How Much Ado About Nothing uses the comic genre to allow Shakespeare to expose and criticise Human Flaws

When Benedict states that ‘happy are they that hear their distractions and can put them to mending’, he is stating that characters are able to recognise flaws within their own character and, more importantly, are able to fix them. One conventional aspect of Elizabethan society, that is very much evident within ‘Much Ado’ About Nothing’, is social inequality. â€Å"In Shakespeare’s play, women are portrayed as being powerless in their own lives and in everything around them. † In Elizabethan society, men were dominant over women and made all the important decisions. In ‘Much Ado’ About Nothing’, the men frequently make bad decisions, and is a recurring theme throughout the play. Although Shakespeare was a product of his time, and accepted social norms and values, he demonstrated an understanding of women’s subjection by men in his work. The comic genre allows Shakespeare to push the boundaries when challenging social conventions. For example, Shakespeare is able to portray Beatrice as a feisty, sharp, intelligent woman. The audience are naturally, more open-minded because they realise that the play is a comedy and they're suppose to find it funny. As a consequence, this gives Shakespeare more freedom to create comedy within the play. In Shakespeare’s Much Ado’ About Nothing, Claudio is flawed character, although not appearing so initially: he is shown as a distinguished soldier under the command of Don Pedro, Prince of Arragon. In the first act, Claudio is introduced to the audience via a discussion between Leonato and a messenger in the presence of Leonato’s daughter, Hero, and his niece Beatrice, whereby the audience hear of Claudio’s heroism and admirability during the war and that Don Pedro regards him highly and has, â€Å"bestowed much honor† upon him. The messenger also suggests that Claudio has done tremendously well, as â€Å"He hath borne himself beyond the promise of his age†, suggesting Claudio is a mature character. The absence of Claudio from this scene means that the audience judge him based on what they have heard about him, as a consequence their first impression of Claudio is very positive. However, throughout the play the audience are introduced to his flaws of immaturity, haste and pride which all contradict with their first impression of him. Although the audience’s introduction to Claudio suggests maturity, this is proven to be false throughout the play. In a discussion between Claudio and Benedick, Claudio recognises that falling in love too quickly is a mark of immaturity, concerned that â€Å"liking might too sudden seem†. However, after one silent get-together of characters, Claudio finds himself in love with Hero and immediately talks longing that, â€Å"Hero would be my wife†. Therefore, Claudio seems to do the exact opposite to the statement in the question and adopts a distraction that he has already heard, acting in a contradictory manner and emphasises his immaturity. As well as this, Claudio is gullible, and allows he to be deceived by Don John into believing that Don Pedro has wooed Hero for himself, â€Å"my brother is amorous on Hero, and hath withdrawn her father to break with him about it. † Through Shakespeare’s use of dramatic irony, the audience feel frustrated with Claudio, as he instantly believes this false allegation without question, â€Å"Tis certain so, the prince woos for himself†. Furthermore, Claudio lacks the courage to confront Don Pedro about the allegation, hence choosing to blindly believe Don John over Don Pedro and Benedick, without seeking the truth, â€Å"Ho now you strike like the blind man. The audience feel frustrated because they know that Don Pedro is innocent, however they can't pass this information onto Claudio and are forced to watch the consequences unfold. Additionally, the audience feel frustrated with Claudio because it doesn’t seem likely that Don Pedro would betray Claudio due to the fact they have fought alongside each other at war and share a good relationship. However, the audience can sympathise with Claudio because his encounter with Don John at the masked ball was a setup in order to trick him. Due to the theme of the ball, whereby everyone had to wear masks and conceal their identity, Claudio thought that by pretending to be Benedick, he could deceive Don John and Borachio. By way of contrast, the opposite happens as Claudio believes that Don John thinks he is speaking with Benedick, â€Å"Are not you Signor Benedick†, â€Å"You know me well, I am he†. As a consequence, Don John finds it much easier to deceive Claudio. When Don Pedro asks Claudio, â€Å"wherefore are you sad†, Claudio intentionally replies with very brief, indirect responses that forces Don Pedro to investigate into the matter further. I believe by doing this, Claudio fulfils his need for attention, which in itself is a sign of immaturity. For example, Claudio replies with â€Å"Not sad, my lord†, stopping to allow Don Pedro to continue asking questions. As expected, Don Pedro replies, â€Å"How then? Sick? † In which Claudio replies â€Å"Neither, my lord†, again, allowing room for Don Pedro to investigate. However, Beatrice who allows the conversation to carry on, interrupts this process, â€Å"The count is neither sad, nor sick, nor merry, nor well: but civil†. After Claudio realises that Don John has deceived him at the masked ball, the audience expect Claudio to put his flaw ‘to mending’. However, Claudio fails to do this and allows himself to be deceived by Don John once again. The night before the wedding, Don John deceives both Don Pedro and Claudio into believing that Hero â€Å"is disloyal† and has slept with another man. Don Pedro questions the allegation at first â€Å"I will not think it† whereas Claudio is quick to believe it to an extent â€Å"May this be so? The fact Don Pedro is able to question the allegation shines a negative light upon Claudio who should not question Hero’s dishonesty. The audience feel frustrated with Claudio through Shakespeare’s use of dramatic irony, allowing the audience to know the truth that Hero is innocent, especially when Claudio rushes to plan his revenge, whereby he will â€Å"wed, there