| Papers [331-340] of 1491 :: [Page 34 of 150] | | Go to page : <— 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 —> | |
|
|
Hamlet?s Intellect and the Duties of Kingship, 2002.
An analysis of the intellect and rationalization of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet".
1,387 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and, in particular, examines how it is a play about an intellectual prince that ultimately demonstrates the limited value of the intellect and rationalization when there is a need to take a public action. It looks at how, by searching for the right role, Hamlet must play an avenger in order to verify the importance of intelligence in ruling a country. It discusses how it possible to contend that Hamlet?s intelligence is what makes him unable to act as an effective protagonist, ruler, or son, and how, despite the sympathy his intelligence creates in the mind of a viewer, ultimately, Hamlet?s reliance upon reflection reveals him as an over-educated prince, rather than a truly inspired leader.
From the Paper
"This can be seen in two of Hamlet?s most famous speeches. ?O, what a Rouge and Peasant Slave am I,? he muses, after the departure of the Player-King, during the first half of the play. At this juncture of the play, Hamlet is ?buying time? by pretending to be insane, and a troop of players has visited the Danish kingdom. After greeting the players and viewing a selection of their performance, Hamlet lambastes himself that he is not able to revenge his dead father. The actor pretending at grief is a more active participant in the drama, at that moment, than Hamlet, the ?real person? next to him. However, after experiencing this revelation, Hamlet decides, not to take revenge but to engage in more intellectual activity?in other words, to become involved in the setting and production of a play about a murder."
| |
|
"Richard III", 2003.
An analysis of Shakespeare's play, "Richard III".
1,448 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 0 sources, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the play, "Richard III", focusing on the main character, King Richard III of England. It discusses whether he should be considered a villain and asks, "Did he repent in time?" It explains that, in the play, Edward IV is on the throne, but his brother Richard plans to usurp Edward and be crowned king. To accomplish this goal, he must manipulate and murder, but in the midst of all the chaos he creates, there are glimmers of a better man.
From the Paper
"He has decided that since he is no good at being happy, he will become an outstanding villain. He will soon show just how power-hungry he is. His reasons for acting as he does seem thin, and at this point it is hard to imagine how any good traits could be spotted in such a man. Richard is intelligent and manipulative, and has the ability to lie through his teeth and bee believed. He convinces a just-widowed noble woman, Lady Anne, that she should marry him, even though she knows he murdered her husband. He has his trusting and na ve older brother executed. King Edward is already in poor health, and Richard uses Clarence s death to hasten Edward s death."
| |
|
Honest Iago, 2003.
A paper discussing whether Iago was really a truthful and honest character in Shakespeare's "Othello".
1,424 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 0 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
"Othello" is one of the most important and popular Shakespeare tragedies. In the play, the playwright highlights the maliciousness of human nature and the way it can destroy some naive souls. This paper discusses how Iago is the villain in this play and is presented as the epitome of deceit and malice. However, this has been done, while keeping the character wrapped in thick clouds of honesty and truthfulness. It explains that this is a strange paradox, as on the surface, we are repeatedly told that Iago is an honest man, and he also considers himself to be so, while beneath all this fake honesty, he is always trying to stab someone in the back.
From the Paper
"For some odd reason, he hates Othello who thinks of him as an honest friend and his hatred for the protagonist results in an absolute tragedy where numerous lives are destroyed and reputations tarnished. For those who have read the play, it is difficult to understand why Iago would be considered an honest person when he was certainly anything but this. However as negative as his character was, Iago must have some honest streak in his nature or else no one would have believed him and the whole ploy against Othello would have failed."
| |
|
The Function of Literature, 2002.
A look at the life lessons of literature through a review of William Shakespeare's "Othello" and Theodore Roethke?s poem, ?The Waking?
837 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how literature allows us access to the wisdom of those who have come before us, learned the hard lessons of life, and written down their observations so that we might learn vicariously and gain in wisdom without having to make the same mistakes that others have made. It uses, as an example, William Shakespeare's play, "Othello", which helps us to understand how completely people can deceive themselves and how difficult it may be to determine whether a person is, in fact, good or evil. It also shows how Theodore Roethke?s poem, ?The Waking?, addresses a sense of the divine and of the mystical that many of us do not feel for ourselves.
