garment is a kind of an amusement to the audience who is aware of the identity of the corpse. Innogene believes that she know Posthumus well enough to identify him without the head or the ‘jovial face’. The audience may expect better judgment from Innogene who till then did show good judgment in choosing Postumus to Clotens.

This passage shows that Postumus and Clotens were more similar looking than Innogene would want to believe.

These similarities are mentioned by Clotens in “I mean, the lines of my body are as well drawn as his;” in Act 4, Scene 1(9-10). She tries to see some logical reason for the gruesome murder of her husband. The first possibility that comes to her mind is Pisanio’s involvement. She suspects him to have revealed the details about Posthumous to Clotens. Everyone except Innogene knows that Pisanio has got nothing to do with this murder. Moreover Innogene is unable to think logically, for, if Pisanio was the culprit he may not have helped and sent her in pursuit of Posthumus.

She concludes that Pisanio has joined with Clotens to kill Posthumus. In the passage Innogene call Clotens, “irregulous devil Clotens”. Clotens is interested in marrying Innogen. When he found out that this was not possible because she chose to be the wife of Posthumus, Clotens decided to murder Posthumus and rape her. He goes to the wilderness in search of Posthumous with pure hatred in his heart. Nevertheless he wears Posthumus’ garments while seeking out Posthumus and Innogene.

This is ironic that he chose to wear the dress of his opponent in subduing him. He may have thought this would be a nice way to torture Innogene with the thoughts of her dead husband when he uses force on her. This may heighten the misery. This however goes a long way to show the cruel nature of Clotens. On the other hand the audience sees that Posthumus is aggrieved for ordering the death of his wife. He is repentant and tries to seek his own punishment by surrendering as a Roman soldier in to the hand of British troops.

During the battle he takes the side of his motherland and protects it from the enemy attack, fulfilling the duty of the son of the soil. Deception in costume plays its part here again when he dresses as an Englishman and fights with Iachimo. Posthumus and Clotens are two opposite forces juxtaposed to bring out their contrasting natures to intensify the final good over evil concept. However Innogenes’ misunderstanding in identifying the corpse is the climax of this parallelism. This is an important scene in this play due to the death of Clotens and his misidentification as Postumous.

Clotens has been the shadow of Posthumus throughout the play. At every mention of Posthumus there is a direct comparison drawn with Clotens as both are interested in noble Innogene. Death of Clotens signifies the death of evil and victory of good. However at this stage not all threads in the play are brought to a conclusive end. Moreover the difference between both is so strong that it needs to have a lingering effect for some time until alls well. Hence this scene is a good device to conclude the play in a progressive gradation.

Posthumus and Innogene Essay

Comparison of King Richard III and Looking for Richard Essay

Comparison of King Richard III and Looking for Richard Essay.

Examinations of Shakespeare’s play ‘King Richard III’ and Pacino’s docu-drama ‘Looking for Richard’ reveals relationships between the texts and their respective audience. The fifteenth century and twentieth century contexts demonstrates the values of each text and enables understanding of how the film enriches the ideas presented in the play. ‘King Richard III’ portrays a hateful, corrupted Richard exploring divine justice and the notion of appearance versus reality in the context of the Elizabethan era. With a time difference of four centuries ‘Looking for Richard’ reflects the Pacino’s quest to understand a Shakespearean text through a personal examination of the same character.

This docu-drama reflects the postmodern era’s absence of divine order and the change of conscience. Through the comparative study of these texts our understanding of different contexts and values are illuminated.

Shakespeare portrays Richard’s deception through his soliloquies and asides, revealing his multifaceted nature. Richard is shown to use intelligent word play, irony and stichomythia; he is ultimately cast as the Machiavellian character “determined to play a villain”.

Richard blames his appearance for his immoral acts “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time” and uses it to fulfill his hunger for power. Richard’s duplicity is emphasized when Clarence is sent to the tower. Any sympathy elicited from the audience is undermined by the thick irony in the dialogue. Richard appears to have no idea what is going on and innocently asks “Brother, good day. What means this armed guard/ That waits upon your grace?” Richard then tries to act like the loving brother “Brother farewell… this deep disgrace/ Touches me deeper than you can imagine”. The Elizabethan audience is reassured that divine order will be restored and retribution will be reaped, Richard will be punished for his deceptive act.