will I shame her. † Women in Elizabethan times were objectif ied and became possessions of their husbands. They would not have attended school and their â€Å"education would have been purely of domestic nature† in preparation for marriage. As men were seen as the superior figure that provided for him and his family, their pride and dignity meant the world to them. Therefore, to be a cuckold (a man married to an unfaithful wife) associated much shame and brought down the male’s social standing. Baring this in mind, a contemporary audience would be more sympathetic with Claudio’s rash decision as they would share a better understanding of Claudio’s fear of shame. On the other hand, a modern audience would not be as sympathetic because social norms and values, especially gender inequality, has changed. However, the audience cannot entirely blame Claudio because he believes that he actually witnessed the supposed affair. On the other hand, the audience blame him for not confronting Hero, just like he failed to confront Don Pedro after the masked ball. Evidently, Claudio has not recognised his flaw of being deceptable to lies and failing to confront them, therefore failing to fix it. Through dramatic irony, the audience know that Hero is completely innocent. In addition to this, they also know that Claudio intends to publically humiliate her at the wedding. The audience sympathise with Hero, especially when they see how excited she is before the wedding, â€Å"God give me joy to wear it! for my heart is exceeding heavy. † On the day of the wedding ceremony, Leonato shows that he shares the tendency to rush into conclusions like Claudio. When Claudio publicly shames Hero, â€Å"Not to be married, not to knit my soul to an approved wanton†. Leonato at first defends Hero’s honor, â€Å"Dear my lord, if you in your own proof†¦ made defeat of her virginity. It’s only when Don Pedro supports the claim made by Claudio that his daughter has slept with another man that Leonato suddenly believes the claims made and turns against his own daughter. Leonato even goes as far as saying that he regrets having a daughter, and â€Å"Death is the fairest cover for her shame†. Leonato understands that no other man will marry Hero because they will become a cuckold, bringing shame to himself; therefore Hero has nobod y to support her, as she is unable to support herself due to the conventional norms of the Elizabethan period. The audience are shocked by Leonato’s reaction because through dramatic irony, they know Hero is innocent. However, the audience also know that by comparing the ending of a comedy to a tragedy, that no serious consequences will be inflicted upon her. It is not until Friar Francis is introduced that Leonato seems like a failed father, because Friar Francis doubts Hero’s disloyalty and so offers a chance of redemption, with a practical plan to prove her honesty. Leonato is unable to believe his own daughter over the Prince and Claudio whereas a stranger can, emphasising his failure as a father. It is also arguable that Leonato’s pride clouded his judgement when choosing to believe his daughter’s innocence and is the reason why he was quick to believe the allegation when Don Pedro supported it, suggesting that â€Å"maturity is the trait most lacking in all of the play’s characters†; their susceptibility to pride and deception, and their â€Å"inability to think before drawing their conclusions†, are more about immaturity than any other quality. However, towards the end of the play Leonato loses interest in pride, replacing it with the determination to be a better father. Leonato confronts Don Pedro and Claudio with resentment, whilst trying to remain courteous, over publicly shaming his daughter whilst she was innocent. In confrontation, Leonato addresses Claudio as immature, stating that â€Å"If thou kill’st me, boy, thou shalt kill a man. † Leonato reminds Claudio that â€Å"thou hast kill'd my child†, and expresses that if he kills Leonato, he will at least kill a man and not an innocent child. Similarly, Leonato isn’t the only character in the play to call Claudio a ‘boy’, for example Antonio calls Claudio a ‘boy’ a few times when he demands Claudio to â€Å"come, follow me, boy; come, sir boy, come, follow me†. As well as this, Benedick later on says to Claudio, â€Å"Fare you well, boy†¦ I will leave you now to your gossip-like humour. † This evidence suggests that many other characters, as well as the audience see Claudio as an immature character. Although Leonato must talk with respect to the Prince, he speaks with sarcasm, â€Å"Are you so hasty now? well, all is one†. Therefore, it’s evident that Leonato has learned his lesson that his pride and loyalty to the Prince can turn him against his own family and that he shouldn’t let anyone influence his own judgment. Additionally, the view of ‘susceptibility to pride and deception’ is strengthened from the point of view of a modern audie nce, because to criticise the characters on the grounds of being susceptible to pride is contradictory to the social norms of the Elizabethan period. For example, an Elizabethan man’s good name was of considerable worth to him and any action that tarnished it, would affect his social standing. However, Shakespeare highlights that ‘susceptibility to pride and deception’ and ‘the inability to think before drawing conclusions’ are major flaws found within the play and within Shakespearean society. It is through the comic genre that Shakespeare is able to portray his message that all of us, to some extent, have our own character-flaw(s) and it’s those who can fix them that benefit – like Leonato. Furthermore, as the audience watch ‘Much Ado’ About Nothing’ and laugh at the character-flaws found within it, it makes them realise that their own character flaws can just as easily, be made fun of, as â€Å"Comedy is intimidating and encourages complacency in those who laugh†. Many people have a fear of being laughed at because it makes them feel inferior. This is known as superiority theory, whereby people laugh at something or someone to make themselves seem superior. Due to this fear of being laughed at, people are more encouraged to fix the things that are comical, such as their human flaws.

