Answer:
No, none that I am aware of. In Shakespeare’s time, a tragedy meant that the main character falls from fortune to disaster, normally because of a flaw or fate. Obviously, other characters may be unharmed, or may even benefit from the protagonist’s downfall. I’m not writing to make fun of other posters, but we could as easily call the Matrix a tragedy because Agent Smith loses, or say that Titanic has a happy ending for coffin salesmen. Yes, Macduff or Fortinbras do well at the end of their plays, but they are not the protagonists.
For that reason, because a pre-modern tragedy definitionally means that the hero falls, and that’s what happens in Shakespeare’s plays, I’d say no. There are “problem” plays such as the Merchant of Venice, where the opposite happens—a comedy has a partly sad ending, with Shylock’s defeat—but again, it’s all in what the protagonist does, and Antonio (the merchant) wins at its close when his ships return
<span>The word choice suggests
that the narrator sensed a disturbing feeling from the wallpaper figure’s
movements. The narrator has distinguished the pattern to be that of a woman
wanting to be free. She related herself with this woman and believed that she
is also trapped.</span>
Answer:
(B)
Explanation:
People have learned to ski, kayak, and run marathons with their prosthetic limbs is the correct answer.
Away from the bullet, I would assume...
