(in)correct, in meaning not in (latin or greek)
1. First, Shakespeare wrote his plays in blank verse featuring iambic
pentameter because that was the style of the day. Think of it as a way
for an author to show off--and it really is quite impressive if one
thinks about it. There are very few authors who can create characters
and plots as rich as Shakespeare's and write their lines in a consistent
meter.
2. Secondly (I think that this might be what you are asking), when
Shakespeare's characters speak in verse (iambic pentameter), they are
usually the noble (aristocratic) characters, and their speech represents
their high culture and position in society. If you simply look at one
of Shakespeare's plays, you can often tell when the commoners are
speaking because their lines will go from margin to margin (this is
true, too, of nobles who are acting like commoners--whether they're
involved in evil schemes, losing their minds, or are drunk!). In
contrast, Shakespeare's other characters' lines should sound and look
different to you--they should sound "sing-songy" and should look like
poetry with uneven lengths.
A good example of this is from Othello. When Iago is speaking to his
peers or to those in position of authority over them, his speech is in
verse, but when he is plotting and talking to Roderigo (especially at
the play's beginning), his lines are not in iambic pentameter--this
represents the bawdy nature of his speech and, in truth, the baseness of
his character.
The answer is c. Your welcome
Answer:
When Orwell relates his experience with the elephant in “Shooting an Elephant” it gives some insight into his own psyche as well as the structure of imperialism. In this moment, he criticizes imperialism, showing that the leaders are controlled by the masses just as much as, if not more so than, the other way around.
He describes himself as being despised by the Burmese people. He is a colonial policeman, and in this role, he is associated with imperial British rule, propped up by the threat of force. (Orwell himself served in the Indian imperial police for a time, so the narrator's voice is likely his own.) When the elephant tears through the bazaar, killing a coolie, the Burmese crowd demands that he shoot and kill it. He does not want to do this, because by the time he arrives on the scene, the elephant has calmed, and no longer poses a threat to anybody. Orwell reflects that, in order to appease the angry crowd, he has to fill the role that they expect of him, which is that of a hated "tyrant." This is the paradoxical nature of empire- he must compromise his morality, become what the Burmese people already think he is, or risk their laughter and scorn. For someone that has already determined that he hates British imperialism, the incident is profoundly unsettling, but in a "roundabout way enlightening." It underscores the duality of empire, a world in which a man like Orwell can, as he says in the account, hold remarkably contradictory feelings:
The incident illustrates that, whatever objections they may have to British rule, imperial officials have to be hated to be respected.
Explanation:
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
The first word is capitalized, as well as the proper nouns such as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre ,and Humphrey Bogart.