The Crucible – Rivalries Exposed in Act Three

The play is centred on the witch trials that actually took place in Salem, Massachusetts during 1692 and 1693. Miller wrote about the event as an allegory for McCarthyism which occurred in the United States in the 1950s. McCarthyism was a time of great anti-communist suspicion in the late 1940s and 1950s. The key connections in the two occurrences were that many people were accused on little or no evidence and all of it was inconclusive.Also, characteristic was the hysteria in all the places where the problems struck. ‘The Crucible’, is structured around four main themes which are, hatred, feuding, revenge and conflict of authority. All these add equal twists in the play. Hatred is a strong theme throughout the Salem Witch Trials. The strictness of Puritan laws meant people were bound to break them, whether on purpose or by accident, and the strong religious views shared in Salem aroused suspicion for the most trivial of matters. As a result of this, feuding was inescapa ble.Petty rivalries caused many arguments in varying situations, and the resulting tense atmosphere in Salem resembled a rumbling volcano just waiting to erupt. The subsequent controversial court hearings would bring out the worst in some people and possibly the best in others. Before the play began many rivalries were already in existence. Adultery had been committed and aggressive disputes over land had occurred. Personality clashes and ancestral feuds had set families at loggerheads with one another.Consequently, when opportunities arose to make accusations, which could result in hangings, many villagers jumped at the chance with glee; thus setting up the third main theme of the play – revenge. The final main theme of ‘The Crucible’ is conflict of authority. In Salem, Massachusetts, the people had no official, outright ruler of their lands; so trials were bound to spark a dispute about authority. Salem’s folk had a reclusive leader of their Puritan chur ch, the Reverend Parris. He called in the learned Reverend Hale to investigate the witchcraft accusations.There were many officials of the court as well, including Cheever and the overall judges of the court, Danforth and Hathorne. All these characters had their own reasons to think themselves the deserved rulers of Salem. With many wise people living in the village, you could be sure that lots of heated discussions about who should be leader would occur. In the play, many characters are revealed to the audience, but one character we are familiar with from the start, is the village’s church leader, Reverend Parris.The whole chain of events could have easily been avoided had he been prepared to take a bit of criticism from the villagers, but Reverend Parris was too paranoid to allow that. This is ironic because the more he tried to stop trouble from arising, the more it actually happened. His main fear was that people were trying to uproot him and make him lose his place in th eir society. He was insecure. This is shown throughout the play, for example, in Act Three he says: Parris {in a sweat}: â€Å"Excellency, you surely cannot think to let so vile a lie be spread in open court! This is an example of many different devices. The staging says he was ‘in a sweat’ because he was worried and this shows he was not a strong character. Also this comment is the first example of dramatic irony in Act Three. It was ironic because he was talking about Proctor lying, and Proctor wasn’t lying, however Parris was. This was also an exclamatory line. It was meant to persuade Danforth to believe Parris and not Proctor. This was the first of many dramatic techniques used to highlight Proctor’s and Parris’ rivalry. Its demonstration of Parris’ insecurity remains a key feature for the duration of the play.An insecure leader would not exhibit strength, allowing bolder characters to be able to affect his decisions concerning the comm unity. It also means he was swayed by others opinions. He didn’t have a definite mind of his own because of his paranoia of being uprooted. Before the start of the play, a strong dispute between Reverend Parris and John Proctor already existed. Although the rivalry was a key part of the entire play, it was highlighted in Act Three, as I have already shown. It’s the first rivalry to be exposed in this act.The rivalry reached its peak when John Proctor was falsely accused of compacting with the devil and Reverend Parris was trying to condemn him. This caused consternation throughout the village since John Proctor was portrayed as, and regarded as, a very intelligent man throughout ‘The Crucible’. He realised that the people accusing citizens of Salem of witchcraft were the guiltiest of all. This was one device Miller often used in this play – dramatic irony. When John Proctor was forced to defend himself he was quick to turn the accusations upon Abiga il Williams and Reverend Parris.As Parris was so bothered about the family’s good name, he could not let anything stand that might affect his reputation, and as Abigail was part of his family, he had to start defending her too. At this point in the play, both characters were trying to make the other look bad. A lot of facts were revealed to the court about both Proctor and Parris. As Proctor was being questioned about compacting with the devil, he was quick to point out that Parris had not mentioned the fact that he caught the girls dancing naked in the forest at the start of the play.Proctor [Taking it right up]: â€Å"Abigail leads the girls to the woods, Your Honour, and they have danced there naked -† Parris: â€Å"Your Honour, this -† Proctor [at once]: â€Å"Mr Parris discovered them himself in the dead of night! There’s the ‘child’ she is! † At this point in the play, Reverend Parris was forced to be very defensive. The fact tha t Proctor interrupted Parris showed how desperate each character was to get their point across first. With the staging saying ‘[at once]’ it conveyed the fact that Proctor did not want Parris to be given the chance to speak.Also, Proctor was very impolite in saying ‘child’ in the way he did since this would certainly offend Abigail. In the same act, Proctor also admitted the strength of his hatred for Parris. Parris once again questioned him on his attendance and Proctor was very