Okay, so I am not going to write this whole thing for you, however I will compare and contrast the two.
Lady Macbeth
She really wants her husband to carry out the murders bc she is thirsty to be queen
Macbeth
Kinda hesitant to do it, questions if he can but let's his wife persuade him into doing it. After murdering Duncan, Macbeth kinda freaks out and leaves the daggers in Duncan's room and Lady Macbeth has to go back and fix her hubby's mistake
A would be the best answer
The author characterizes the narrator as a man who was strongly shaken by everything he witnessed in Africa.
This can be seen because:
- The book's narrator, Marlow, is very excited to participate in the journey to colonize Africa.
- This excitement is created by a strong influence of the setting where he finds himself.
- This scenario is a prosperous Europe, due to strong colonization.
- However, the narrator's excitement ends when he arrives in Africa.
- The setting in Africa is very different from the setting in Europe.
- In Africa, the narrator interacts with a scenario of poverty, exploitation, violence, devaluation, and decadence, all created by European colonizers.
- The narrator is very shaken by this scenario and shows himself to be a physically and mentally ill man. He becomes weak, distraught, and unable to act normally.
This change in narrator characterization is very significant for "Heart of Darkness." This is because the author wanted to present an anti-colonial story, as he wanted to show that all people involved in colonialism and imperialism were negatively affected.
More information on the link:
brainly.com/question/11250938?referrer=searchResults
brainly.com/question/23717254?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
With great risk may come great reward.
Explanation:
According to the book "Saving Tobe", there is a conflict as Tobe almost loses his life by drowning but he is rescued in the nick of time.
His father Step feels he didn't do enough because he wasn't the one to save his son, but in the end, it was down to the bravery of Serafin which saved his life.
This proves the theme that with great risk comes great reward.
The poet described about the kill of the Element is given below.
Explanation:
In the 1920s a young would-be poet, an ex-Etonian named Eric Blair, arrived as a Burma Police recruit and was posted to several places, culminating in Moulmein. Here he was accused of killing a timber company elephant, the chief of police saying he was a disgrace to Eton. Blair resigned while back in England on leave, and published several books under his assumed name, George Orwell.
In 1936 these were followed by what he called a “sketch” describing how, and more importantly why, he had killed a runaway elephant during his time in Moulmein, today known as Mawlamyine. By this time Orwell was highly regarded, and many were reluctant to accept that he had indeed killed an elephant. Six years later, however, a cashiered Burma Police captain named Herbert Robinson published a memoir in which he reported young Eric Blair (whom he called “the poet”) as saying back in the 1920s that he wanted to kill an elephant.
All the same, doubt has persisted among Orwell’s biographers. Neither Bernard Crick nor DJ Taylor believe he killed an elephant, Crick suggesting that he was merely influenced by a fashionable genre that blurred the line between fiction and autobiography.
To me, Orwell’s description of the great creature’s heartbreakingly slow death suggests an acute awareness of wrongdoing, as do his repeated protests: “I had no intention of shooting the elephant… I did not in the least want to shoot him … I did not want to shoot the elephant.” Though Orwell shifts the blame on to the imperialist system, I think the poet did shoot the elephant. But read the sketch and decide for yourself.
