Summary Of Zooman And The Sign

How can you tell if a “bad guy”--the villain, the monster, the thief--is necessarily a bad guy? Is it by the images they choose to ink on their skin? Their crooked smile, or maybe perhaps the way they like to crack their knuckles? Maybe it’s just their attire: it’s too dark, too scary. And what of their eyes? There’s something there...something about the way they’re placed, something about how they flicker and gleam with every mention of what they desire. But what of their feelings? The ever-circling wheels of emotions from deep inside that manage to control the raging tides of life? Do they not care like we do?

An example of a “good” people would be, a well respected family in town with the last name Nurse. Both Rebecca and Francis Nurse were kind hearted citizens who always gave a helping hand to other people in the village. Not one bad thing circled around their name. In the end of the play, Rebecca Nurse was accused of witchcraft and because of the goodness of her heart and love for God, did not falsely confess to the acts of witchcraft. She was portrayed as a good hearted character throughout the entire play. On the other hand, Reverend Parris was considered to be one of the “evil” characters for the main reason that he was a man concerned with his position and reputation in the community. Those in a position of power, were greatly interested in perpetuating the power of the court and the church. Parris refused to listen to any opposing views even though he knew that falsely accusing folks of witchcraft was wrongful and unjust of him. The “grey” median between “good and evil” would be described as the character Proctor. He was also a well respected man in the town of Salem who committed the crime of adultery, causing himself damnation for “evil” doings. Although Proctor ends up blackening his name by confessing, he releases his sins and becomes “good” once again. As stated before, the difference between “good and evil” isn’t a black and white

Good and evil have existed since the beginning of mankind. Good defends the righteous, as evil has been bent on destruction. In today’s society, many people believe that good will always triumph over evil. The murderer will eventually be caught by the police; the carjacker will one day meet his doom; the superhero will defeat the evil villain. Simply, in some circumstances, this is not entirely true. Good does not always prevail over evil. This is exceptionally true in the movie No Country for Old Men by the Coen brothers. The dominant theme in the Coen brother’s movie is evil.

There is no doubt that the popularity of the anti-hero as we know it has increased in recent times. With unlikely, yet popular moral gray protagonists like Jack Bauer, Dexter, and Gregory House leading some of the most popular TV shows and characters like James Bond, Lisbeth Salander, Tyler Durden (from Fight Club), and Jack Sparrow being some of the most memorable in movies, it is not surprising that there has been an increased interest to understand what causes this characters to be so popular (Peter Jonason in et al., 193). What is it that makes them as likeable, if not more, than a normal hero? How come we relate to characters that perform actions that, if done in real life, would cause us to see them in a whole different light?

Good versus Evil is an important concept. Evil sometimes overcomes our good but never exceeds good. The difference between evil and good is that good is an ability to have empathy and compassion towards other people. Evil is people who are selfish, self-absorbed and don’t have empathy towards others. Literature plays a vital role in developing concepts of good and evil and effectively portrays the morals of its time period. In the novels Dracula and The Strange Case of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the authors explore the human nature of good and evil in men from different perspectives of Dracula, Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll.

In exploring the mechanisms of the code of the street, questions of why this code exists in the first place naturally arise. One answer to this question is legal cynicism, the belief that “the law and the agents of its enforcement, such as the police and courts, are…illegitimate, unresponsive, and ill equipped to ensure public safety.” (“Code of the Street” 8) To this end, Anderson notes, “In many working-class and impoverished black communities today, particularly as faith in the criminal justice system erodes, social behavior in public is organized around the code of the streets. Feeling they cannot depend on the police and other civil authorities to protect them from danger, residents often take personal responsibility for their security.” (257). Residents of inner cities see police officers less as public servants and more as agents of militant disruption. For example, in the fourth episode of The Wire, Herc and Carver aggressively enter the home of Bodie’s grandmother in search of the young Barksdale member, swearing, with guns drawn. Earlier on the first season, Detective Prez is observed by residents of “the towers” brutally punching a young black teen in the eye, leaving him blinded, simply for making a smart comment to the officers. Considering scenes like these, in conjunction with real cases like the death of

THEME: The line between good and evil is sometimes unclear, and as a result, people often think that they are doing the right thing when it is actually the wrong action, and vice versa.