truthful in his reply. The language Arthur Miller used at this point in the play revealed the degree of the mutual loathing and the putting of child in inverted commas showed Proctor’s disgust at the trust being invested in Abigail whom Parris regarded as ‘young’ and ‘innocent’.Parris: â€Å"Such a Christian that will not come to church but once in a month! † Danforth [restrained – he is curious]: â€Å"Not come to church? † Pro ctor: â€Å"I-I have no love for Mr. Parris. It is no secret. But God I surely love. † Parris was the first person to come out with an exclamatory line. He accused Proctor of not being a true Christian because of his poor attendance at church, but this only provoked Proctor to come back with an honest yet harsh reply, and he couldn’t be clearer in what he was saying.Even though throughout the play, their hatred for each other was made clear, this line was still key because it showed that Proctor was not afraid to admit, in court, that he did not like the clerical leader of Salem. I think this provides evidence that their rivalry was based on hatred. Proctor may have felt that Parris should rightfully be Salem’s church leader, but he did not agree with his policies and he did not believe he would be a good leader. Whilst their rivalry reached its peak in Act Three, their argument had, as noted, been ongoing throughout the play.For instance, in Act Two, as soon as Reverend Hale arrived, he was told to investigate the accused people’s household and it was clear that Parris was extremely quick to inform him that John Proctor attended church rarely compared to most. Proctor once again expressed his opinion in full and did not water it down. He was very truthful. Hale: â€Å"Good, then. [He makes himself a bit more comfortable. ] In the book of record that Mr. Parris keeps, I note that you are rarely in the church on Sabbath Day. † Proctor: â€Å"No, sir, you are mistaken. † Hale: â€Å"Twenty-six time in seventeen month, sir.I must call that rare. Will you tell me why you are absent? †¦.. † This instantly showed that Parris had asked Hale to enquire about Proctor’s lack of attendance at church. Later in the conversation Proctor gave his foremost reason. Hale: â€Å"Mr. Proctor, your house is not a church; surely your theology must tell you that. † Proctor: â€Å"It does, sir, it does; and it tells me that a Minister may pray to God without he have golden candlesticks upon the altar. † This made it clear why Proctor disagreed with Parris’ power, as he did not believe he was focussed on God.It was ironic that Proctor just wanted to simply praise the Puritan way, whereas, the Puritan Minister had controversial ideas that went against a key part of his faith of keeping things simplistic. This was again a use of dramatic irony – a technique continued throughout the play. It was not spoken dramatic irony but its effect was nonetheless profound. Not only did Proctor and Parris have a rivalry, but so to did Proctor and Parris’ niece, Abigail. This rivalry was also set-up before the play began. Before the beginning of the play Abigail and John Proctor had had an affair. This all happened whilst Proctor had a wife.We discover in the play that only Abigail, John Proctor and Elizabeth knew of the affair and Elizabeth had found it in her heart to forgive John f or his wrong-doing. Although, John Proctor sincerely regretted the affair, there remained a complication in that Abigail still loved him. Abigail was blind to Proctor’s feelings; so she kept trying to rekindle their relationship, with no regard for Elizabeth. She wanted John for herself. Her desperation became so great that she stabbed herself in the stomach with a needle and tried to frame Elizabeth Proctor for witchcraft. She says: Abigail: â€Å"Goody Proctor always kept Poppets! †In reality, Abigail had planted the poppet on Elizabeth Proctor to try and get her arrested and hanged. This exclamatory line was aimed at the court, and said thus because it had a greater dramatic effect. No other information was given to lend focus to that single point. The court took this very seriously as Abigail, ironically, had become the most trusted person in all Salem and effectively directed the court proceedings. Returning to the important exclamatory line spoken, in Act Three, by Proctor regarding Parris and Abigail, his two biggest rivals: Proctor [at once]: â€Å"Mr. Parris discovered them himself in the dead of night!There’s the ‘child’ she is! † Proctor’s exclamation aimed an attack at Abigail by referring to her as a ‘child’. This language exposed Proctor and Abigail’s rivalry. He said this because children were seen as innocent and reliable and knew Abigail was regarded as such by most of Salem. The exclamatory line was intended to put in bad light Abigail’s pretence of child-like innocence as a mask for her manipulative behaviour. It also reflected badly upon Reverend Parris since he was part of the same family. ‘Child’ is put in inverted commas in the script to emphasize its pejorative use as the main point of his exclamation.Throughout the play, Proctor wanted Abigail to be exposed for the ‘whore’ she truly was. In doing this he was even willing to ruin the exc ellent reputation that he had in Salem. When he admits to having an affair with Abigail, he loses the people’s respect, because he is considered to have sinned within a Puritan community. But, as we see during the entire play, John is not afraid to address unpalatable truths. John Proctor also physically attacks Abigail in the court, unable to keep a level head when he sees the trouble her lies are causing.The staging says, [Without warning or hesitation, Proctor leaps at Abigail and, grabbing her by the hair, pulls her to her feet. She screams in pain]. . . . [and out of it all comes Proctors roaring voice. ] Proctor: â€Å"How do you call Heaven! Whore! Whore! † As we witness throughout the whole play, Proctor kept his temper well and for him to physically attack someone comes as a shock to the audience. It really shows how much he hated Abigail and how enraged she has managed to make him. His roaring voice shouts ‘Whore! Whore! ’ He is saying this becau se of their affair. It is in fact an accusation.Abigail actions seem to be motivated by a desire to seek revenge on John Proctor because he doesn’t love her. This is