How far can we say that "All My Sons" is a tragedy?

It isn't a tragedy because:

• personally, i feel no sympathy for Joe or the Kellers after Joe's death.
• because Joe has continued such a serious lie, he has caused pain for many people, therefore deserves whatever happens to him.
• there is no resolution: joe takes the easy way out by committing suicide.

It is a tragedy because:

• two suicides occur during the play, Joe and Larry Keller, and their deaths are caused by each other.
• pain is caused throughout the play, mainly caused by Joe.
• common themes within Greek tragedy that feature in this play: justice (or lack of), sudden realisation, disguise, the role of women...

I agree to an extent that 'All My Sons' is a tragedy due to above reasons, however, I think that the characterisation of Joe Keller makes it impossible for me to feel sympathy for him or his actions.

Great Gatsby, part 2

Chapter Five.

- Nick wants friend, not acquaintance for money

- knocking over clock is symbolic; knocks over time just as he tries to recreate his past with Daisy

- Gatsby lying about how he got his money?

- Dialogue used to show true characters instead of Nick's interpretation.

- Daisy misses Gatsby?

- Gatsby represents both corrupted and uncorrupted American Dream; his corrupted dream is motivated by his love for Daisy

- References to time used as story telling device

- theme of dreams: Gatsby dreams for love with daisy. American Dream.

- ideology: American Dream doesn't make Gatsby happy

- The colour green is used many times; represents everything that haunts and beckons Gatsby, his dreams and the distance between him and Daisy.

- Daisy appears harsher, and appears to be more in love with money than anything else.

- Nick is more vulnerable: he wants a friend. lonely?

- Gatsby appears flamboyant with his money. he doesn't realise Daisy has changed.

Chapter Six.

- language at the start is fierce

- boat represents dreams: looking up to them and having them taken away

- jealousy is romanticised

- chapter opens with rumours about Gatsby

- balance of charatcers

Great Gatsby

Chapter One and Two.

- the reliability of the narrator is brought into question immediately because the story opens with Nick saying how he was taught not to judge people, yet he tells the readers about his opinions on Gatsby. Nick also goes off on tangents throughout the narrative.

- Many references to status and money; main theme running through the novel. Maybe Nick wants to build himself up to the reader, more importance.

- Description is used throughout these chapters as a story telling device; make an impact on the reader.

- Use of past tense is used for story telling device; novel not in chronological order, Nick goes off on tangents which means that the timing can't be linear.

- Introduction of Nick and Daisy: Daisy gets given a full description so she seems more important. However, Nick knows and tells the reader that she is fake, but he still likes the attention. Tom might be seen as irrelevant to the reader due to his almost dismissive introduction from Nick. Nick appears to be opposite to Tom.

- Relationships between Daisy & Nick and Daisy & Tom brought to reader's attention.

- Asterisk used to change focus to Jordan.

- Huge focus on setting.

Chapter Three.

- use of colours; relating to senses.

- references to upper-class

- distinction between classes in each chapter

- each paragraph refers to difference sense

- historical context; liquor prohibition

- references to real people: stereotyping the guests

- Gatsby longing for Daisy; trying to buy class to be good enough for Daisy

- Rumours about Gatsby; why is Gatsby absent from party?

- Money doesn't make you happy

- Reader still unaware of who Gatsby really is

- Car accident used as foreshadowing

Chapter Four.

- Gatsby's parties; imagery

- time period not linear

- new side to Gatsby; took Nick to 'dodgy neighbourhood'

- Gatsby's garden; dream like imagery

- Daisy lying on bed, ideology. New side to her character

Narrative passed onto Jordan because Nick doesn't have all the information. Makes Nick look more reliable, however, reliability of Jordan is questioned

- Revelation, story unfolds. Depth of Gatsby feelings are unclear

My thoughts on Nick Carraway...

1. i think that his status, whether newly aquired or not, is very important to him. This is apparant as he brings it up several times throughout the opening chapter.
"all the people in the world haven't had the advantages that you've had." and Carraway talking about his graduation from Yale is to me, a direct reference to that fact that because his family have money, they have more choices and ways to expand with life.

2. as Maud pointed out, the reliability of the narrator must be put to question. he opens by saying how he isn't judgemental at all, but then goes onto say "Gatsby turned out all right..." which shows that he obviously does judge people. I also think that the fact that his family are "new money" makes his perception of the world slightly warped.

3. he doesn't seem to show much emotion, is there a reason for this? i don't know.

My Essay Question.

To what extent does the character Hamlet conform to the conventions of a tragic hero?

Is Fortinbras right in his speech at the end of the play?

Fortinbras' speech about Hamlet's character being proud, noble warrior is wrong because though he did avenge his Father's death by killing Claudius, Hamlet took a long time to do so. However I think that the fact that it is Hamlet's 'enemy' as it were saying all of these complimentray things shows that even though they have had their differences, Fortinbras can see what Hamlet is truly like as a person.

In addition to this, the audience know about the flaws of Hamlet's character, and therefore may not entirely agree with what Fortinbras was saying. The audience are given both sides to Hamlet's character throughout the play and are therefore the most likely to be able to make a fair judgement about whether or not Hamlet should be considered a hero.

In my opinion, Hamlet shouldn't be considered a hero from his actions throughout the play: although he did kill the man who murdered his father, it took him so long that I, as an audience member, lost sight of why he did all the things he had (e.g. pretend to be mad, put on the play, flash Ophelia, ect...). I would have definitely considered him much more of a hero if he had just killed Claudius at the first opputunity no matter what ther people may think as this would have shown courage and bravery... whereas I view his character as cowardly.

Hamlet, Act Two and Three.

Hamlet takes fake madness to the next level (and by next, i mean like a make believe level that only insane people know about) by flashing Ophelia. But then, seeing as they slept together, why is she so shocked that he is acting in such a sexual manner? maybe he just wants a bit more, understandably. Along with this portrayal of madness, there is also a (in my opinion) brilliant portrayal of intelligence and cunning when he tells the actors to put on a play showing how he thinks his father's death happened, which happens just after the internationally-known "to be or not to be" speech.

Opinions on this speech vary about what he is actually contemplating, whether it is suicide or existence ... i don't have a real opinion, or any clarity about what he is talking about really... but he seems to be quite a developed, "deep" character

In my opinion, for someone who is suppose to be insane, his soliloquy is a bit too insightful and profound; this shows the audience yet another sign that he may just be faking insanity as a cunning plan to unveil King Claudius as the true killer of his father,

Hamlet also creates another plan to unveil King Claudius as a murderer by setting up a play showing what he believes happened when his father was murdered, and then tells Horatio to watch the King for a reaction that could only be caused by over-whelming guilt. At last, Hamlet is actually doing something, and it actually works; King Claudius hastily leaves, ending the play. He then creates a plan of retaliation with Polonius, deciding that Polonius will spy on Hamlet when he talks to the Queen. As Hamlet is on his way to speak to the Queen, he sees Claudius knelt down on the floor... perfect chance to kill him, no? No. He realises that he is praying, and thinks that if he is killed during prayer, he will go straight to heaven: Hamlet thinks this is unfair because firstly, he doesn't deserve to go to heaven after the antics he's been up to, and secondly, why should he go to heaven while King Hamlet is stuck in limbo?

However, it turns out the Claudius doesn't think his prayers are being heard, and that he won't get into heaven. Basically, if Hamlet wasn't so cowardly and indecisive, he could have avenged his fathers death long ago. Simple.