From the Paper
"Othello?s sense of honor is his most defining attribute, and while it may be tempting to see this sense of honor as undermined by the passion he feels for Desdemona (and even more by the passion he feels when he imagines that he has betrayed her) he is more undone by honor than by passion. Othello cannot imagine that others will not act honorably since he himself would never do so. He is blind to the possibility of dishonorable action. This failure of imagination of Othello can be contrasted to Iago?s own failings, which are quite different. Iago may despise goodness (which is certainly a moral failing) but he recognizes and understands it in others. Othello cannot see evil, which is a terrible sort of weakness indeed."
| |
|
The Missionary Hamlet, 2002.
Suggests that, amongst many other Biblical allusions in Hamlet, there is also one of a missionary tradition.
1,497 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper contends that there is an element of the Evangelical missionary in Hamlet's character. Other allusions in the text are illustrated, first, in order to help explain the allusion to Hamlet as a missionary. Using the context established by these allusions, the paper then compares Hamlet's character to that of an Evangelical prophet. The reference to a fisherman, or a fisher of men, is cited as an example of Hamlet's role as one who seeks to bring repentance to the people around him. The paper also compares Hamlet's failure as a prophet to the Biblical character, Jonah, who is devoured by the whale, or in Hamlet's case, devoured by the King.
From the Paper
"It is difficult to approach Hamlet without stumbling over a mass of biblical allusions. In many ways, the entirety of the work can be taken as one massive allusion to religious struggles and issues. Tracing the pattern of allusions to the afterlife, repentance, and the fate and nature of mankind, it is easy to see Hamlet as an evangelist of sorts -- a figure with something of the New Testament spiritual missionary about him, and something of the Old-Testament social prophet. Many of the allusions can be glossed over in passing, as they are sufficiently obvious within the text to make further explication relatively unnecessary. However, there is one relatively obscure set of references which, if approached in more than passing detail, promises to firmly ground Hamlet?s character in a missionary tradition. The set of comments regarding fish and Polonius, when cross-reference to the significance of fish and fishing in the New Testament, suggest that Hamlet is serving as a ?fisher of men? in the fullest sense, both working for their salvation and (in accordance with an older tradition) their destruction."
| |
|
?Tragedy and the Mind of the Infant?, 2003.
An analysis of the article, "Tragedy and the Mind of the Infant? by Ernest Jones, an analysis of Shakespeare's "Hamlet".
1,785 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 0 sources, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Ernest Jones analyzes Shakespeare?s "Hamlet" from a Freudian perspective, focusing on the latent sexual impulses that plague the Prince of Denmark. It shows that according to Jones, the sexual nature of the underlying turmoil in the play?s protagonist leads to his mental illness and his desire for death.
From the Paper
"Because his repressed feelings of incestuous love are met with equally powerful feelings of guilt, Hamlet?s main struggle is between his conscience and his subconscious desires and impulses. Throughout the play, Hamlet teeters between taking decisive action and exacting revenge on Claudius and hesitating due to conflicted emotions. The resulting paralysis Hamlet exhibits is a direct result of the interplay between his unconscious motives and his conscious ones. Hamlet can be read as a Freudian play more than just for the theme of incest, therefore. The role of the unconscious in Shakespeare?s Hamlet extends to Freud?s concept of the death wish as well. Several key symbols and scenes in the play point to this theme. First, the ghost of the King is but a manifestation of the collective unconscious of Denmark. Most are unaware of what the precise cause of that which is ?rotten in the state of Denmark,? (I, iv., 67). Moreover, the King?s ghost provides Hamlet with the impetus to seek death; it is the manifested voice of his death wish. Second, Hamlet?s profound hostility toward women is borne of his repressed incestuous feelings and his guilt surrounding those feelings."
| |
|
Comparison of Three Versions of "Hamlet", 2002.
A comparison Shakespeare's "Hamlet", Michael Almereyda?s film adaptation of Shakespeare?s text, and Tom Stoppard?s work, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead."
1,675 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the way three writers use adaptations of earlier texts to write their own versions of "Hamlet." The paper includes a comparison of Shakespeare's original "Hamlet", since he also based his version upon earlier Danish historical texts and stories written about Hamlet.