The underlying themes or principles of good and evil are fed to us at young ages, through stories,other means of media, or even our parents. Each and every one of us has a role model we look up to or admire as the hero in our metaphorical storybook of our life. This person embodies who we want to become later in life or even at that particular moment in our lives. These idols we place on a pedestal, change throughout life, and these changes in who we look up to form our personalities and the way we perceive life. The person I currently look up to as a hero is Chris Ulmer, due to his passion, humility and his ability to be open minded.

Many people often meet different characters in literature and in life that they admire or despise. They conclude if those characters are good or evil and at the same time they reflect on the choices and responsibilities that those characters have. From The Chocolate War I admire Roland Goubert or The Goober based on his actions. I despise Archie Costello (The Assigner of The Vigils) because of the choices that he made and also because of his actions.

In modern media violence is worshiped and the hero is not always a law abiding citizen. The anti-hero is becoming increasingly popular. Many anti-heroes are criminals. Writers have the ability to have their audience fall in love and care about an anti-hero. Looking up to these anti-heroes might have some devastating affects on society.

A force of good is necessary to counterbalance evil to create at least a sense of justice in the world. Hercule Poirot provides the simple counterpoint for the evil of all the murders committed throughout Agatha Christie's series. Although it is the way Poirot makes a living as an inspector, he is genuinely concerned about unearthing the truth and helping the victims and their families find closure. Ancillary characters, like Kenneth in Evil Under the Sun, do not necessarily represent the force of good so much as they are neutral players.

Differentiating between good and bad is often difficult when it seems that there is a necessary evil to obtain a specific outcome. Over the course of English 1302 the class has read several short stories, poems and even a play that have all had different plots and characters involved. While these diverse articles appear to have little in common there is a constant underlying theme to most of them. Regardless of if the story pertained to a village stoning, a murderous wife, an endearing husband, or a young teenage girl there remains a persistent dismissal of misguided actions or words that are justified to be the means to some sort of end. In “The Lottery”, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”, “My Mistress’ Eyes Are Nothing Like The Sun”, and “Trifles” the authors reject the idea of right and wrong and instead focus on the complications and contradictions found in good and evil.

Good and evil is an ever present feature of human history. Their presence is reflected through the ages in tales of great heroism and extraordinary villainy. Such tales provides insight into human nature, whether they involve two people or two thousand. The essence of heroism and villainy are found in deeds rather than in numbers. It is the deeds that pique our interest and lead us to wonder what prompts a man or woman to perform such acts.

As you watch a movie or go to a play the actions of the actors is to bring the audience into the performance. “In literature, an antagonist is a character or a group of characters which stand in opposition to the protagonist or the main character. The term antagonist comes from Greek word “antagonistēs” that means opponent, competitor or rival” (Antagonist - Examples and Definition of Antagonist, 2013). Good verse Evil is always a key point to most Marvel or DC comic’s movies of today. Even in real life with rising kids its good parent verse bad parent? My kids don’t want mom calling me saying that they are behaving bad,

The fact that American Westerns end up all the way in Afikpo, Nigeria (even if their showing is on behalf of a greedy American tobacco company) perhaps speaks to the universality of these themes we grow up with. For some, like Elvis, the reinforcement of good versus evil began in church; “these films showed another aspect of that eternal war Father Macgettrick told them was being fought daily between the fallen angels led by Lucifer and the army of Christ” (149). There is a sense good and evil cannot mix – rather than believe John Wayne or Actor are both complex, morally ambiguous characters, when either one acts in a way that complicates their original archetypes, the archetypes just swap; “Dr. No could change from Actor to John Wayne…and James Bond could become Actor” (147). Yet, while this seems to speak to a strict good