pathetic, for in doing this, she makes John Proctor’s feelings of loathing for her only the stronger. In the same act Proctor exclaims: â€Å"†¦She thinks to dance with me on my wife’s grave! †¦Ã¢â‚¬  He knows Abigail’s wish but does not agree with it and this exclamatory line lets everyone know he is against her. Abigail effectively takes the lead in making accusations although it is an unofficial role. She can accuse whoever she wants and the blind people of Salem are hooked on her every word.They never question her judgments or decisions until Proctor provokes Danforth to do so. Even then she avoids the question by quickly faking the sensing of a spirit, a device she frequently employs to get out of awkward situations; especially when Mary Warren finally stands up to her. But M ary is not at all confident in her accusations against Abigail. She has a really strong case, but as she doesn’t really want to accuse Abigail: aware of her strong character, she weakens and Proctor does more talking than Mary. Mary and Abigail’s is the shortest-lived rivalry. It actually only appears in Act Three and no other.Mary is acting as Proctor’s puppet and in the end the rivalry affects nobody except John Proctor who eventually is accused of compacting with the devil: Mary Warren [terrified, pleading]: â€Å"Abby! † Mary at this point is pleading. The staging shows she is terrified of Abigail. She is screaming Abigail’s name. It is not only the staging that shows Mary Warren’s fear but also the use of the exclamation mark. This reveals it is an exclamatory line and so adds to the tension because it is screamed. Act Three is a point in the play where Abigail has to be defensive.She does as she usually does and accuses Mary Warren of sending her spirit on the girls. You can see by the staging how fearful Mary is, not just of the court, but also of Abby. She screams Abby’s name, begging her not to accuse her and to stop lying, but Abigail’s character is too uncaring, too cruel, too persistent, too determined and too deeply committed to back out at this stage. She, Abigail, is such an amoral person, that she will see people hang rather than be told off for the dancing that occurs at the beginning of Act One. Another rivalry that centres on Act Three is that between Reverend Hale and Danforth.Throughout the Act, there is a clear conflict of authority. Reverend Hale, being a learned Church leader, knows Abigail is lying, and that the court is corrupt. We see Hale introduced in the first Act because Parris feels that such a clever man will put his village to rest. However, being a member of the church, Hale believes strongly in witchcraft and so it takes him a while to work out what is actually going on . When he eventually discovers the truth, the town has gone into hysteria, and with no official standing, he is powerless to stop it. In Act Three, he is treated by the court as a superfluous character.No-one wishes to listen to his point of view, and he holds no authority. Danforth is prominent in the court proceedings. He is only introduced in person in Act Three for the trials. His character is a very officious one. He is seemingly unconcerned by the fact that he is killing innocent people. He is just interested in following official court proceedings. He hates his trials being interrupted and so, he seeks to dismiss any inconvenient information likely to disrupt his foregone conclusions and therefore, ends up executing unfair trials. Hale notices this and is bitterly annoyed.The two of them have many arguments. In the arguments, they are always interrupting each other and shouting each other down. Each one of them always wants to get their point across first and though Hale has the more valid arguments, the fact that he has no power shows. Hale: â€Å"But this child claims the girls are not truthful, and if they are not – † Danforth: â€Å"That is precisely what I am about to consider, sir. What more may you ask of me? Unless you doubt my probity? † Hale [defeated]: â€Å"I surely do not. Sir. †¦Ã¢â‚¬  There are many examples of dramatic techniques that are used in this section.One can see how Danforth interrupts Hale. He also asks Hale rhetorical questions. He knows Hale cannot express his doubts about him in court without the likelihood that Danforth would try him for contempt. Hale knows that ultimately Danforth is in power. Additionally, Hale makes his final remark in a ‘[defeated]’ way realising there is no point in his arguing any further. Elizabeth Proctor and Abigail Williams have a very indirect rivalry. They don’t have any face-to-face arguments, but they talk about each other, or carry out actions to hurt the other.As already noted, Elizabeth’s husband previously had an affair with Abigail. Naturally she is bitter and possibly jealous of the girl. But that is not shown in the play. Abigail’s hatred for Elizabeth is a lot clearer. She accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, and of harming her. When she sees Mary Warren, Elizabeth Proctor’s maid, putting a needle in a poppet she is going to give Elizabeth, Abigail stabs herself in the stomach just to get Elizabeth into trouble. This reveals her determination to be rid of Elizabeth. Giles Corey and Putnam have an enduring rivalry between.Their hatred for each other has been passed down through generations. Their disputes are always concerned with ownership of land. Giles: [over Proctor’s shoulder at Putnam]: â€Å"I’ll cut your throat, Putnam, I’ll kill you yet! † This quote shows Corey’s hatred for Putnam. The staging shows Corey was about to hit Putnam but Proctor res trains him. His exclamatory line says that Corey wants to kill Putnam. There is resentment between these characters because they can’t settle who owns what land. The dispute carries on into court and Corey is eventually tried for contempt of court.At the time in which ‘The Crucible’ was set if a man was condemned to death by law his family had no rights to his possessions. As Giles was a learned man, who had been to court many times, he knew that if he was pressed to death without pleading innocent or guilty, the trial would not have been complete. This would prevent his land from being taken from his family by Putnam. So, when he is having stones laid upon him to try and force him to plead innocent or guilty, he