From the Paper
"Shakespeare?s Hamlet, Michael Almereyda?s film adaptation of Shakespeare?s text, and Tom Stoppard?s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, which uses both characters and scenes from Shakespeare?s play to create a new work, all offer radically different variations on the theme of Hamlet. While Almereyda edits Shakespeare?s Hamlet down and changes its context and the medium of presentation in order to give the 400 year-old work a new millennial resonance, Stoppard almost uses Shakespeare?s Hamlet as a sort of leitmotif in quilting a new mosaic work. Stoppard uses the familiar characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and the pieces of the play in which those characters appear, but the rest of his work is clearly informed by a twentieth century sensibility?his work is as influenced by Beckett?s Waiting for Godot as it is by Elizabethan drama. These two adaptations are created through a conscious decision to place the new text in dialogue with Shakespeare?s ?master? text, which is the culturally dominant form of Hamlet. These other versions seek, however, to explore the very possibilities left unexplored by the master text, or else to explore the gaps and spaces that the master text has left open for creative contemplation in its devotion to the single path of narrative that Shakespeare chose."
| |
|
Kenneth Branagh's "Othello", 2002.
Analysis of the film version of "Othello" by Kenneth Branagh, with an emphasis on his interpretation of Iago.
1,138 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of the character, Iago, from Shakespeare's "Othello" differs from Shakespeare's original intention. The paper contrasts Branagh's portrayal of Iago as one who is fierce, dead serious and even brooding, with Shakespeare's Iago as one who is less serious and more intent on enjoying the hunt of Othello. The paper also discusses the movie version's emphasis on providing a motive for Iago's vengeance, while Shakespeare actually provides very little explanation of Iago's motivation.
From the Paper
"Kenneth Branagh?s interpretation of Iago lends a very different feel to the text than one might get simply by reading it. His portrayal of Iago is typically dead serious. There seems to be no smirk, no joy, in his undoing of Othello, rather he seems almost sulky, almost duty bound. Even if, in the action of the movie, he momentarily assumes a smile, in soliloquy that smile is immediately swept away to a sullen grimace. This frowning Iago is an unusual interpretation of Shakespeare?s most notorious villain. From the text, one might assume that Iago enjoys the chase, enjoys the hunt of Othello, but the movie depicts it very much as a fierce competition. Part of this can be seen in the chessboard theme that runs throughout the movie?Iago?s attempt to undo Othello is not some freewheeling intellectual exercise, but a disciplined competition."
| |
|
Foolery in "Twelfth Night", 2003.
An examination of how Malvolio?s character is representative of foolery in Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night".
970 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper briefly discusses how Shakespeare uses his character's actions and deeds to portray the message of foolery. It focuses on the character of Malvolio and how he especially represents this aspect. Malvolio?s character represents a type of self-delusional foolery that we can laugh at and learn from.
From the Paper
"Malvolio?s treatment is a direct result of his own egotism. Malvolio is so wrapped up in his own importance that he cannot see the importance of anyone or anything else around him. Shakespeare cleverly uses Malvolio?s situation to prove how such an egotist can terribly misconceive his world and those around him. Malvolio?s pride makes him a perfect target of a prank."
| |
|
Isolation in Literature, 2002.
A look at the theme of isolation in William Shakespeare's "Othello", Homer's "Odyssey", and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight".
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper shows how the theme of isolation is presented both as a corrupting influence and as positive influence by eminent authors. It analyzes William Shakespeare's "Othello", Homer's "Odyssey", and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", and compares how the three different stories treat the concept of isolation in different manner. It demonstrates how isolation has the capacity to create different responses from people because, in "Othello", it creates mistrust and fear, while in the "Odyssey", it creates the deepening of love. It also shows how, in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", the power of isolation to lead oneself to sin is depicted very clearly.
From the Paper
"Shakespeare uses isolation to heighten the difficulties of a man who mistrusts his wife. In Othello, isolation is a theme that is used to show that self isolation is often dangerous than useful. In Othello, the central characters after moving into Cyprus are isolated from the rest of the world. Perhaps Shakespeare could have used this isolation of the characters to highlight only the main characters who could play important roles till the end of the play. We can however find the widening gap between Othello and Desdemona in the play and it happens when they are isolated and do not have any peacemaker amidst them. Shakespeare uses the physical distance between Othello and his wife to highlight the fact that differences in opinion, if not attended to, would snowball into bigger issues that would be difficult to handle eventually. "
|
|
|