‘Looking for Richard’ reflects the values of its society as Pacino attempts make Shakespeare accessible to a twentieth century audience. The film begins and ends with an intertextual extract from ‘The Tempest’ justifying the ambiguity of the twentieth century “…this insubstantial pageant…such stuff that dreams are made on…” reinforcing that life cannot provide us with stability in the search for the truth and morality as it is endless, unlike the Elizabethan era. Pacino’s portrayal of Richard shows his ability to deceive those who trust him “he’s in good shape. He can move around. He can maneuver”. He plays the villain, loving brother, resistant king and desperate lover with skill. The fluid editing between rehearsal scenes, the staged performances and the actors’ heated discussions reveal Richard’s ability to construct the truth. Richard’s punishment is not God’s divine retribution as he is haunted by his conscience. The final scene almost persuades the audience to feel sympathy in his death. Low angle shots reflect his loss of power. A contemporary audience understands that humans are multifaceted and do not condemn his deception as instantaneously as the Shakespearean audience.

‘King Richard III’ depicts Richard’s character through divine order and justice. Richard attempts to usurp authority as king being the catalyst of chaotic events. Richard removes anyone that acts as a barrier, including his own family “lies well steeled with weighty arguments”. His hunger for power results in his diabolic depiction “foul devil”, as he attempts to disturb divine order. The text was set in a theocentric society, God will seek retribution to anyone who goes against his will, demonstrated by Shakespeare when Margaret curses Richard for killing her husband and son “sin, death and hell have their marks set on him”. Richards disruption to moral order caused chaos, therefore divine order had to be restored. Richard had to pay the ultimate price for his sins “Hie thee to hell for shame… there thy kingdom is” as justification in the Elizabethan era. ‘Looking for Richard’ ignores Richards’ villainous chaos, instead targeting the audience who live in a world where importance is placed on the individual. This is evident when Pacino states “A person has an opinion. It’s only an opinion. It’s never a question of right or wrong.”

The dialogue demonstrates that theocratic elements are no longer universally accepted. The film juxtaposes twentieth century values with those of the Elizabethan people to show that people are guided only by their own morals. This is shown as Pacino chooses to focus the conversation of Clarence’s murderers on their own individual guilty consciences “Faith, certain dregs of conscience are here within me”. Pacino chooses to cut out the religious rhetoric to stress that Elizabethan values seem irrelevant to the contemporary audience. Rapid camera movements portray Richard as a tormented, psychologically unstable man. He becomes haunted by the ghost of his conscience and is punished by his madness rather than his death. ‘Looking for Richard’ proves there is no fear of retribution, only the impact of their immoral behaviour on their identity. In our contemporary context justice is displayed as of individuals own psychological destruction and guilt, rather than endorsed by God.

The analysis of “King Richard III” by Shakespeare and “Looking for Richard” by Al Pacino extends our understanding of the values and contexts of the texts and the attributes they share. Shakespeare’s Elizabethan audience valued religion and God’s restoration of rigid order as Pacino’s twentieth century audience have no decisive spiritual references and live in a world where independence is placed on the individual. The contextual comparison of the texts furthers our understanding of the values portrayed within two largely diverse time periods.

Comparison of King Richard III and Looking for Richard Essay

Betrayal in Shakespeare Essay

Betrayal in Shakespeare Essay.

Breaking the bond of trust in a relationship, and deceiving another person is considered betrayal. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, betrayal can be seen as the base of the whole story, and throughout the play between other characters. Due to the anger of Cassius, the whole of the play deals with the betrayal of Caesar by Cassius, and there are examples of this before and after his death. The first betrayal of Caesar can be looked at in the very beginning of the play, when Flavius and Marcillus sends the commoners away, and then proceed to take scarves off of the statues celebrating Caesar.

They make the comment, “These growing feathers pluck’d from Caesar’s wing will make him fly an ordinary pitch,” (Act 1, Scene 1). In other words, the two conspirators feel that by sending away Caesar’s followers will give Caesar a reality check of sorts, and to bring his ego down a peg. The next example of betrayal can be seen by Cassius working to get Brutus to his side, away from believing in Caesar.

He does this by first sending him a fake letter, and then proceeds to tell him about why he is so upset, and that he feels betrayed by Caesar.

He tells Brutus about a time before when they were swimming across the Tiber river and Caesar was almost drowning, calling out, “Help me, Cassius, or I will sink! ” (Act 1, Scene 2). He describes how he saved Caesar’s life, then tells Brutus, “and this man is now become a god, and Cassius is a wretched creature and must bend his body,” (Act 1, Scene 2). This would be describing Cassius bowing down to Caesar as a king, even though he had saved his life. Most of the betrayal in this story is fairly upfront, until Act 3, after Caesar is killed.

His friend Mark Anthony acts as though he is betraying Caesar, in order to take his later revenge. When he first arrives at the murder scene, he shakes hands with all of the conspirators that have killed Caesar, even though their hands are covered with blood. He then comments, “Shall it not grieve thee dearer than thy death to see thy Anthony making his piece, shaking the bloody fingers of thy foes, most noble! In the presence of thy corpse? ” (Act 3, Scene 1). He is actually speaking to the spirit of Caesar.