says nothing but ‘more weight’ and consequently dies.So, although Giles Corey loses his life, he keeps his land in within his family and thus succeeds in his aim to prevent it falling into Putnam’s grasp. In conclusion, Arthur Millerà ¢â‚¬â„¢s play ‘The Crucible’ has many dramatic devices used throughout its duration, but these become particularly prominent in Act Three. They are very effective in conveying the sense of hatred and tension between many of the characters. There are clear parallels to the society in which Arthur Miller found himself and through the vehicle f the play he expresses his disagreement with the court procedures, adopted by McCarthyism, which were in many ways similar to the ‘Salem Witch Trials’. There was a huge amount of paranoia within 1950s American Government, causing members to believe that innumerable communist people were trying to undermine their political ideas and destroy the American way of life by introducing communism. This paranoia and obsession grew, leading Senator Joe McCarthy to pass laws to restrict the activities of communists. This led to trials which resembled in many aspects the witch hunts which proceeded in Salem.Indeed the McCarthy era t rials came to be known as ‘witch hunts’. Highly visible investigations were conducted with much publicity, supposedly to uncover subversive political activity and disloyalty, however, they were really to harass and weaken the entire political opposition. The witch hunts in ‘The Crucible’ were similar in that they were also corrupt and weren’t really used to search for witches, but to accuse innocent people within Salem for ulterior motives, e. g. long-standing rivalries and feuds. Although set in the past, Arthur Miller’s play is a poignant reflection on the times in which he lived.

Forum 4 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Forum 4 - Assignment Example Cars in India and China have effective design that suits the consumers’ demands. Cars are designed to provide efficiency, high quality and attractive style. Indian consumers demand cars that have maximum passenger space for use as family vehicles. Other design considerations by car consumers in India include safety, comfort and utility. Designers of cars in Indian and Chinese cars understand the consumers’ unique demands while offering affordable prices. Designers combine diverse dimensions such as functionality, affordability and consumer demand characteristics. Design for reliability implies that goods perform best under their specified conditions for the period stated by the manufacturer or producer. Designers should detect possibilities of potential failure occurrence for a specified design. It informs product simplification. In the case of IBM, the use of acoustic foam in computer panels produced chemical-based adhesives. Chemical-based adhesives hindered recycling and increased greenhouse gas emission. That was an example of improper product design. IBM eliminated the chemical-based adhesive to enhance recycling and reduction of greenhouse gas emission. IBM’s decision to eliminate the chemical-based adhesive improved its products’

The Death of Humanity in The Overcoat and Bartleby the Scrivener Essay

The Death of Humanity in The Overcoat and Bartleby the Scrivener - Essay Example The reader's reaction and emotive responses to the deaths of these gentlemen are different for each story because of the narrators. Both stories, as discussed, are similar and these similarities will be dealt with swiftly. Akakievitch is described, in every way, as a second-class citizen, an exploited laborer at the mercy of an unjust society. "He was what is called a perpetual titular councilor, over which, as is well known, some writers make merry, and crack their jokes, obeying the praiseworthy custom of attacking those who cannot bite back" (Gogol, 1). His appearance matched his unfortunate status in life "-short of stature, somewhat pock-marked, red-haired, and short-sighted, with a bald forehead, wrinkled cheeks, and a complexion of the kind known as sanguine." (Gogol, 1)"His superiors treated him in coolly despotic fashion" (Gogol 2). Bartleby gives us the same impressions. The narrator saw him as "pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, and incurably forlorn!" (Melville, 5) and was also employed as a scrivener for very little money. Both men die because they cannot function in a world in which they have no control, a world in which they feel isolated and mistreated. Akakievitch dies from a fever with which he is afflicted because his new overcoat is stolen, a coat for which he has sacrificed and obsessed over for many months. His obsession could very well be seen as the cause of his demise, but it was the one thing he could control. He picked the tailor, the fabric, and the style and even changed his demeanor when he wore the coat. Even though the St. Petersburg winters forced him to buy a new coat, he controlled the details. It was his biggest achievement in a life that was "littered" with obstacles and adversities. When his coat was taken from him, he was devastated, much like the lover who must endure unrequited love. Bartleby died because he, too, was deprived of his only avenue of control. "I prefer not to" was a regular response to a boss who symbolizes the tyranny and exploitive behavior of the upper class proletariat of Melville and Gogol's time. From a Marxist's point of view, Bartleby's defiance can be interpreted as a resistance against capitalist oppression. Melville was a strong advocate of social justices and economic reform, a subject directly related to the social problems arising from industrialization in 19th century America. Although Gogol was a Russian, he too was a strong advocate for social justice. He wrote, however, under political censorship and that could explain why he needed to end his story with the fantastical element of a ghost. It would turn a rather didactic political statement into an Aesop's fable. The Americans had no such censorship. 3 Bartleby and Akakievitch both suffered from malnutrition, a significant factor in their deaths, since neither ate properly. Their reasons for such extreme actions were, however, quite different. Akakievitch sacrificed his evening meal for his new coat. "He even got used to being hungry in the evening, but he made up for it by treating himself, so to say, in spirit, by bearing ever in mind the idea of his future cloak" (Gogol 7). It was his decision to make. "He became more lively, and even his character grew firmer, like that of a man who has made up his mind, and set himself a goal" (Gogol

