Desire for Competition in Coriolanus by Shakespeare and The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connells

The author of Oedipus, Sophocles, introduces a worthy rival to the main character Oedipus.Tiresias, who considers himself to be an equal to the Great King. Tiresias admits, “You are a king. But where the argument’s concerned // I am your man, as much as a king as you.// I am not your servant, but Apollo’s.”(Sophocles) While simultaneously trying to defend his honour and bring justice to Thebes, Oedipus argues about the integrity of Creon’s source. Tiresias retorts Oedipus’ impulsive accusations, in a studious, and King like manner.Tiresias’ diligent retaliation is dramatically significant because it develops Oedipus’ character; Oedipus is humanized and revered less as a God because of his flaws. The power dynamic shift causes the audience to become more judgemental of Oedipus since someone is holding him accountable for his behaviour. Additionally, the passage adds to the mystery of the plot and creates suspense, through Sophocles’ use of paradox, and imagery which cause the mood to change and creates a compelling story. Both of these elements cause the audience to pay attention to the drastic changes in character, and mood, to highlight the major theme of pride, power, and fate. Ultimately, the passage is intended to show the ignorance of Oedipus, and the awareness of Tiresias, who are symbols for the pervasiveness of fate.

To some, revenge may not seem like the outcome outweighs the process. To others, revenge makes the world go ‘round. The Odyssey, by Homer and later translated by Robert Fitzgerald, tells the story of Odysseus’ return home after the war in Troy. While he was away, a group of men, referred to as suitors, took over his estate and tried winning over his wife, Penelope. Through this epic, Homer uses precise word choice and specialized literary effects to suggest Odysseus’ actions and the actions of others fuel their fire from revenge. Revenge becomes an evident theme and factor in their lifestyles when actions of the suitors and Odysseus’ loyal men take place due to the actions of someone else.

Even though Agamemnon made a success for his homecoming, what was waiting for him was her wife’s conspiracy with Aegisthus and his death (262-263). Namely, his nosmos was rather a failure and he also faced fate of his failed household. This Agamemnon’s gives a comparison with Odysseus future success for preserving his family and throne. Furthermore, Clytemnestra’s unfaithfulness and infidelity provides a foil to Penelope’s faithfulness and loyalty. Clytemnestra’s merciless and brutal actions, not sealing Agamemnon’s eyes while he was dying, adds contrasting characteristics between Odysseus and Agamemnon’s wives. Note that here, the story of successful vengeance for Agamemnon by Orestes gives a foil to Telemachus’ weakness and deficiency. Orestes here is depicted as a heroic example with murder of Aegistus after he comes of age (264). On the contrary to Orestes who saved his household and restored order in his family’s kingdom, Telemachus, as he came of age, couldn’t serve as protecting his household and repel his mother’s suitors in the absence of his father. In the light of comparing each heroic figures’ sons, the son of Achilles is also depicted as successful warrior with great strength and fame in the battlefield against Trojan, adding a foil to Telemachus’ unsuccessful position as a son (266).

    One popular dissecting instrument of any Shakespearean character is the modern tool of psychoanalysis. Many of Shakespeare's great tragic heroes-Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, and Othello, to name a few-have all been understood by this method of plying back and interpreting the layers of motivation and desire that constitute every individual. Add to this list Shakespeare's Roman warrior Coriolanus. His strong maternal ties coupled with his aggressive and intractable nature have been ideal fodder for modern psychoanalytic interpretation. This interpretation, however, falls within a larger, political context. For despite the fact that Coriolanus is a tragedy largely because of the foibles of its title

The justification of murder is an extremely controversial topic. Several people may feel as if murder is necessary if the crime committed is unlawful. However, some people take matters into their own hands to decide if someone’s life is worth living. The plays Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and Antigone by Sophocles each exemplify examples of this scandalous situation.