Anthony plays this part of fake betrayal to Caesar, continuing by agreeing to Brutus that he will not say anything bad about him after Brutus gets done speaking at the funeral of Caesar. Yet, the true betrayal happens when Anthony begins to discount everything Brutus has just said to the citizens, and he turns the citizens against Brutus and the other conspirators. The citizens become enraged as they feel that their leader, Caesar has been betrayed by the killers.

The last example of betrayal can be seen as family betrays family. In Act 5, there is a conversation between Lepidus, Octavius, and Mark Anthony. The first family betrayal is when Lepidus consents to have his brother killed along with the other conspirators. Octavius asks Lepidus, “your brother too must die; consent you Lepidus? ” to which Lepidus answers, “I do consent,” (Act 5, Scene 1). The next family betrayal is when Mark Anthony then agrees that his sister’s son, Publius will be killed too.

Anthony replies without hesitation, “He shall not live; look with a spot I damn him,” (Act 5, Scene 1). There are other examples of betrayal in Julius Caesar, but betrayal is a concept that the whole story is based on, interweaving between almost all the characters of the story. From the major storyline of the betrayal of Caesar, to the minor betrayals between characters which cause Caesar’s death, or betrayal that is because of it, this is ultimately the theme of the story itself.

Betrayal in Shakespeare Essay

Human Condition – Away by Michael Gow Essay

Human Condition – Away by Michael Gow Essay.

Literature can reflect the human condition by presenting aspects of our existence, including the wide range of emotions, our mortality and the transformations which differentiate us as a species. Examples of texts which do so include the play Away by Michael Gow, the photo “Woman on Bondi” by Marco Bok and the poem “Ode To A Nightingale” by John Keats, which provide similar and contrasting views on these aspects of humanity.

Away by Michael Gow, first published in 1986, is an Australian play set in the 1960s, following the Vietnam War, which explores the mortality, loss, restoration and transformation experienced in our existence.

Gow suggests that Tom is the catalyst through his characterisation of Puck in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in the opening scene. He alludes to Tom’s role as a healer, as it is through his death that others are able to begin the process of restoration – “Give me your hands, if we be friends, and Robin shall restore amends”, while adding elements of magic through the play-within-a-play.

Tom engineers the play’s upheaval through the ‘Puckish’ curse – “I hope you have a rotten holiday” and by conjuring up the storm further into the text, which causes both great conflict and the restoration of the characters.

The mortality of our existence is also expressed through Tom. By reading the excerpt from “King Lear” in the final scene, Tom undergoes a cathartic transition, reflecting upon his foreshadowing death and finally accepting its inevitability – “while we unburden’d crawl towards death”. Gow’s casting of Tom as Lear insinuates that he has completed his role as the healer and is ready to face his destiny. Despite the tragic overtones conveyed through these lines, the concept of a new beginning is also implied through the stage directions and setting – “The light becomes bright, summery, morning” and thus reflects the positive aspect of being able to accept our mortality.

The concept of loss and restoration is portrayed through Coral, whose process of healing is triggered by Tom’s role in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, with Gow using a soliloquy following the performance allowing Coral to express her emotions and reach out to the audience – “What angel wakes me from my flowery bed?” The repetition of this line throughout the dramatic monologue reinforces her ‘awakening’ from depression and dysphoria, with the angel acting as a recurring motif for Tom’s role as the healer. The “flowery bed” can also be interpreted as Tom’s deathbed and thus, she unknowingly foreshadows his fate.

Gow uses the play-within-a-play, “The Stranger On The Shore”, to express Coral’s final acceptance and restoration. This play demonstrates love, sacrifice and death, with Coral’s role allowing her to experience the greatest change. The repetition of the line “I’m walking” emphasises this change and portrays her healing. Gow also uses the lighting of the bonfire as a symbol for the death of old beliefs and a signal for new life, “They’ve lit a bonfire on the beach. Look!”.

Similarly, Gwen goes down the path of restoration, as she is initially encapsulated within a shell formulated from her materialistic mentality, “We’ve got a brand new caravan. Everything you could want.” Her change in attitude is triggered by the storm which Gow uses as symbol for cleansing, bringing in elements of magic – “The FAIRIES return and stage a spectacular storm”. The emotional breakdown of Gwen as she receives news of Tom’s illness also expresses her change and she seeks forgiveness from Jim, “You must hate me? I’m sorry…”. The clichéd expression – “There’s a terrible taste in my mouth” as Gwen tries to take the Bex Powder also emphasises her transformation.

Thus, Away echoes the human condition by expressing aspects of our existence which deal with our mortality and the transformations we may experience.


