The horrible sound that the narrator hears is actually his own heartbeat, which grows louder, stronger, and quicker as the narrator becomes more thrilled. This explains why, as his adrenaline began to flow moments before murdering, he could hear his own heart yet mistook it for the elderly man's.
It is to be noted that the above story is culled from Tell-Tale Heart.
<h3>
What is Tell-Tale Heart about?</h3>
Edgar Allan Poe's short story "The Tell - Tale Heart" is written in the horror genre.
It depicts murdering someone and then confessing to the police because of a bad conscience.
The purpose of this thesis is to extensively evaluate the narrative, covering its topics as well as literary and rhetorical strategies.
<h3>Who is a narrator?</h3>
The person via whose perspective or paradigm a story is being told is called the narrator.
The narrator could be any of the following types;
- first person
- second person
- third person limited; and
- third person omniscient.
Learn more about narrator:
brainly.com/question/860877
#SPJ1
Answer:
What does the word “whodunit” indicate? The audience does not know the identity of the criminal until the end. The audience knows the identity of the criminal from the beginning. ... Reread this paragraph from “Let 'Em Play God” and use context clues to figure out the meaning of an unfamiliar word.
What does the author most likely mean by “ingredients in a formula” in the passage below? In order to achieve this, one of the necessary ingredients of the formula is a series of plausible situations with people that are real.
Explanation:
Explanation:
Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.
But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.
It is saying to give the definition of the word ambiguous, if that didnt help then you need to ask more clearer.