For ages, humans have been ending the lives of others in the name of morality and

Sandy Hook, Orlando Nightclub, Las Vegas Strip — these lurid words immediately insert negative images into our minds. Not only does the world question why humans would perform such actions, but also how humanity is even capable of committing measures that abuse the innocent. Although some argue that mankind’s tendencies are naturally good, the nature of evil empowers humans to effortlessly opt for wrongdoings. Natural depravity expedites evil actions, and mystery entices the possible outcomes of wrongdoing. Along with natural depravity and mystery, the desire for power and self-indulgence influences sinful actions furthermore. Because human nature strides in harmony with evil, it is impossible to unconsciously desire moral solutions.

Temptation, fear, and determination drive all people to do bad and good things. In Macbeth by William Shakespeare, people do some pretty bad things out of determination, fear, and temptation. This essay talks about how determination, fear, and temptation can drive people to do some crazy things. Macbeth is a strong story that truly shows you what happens to over confident people. It also shows you how things don’t always turn out as planned.

Many Elizabethan bedsides were haunted from “the terrors of the night”. Back then their ghosts were nothing like the pasty blobs we call ghosts now. Theirs were quite gruesome. Ghostly visitations were claimed to have been very unpleasant. Not only this, but they claimed it cast them into a state of spiritual confusion.

One thing I have noticed while watching movies, especially while doing the critical viewing, is that we as a society have deemed murder to be ok…. if it’s for the right reason. If a character in a movie has a valid reason i.e. to revenge a loved one, to escape capture, etc... Then we, for lack of better words, encourage murder. We root for the person, even if what they are doing is 100% against the law, we throw that thought to the side and forget about it. In this paper I’m going to give specific examples of times that we deem murder to be ok, as well as give reasons of why we think that we accept it.

Homicide always will be an aspect of life, whether it is in the 16th century, 21st century or in the future. At times of extreme stress, people may turn to murder as an outlet of a greater problem they cannot fix or control. Presently, homicide has a greater value in society due to popular culture references through the media such as television, film and writing; society constantly has homicide and murder in the subconscious. In David M. Buss’ findings in The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill,

We often seek to “do unto others which is done to us”. The concept of revenge is directly mirrored in our prison system. Once someone commits a crime, they are then, through the 7th Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, subject to go to trial before a jury. If a jury of the defendant’s “peers” then deems the appropriate punishment for the crime that they are being tried for. The evocation of the death penalty grew very controversial mostly due to that reason. Essentially what was implied is that a human’s life is put into the hands of total strangers who in most cases are only knowledgeable of a minimal section of that person’s life and character. In an editorial research report on the death penalty, written in 1963, Jeanne Kuebler includes a quote by A. Francart on the appeal of capital punishment. “Capital punishment, its opponents insist, is revenge, not deterrence or protection, and as such lessens reverence for the sacredness of human life. ‘The lesson the scaffold always provides,’ Francart wrote, ‘is that human life ceases to be sacred when it is considered useful to suppress it…’” (Kuebler). A key point that Francart makes in his quote is the idea of revenge. Our society views revenge as a readily available convention to utilize whenever they see fit. Revenge, in its simplest form, deals with the notion that we all must become equal. In the ancient Code of Hammurabi this concept is referred to as “An Eye for

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

At the end of the play when Coriolanus lies dead it is largely his own fault (because of him being too proud). Coriolanus continues to show his pride. He says “Twas never my desire to trouble the poor begging”

The culture of a space has a powerful influence on the people inhabiting that space, an influence that alters inhabitants to varying degrees. Through the writings of Kant, Montaigne, and Shakespeare–in particular their works What is Enlightenment?, Of Cannibals, and The Tempest, respectively–this idea of cultural influence is able to take shape. Culture is something that all people carry with them, pieces of places and people they have known and groups to which they have been a member. The natural state of people is twisted by culture until there default worldview is changed as if looking through a bias lens. All people carry with them a view of normalcy that is a product of their environments.