“Away”. Gow, Michael (1986)”Michale Gow’s Away”. Beckett, Wendy (Glebe: Pascal Press, 1993)

Human Condition – Away by Michael Gow Essay

Shakespeare’s tragedies Essay

Shakespeare’s tragedies Essay.

The definition of satire is “literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change.” Satire is more commonly used in comedies, but another popular way in which satire could be used is in a tragic approach; satire is just a way to mock it’s topic, and the way in which it’s described can evoke any emotion, though comedy is a favourite to many as it is universal- everyone can relate to the comedy aspect of things.

Satire in comedy uses jokes on stereotypes and people’s perceptions of others to challenge these ideas, they are put into a humorous context, but they are there to rouse feelings of unfairness or wrongful discrimination.

Many of Shakespeare’s plays are satirical, as he wanted to prove a point that although it may be the accepted thing in society at the time, it isn’t always the right thing to do.

Examples of these types of plays are: “Romeo and Juliet”, “Measure For Measure” and “Taming of the Shrew.” “Romeo and Juliet” is a tragedy that writes critically of the issues that are around at the time; Romeo and Juliet have done nothing wrong except to fall in love with rival families. The play depicts the morality problems with rivalry and violence that can happen if fights get out of hand and whole families are against each other. After all the tragedy and sadness, the families finally stop fighting amongst themselves, linking in with the traditional sense of satire; mocking its subject to provoke change.

A typical Shakespearean tragedy is different from the modern tragedy that is around today; the definition of modern tragedy is harder to pinpoint because there are many ways in which a story could be classed as a tragedy. Normally, the tragedies are about ordinary, everyday people who face issues and personal battles and embody tragedy into them. Modern tragedies always contain drama to incite emotions of the audiences, so they feel involved and can empathise with the characters. The ending is always very sad and involves death and suffering.

The definition of a Shakespeare tragedy is a lot more precise; they involve a noblemen or powerful character who is seemingly perfect and without flaw, who falls from grace because of their own doing, maybe bringing other characters down with him. The character always has free will and will have the chance to turn back and redeem himself, but his own greed or something that he is in control of will push him forward to his downfall. The tragedies are about “the punishment of tyrants, the turn of fortune’s wheel.” An example of this in a Shakespeare’s play is “King Lear”- Lear gets what is coming to him for being so selfish.

In conclusion, Shakespeare uses satire in his plays to accentuate the troubles of his time with the social and status issues. His tragedies typically include satire to put emphasis on the problems; he writes in a tragic way that will make the audience sad, but he also writes in a way that will evoke thought and hopefully change what is needed.


“Mastering Shakespeare”- Richard Gill

“Satire”- Jane Ogborn and Peter Buckroyd

Shakespeare’s tragedies Essay

Shakespeare Sonnets 18 And 130 Essay

Shakespeare Sonnets 18 And 130 Essay.

Although sonnets 18 and 130, two of the most famous sonnets William Shakespeare ever wrote, tell about the speaker’s lover, they have contrasting personalities. The two sonnets are written and addressed to the poet’s lover.

Throughout Sonnet 18 the lines are devoted to comparisons such as “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day.” This opening line refers to a beloved man as being greater than something beautiful in nature. The speaker goes on to say, “more lovely and more temperate,” meaning far more beautiful than anything else.

Towards the end in the final quatrain, the sonnet encourages the beloved’s beauty will last forever and never die. It goes on to explain how the beloved’s beauty will not perish and fade away because it is preserved in the poem.

Many people consider Sonnet 130 to be an elaborate joke of sorts, not like that of Sonnet 18. Both sonnets compare the speaker’s lover to many beauties. However, in Sonnet 130 the beauties are never in the lover’s favor.

People also say that this particular sonnet mocks the typical Petrarchan metaphors. They think this because speaker only sees things at face value, and tells what he believes to be the truth. Quotes such as, “My mistress’ breath reeks compared to perfume,” is one of the minor things people did not usually say about his or her lover.

Perhaps the contrasting views of the poet’s lover in Sonnet 130 is insisting that love does not need conceits to be true. In fact, many people believe women do not have to glow like the sun or be as beautiful as spring flowers to be beautiful. However, Sonnet 18 explains the opposite. All it does is compares the beloved man to the nature of a summer’s day. Many readers agree that in Sonnet 18 almost every line ends with some type of punctuation that causes the reader to pause, and in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 130 he uses unrhymed lines.

Although these two sonnets make comparisons between the poet’s lover and nature, each took of it’s own personality. Sonnet 18 has simplicity and praises the loveliness of the beloved. Sonnet 130 is an elaborate joke of love poetry. Both of the sonnets are considered to be two of the most famous by William Shakespeare.

Shakespeare Sonnets 18 And 130 Essay