Reflection Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 57

Reflection - Essay Example Firstly, empiricism holds that the mind of a child has no innate traits. If not corrupted by the society, such a child has the tendency to act towards goodness or neutrality since they have been least predisposed to the world. However, an interesting question that might arise is; why do we have to spend so much time teaching children how to behave if humans are naturally good? Well, that sounds perplexing but since their minds are blank, we have to spend much time teaching them the socially tolerable manners and prevent them from adopting the unacceptable ways of the world. What’s more, our moral philosophies and actions are a product of our social nature. However, there are elementary rules of prudence and justice that explicates and defines how individuals should act for the survival of a peaceful society. I believe that is why we have governments that have enabled the society to flourish. In the absence of governments, the society would spiral into outright pandemonium and confusion would be the order of the day. Factually, the government makes and enforces laws since we believe that human beings are evil and are likely to act unbecomingly if left to exist in an anarchy state, where laws do not exist. While it is true that we are evil, I disagree with the debaters who perceive humanity as wholly evil. I blame it on the media that overemphasis on the evil part while ignoring majority of good things that take place daily, as though it is actually promoting evil over good. A cursory glance at news headlines makes us develop a pessimistic attitude towards humanity. The ceaseless reports of bigots, assassins, thieves, bullies, bombers and racists makes any rational individual to lose hope of ever living in a judicious society where good is what guides individuals’ actions. Regrettably, we are biologically susceptible to evil conducts, and we must, therefore, strive to act

Compare and contrast two companies that have adopted differing Essay

Compare and contrast two companies that have adopted differing approaches to generating and implementing innovation. Consider su - Essay Example The need for innovation has been necessitated by the recognition by companies that efficiency and world-class operational performance are important in the creation of a competitive advantage in today’s challenging global market. Innovation is highly dependent on the corporate culture, the people involved in innovating in the business or the company and must be under a proper management, and a program for improvement at all times (Herzog, 2011, p. 91). As businesses and companies have recognized the fact that structured innovation and management is important, they make efforts to get the most from their people, customers and partners in the achievement of their business goals. Improving innovation mostly starts with strategy that must address culture, processes and technology that works in the most reliable and affordable way. Innovation framework includes best practices and solutions that must have techniques that improve innovation and its management. Innovation approaches by organisations Different companies adopt different approaches to innovation and this determines their success and the overall nature of the goods they introduce to the market. It is the ability of an organisation to develop wining ideas that provides the momentum for growth and expansion in the current competitive market. Thus, every company is unique based on its own understanding of innovation and the framework its employs in motivating internal innovation and discoveries. In this paper, the innovation frameworks that have been adopted by two key computer companies in the United States will be analysed in this paper. In this analysis, the different approaches to innovation adopted by the two companies and how each affected the performance of the each company will be discussed. Innovative approaches differ depending on an organisation and their ultimate organisation structure and culture. Some organisations integrate innovation as a strategic organisational policy that is implement ed from the top management level to the lowest employees within the organisation. In such setups, innovation is not left to a few people within the organisation but is the responsibility of all the employees at different levels in the company (Kolah, 2003). There are four fundamental components of innovation include co-operation amongst all stakeholders in the business or company, ideation that means the conception and application of ideas, and execution and creation of value for the products of the business. Collaboration is simply teamwork that makes it essential to getting things done and involves the three basic concepts of relationships, processes and outcomes that may result into successes in the development of the business in line with its objectives and missions. Ideation on the other hand is based on fresh new ideas that are important in helping the business or the organization stand out amongst its peers. Implementation involves the organizations engaging the best human re source to help in putting the ideas and make them move forward. Value creation is important in that the ideas implemented must aim at creating value to those concerned with the business or in simple terms create business value. It is the incremental improvements to the products that exist or the creation of new

Criminal Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 9

Criminal Law - Essay Example For criminal law to be effective there is the need for proof for some of the social ills that take place in society. It is these justifications that enable criminal law to make some of the rules that society prescribes to on a regular basis (Samaha, 2013). For criminal law to be successful there must the presence of a relationship between all agents of the criminal justice system. This means that all branches responsible for the upholding of the law must share some common ground if the law is to be upheld and/or maintained. One of the common things that they share includes the responsibility by all branches. Law enforcement agencies are all responsible for the protection of people in society. Correctional facilities and the courts are there to ensure that offenders do not escape or get away with going against the law. Furthermore, all these branches share a commonality that involves punishment (Samaha, 2013). Law enforcement agencies are there to arrest offenders; correctional facilities are there to ensure that they are penalized and properly rehabilitated; while the court systems are there to ensure that the appropriate course of punishment for the offender is provided. These relationships all aid in the protection of the laws in so ciety and the protection of the rights and privileges of all free

Art in the Age of Revolution Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Art in the Age of Revolution - Essay Example lieving in this idea, the Realists recorded in often resolute aspects of the current day survival of modest people that paralleled with the associated movements in the naturalist literature of Emile Zola, Honore de Balzac, and Gustave Flaubert. The assessment of the working class into the area of high art and literature overlapped with the socialist philosophies of Pierre Proudhon and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which were published in the year 1848 and led to an urge of manual revolution (Nineteenth-Century French Realism, 2012). Gustave Courbet was a great French painter and he developed the term Realism in art to sum up a fashion of painting that emerged in France after the 1848 Revolution. The painters and sculptors who followed Realism wanted to express neither magnificence nor attractiveness. Rather it was all ordinariness that they were focused into. Artists of the time completely surveyed the limits of this artistic concept. Popular artists like Auguste Rodin succ eeded in initiating this heroicism in their works. The mid nineteenth century school of French Realism was an introduction for numerous other movements of the modern art related to Realism that appeared later in the twentieth century. Social Realism was also included in these movements (Artists of the Realism School (c. 1840-1900), n.d.). Socialist Realism in Modern Art: In the field of modern art, the concept of Social Realism is conventionally linked with interwar American art. It provided remarks on social, economic, and political conditions that existed during an era of Depression. There were two movements of modern art that could be associated with a left-wing character. These were the American Social Realism and Soviet-inspired Socialist Realism. There had been significant events that... From the above study, it can be very well concluded that during the mid nineteenth century, French artists had significantly given rise to the revolution involving Realism in their art and avoided Romanticism. The main purpose of this plan was to bring out the lives of the common people of their times in the representations and portrayals of the arts and paintings as well as literature. This can be considered to have an association with the social aspect of lives as well since the depictions would communicate some message or the other in regard to the human lives and their society. This author talks that Realism is a form of presenting the work of art in which different issues are portrayed in as simple a way as feasible, exclusive of romanticizing them and without any rules of formal artistic theory being followed. This paper makes a conclusion that the label of Socialist was not much obtained in the movement and Realism was considered more suitable to the movement and the acts of the artists as represented through their works. Thus, as far as the movement is concerned it can be said that the French Art in the mid nineteenth century had taken significant measures towards their society trying to focus and represent their conditions through their paintings and creations but the label of socialist might not been involved or attached to realism to great extents in this regard, although their works did have socialist message for the world.

Colbert and Civics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Colbert and Civics - Essay Example The presence of defined citizens makes it easier to give status to others. In a world of stability, Citizenship can seem a natural element of creation. Change disturbs stability could bring chaos and revolution. Thus, in order to confirm the longed-for stability of world after the years of war, with a manufactured veneer of science, other races were sacrificed. There was pressure to establish order in the disciplines from media, as well as in politics. In catering for the needs of elites, there were casualties. Enlightenment philosophers defined the limits for citizenship and understood its importance in the society. The Encyclopaedists explored the nature of work, and appreciated the importance of skill. As on the past and present issues surrounding Citizenship, we encounter a number of challenges, and key unifying concepts, such as self-determination. Under slavery, individuals are denied control over their own life and work, together with denial of participation in decisions about their own futures. It is not just a matter of making sense of the historical past, but of acting in the context of the present workplace. Print, electronic and television-broadcasting media has worked in constructing clarity on duties and practices, building a bottom up network based national institutional structure to address key issues of Citizenship and work organization. The objectives are to increase individual autonomy and self-determination; and facilitate team working, networking and coalition building; resulting in healthier work, improved work life balance and a more equitable distribution of power and resources. On this basis, self-determination is a unifying theme at individual, group and political levels. The issues are international. Citizenship dates from antiquity, continuing in various forms to the present day. In Ancient Greece, as in the newly independent United States of America, the rhetoric of democracy