The Mask of Innocence Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, produces a ‘new’ Macbeth toward the middle of the book. Macbeth, in his violent and bloody killing spree, ends up killing people ranging from the king, Duncan to his best friend, Banquo, and many others. While doing so, Macbeth, in order not to be suspicious must wear a ‘mask.’ To hid the real, guilty Macbeth and show an innocent, grieving man, who luckily becomes king through all the blood shed of good people. “There is nothing that gives more assurance than a mask.” Collette said this in 1966. And it proves itself to be true in Macbeth. As it does in Fences, by August Wilson, there is also another ‘mask’ that is formed to make someone think that you are innocent but you are really the dirty serpent underneath. In Fences, Troy, a father with 1 son and and faithful wife, uses a mask to make himself to become unsuseptable to suspicion. Troy ends up cheating on his wife with a woman neighbor. When Troy comes home he feels that he must cover up the guilt and start acting extra sweet to his loving wife.
The same mask is applied to both Macbeth and Fences. They are both used to cover up guilty consciences and obvious points that are going to come out now that the deed has been done. The mask will assure Macbeth and Troy that they will not be caught, because they are hiding the real them, the guilty them. And when you take away the guilty side all you have left is the innocent side. And the innocent siding will influence other peoples thoughts and views on them and brainwash them into believing they are not guilty. This will assure Troy and Macbeth that no one will see beyond the mask. This quote by Collette, is in my mind absolutely true. It may not be the correct thing to do but it will get the job done and make everyone believe that everything is normal. Except when the woman neighbor starts ‘’showing” and the king starts seeing ghosts. One single, straight-faced, man or woman can become anything they want to be if they act it. If they make the acting seem like its real. And that will give the assurance that know one will know the truth, the real you.
Hound Of The Baskervilles Essay, Research Paper
The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is an excellent book, and one of the best mysteries I have ever read. Holmes, the superhuman detective, is asked to investigate the death of Charles Baskerville, which many believe to be the work of the ferocious hound, a curse brought about by the misdeeds of Hugo Baskerville. When Sir Henry inherits the estate, Holmes must solve the mystery before another Baskerville meets his end.
The Hound of the Baskervilles novel has one of the most complex plots of any mystery, with many unexpected twists, and is one that will keep you reading until its suspenseful, engrossing climax. Particularly pleasing and illuminating is the light it sheds on late Victorian sensibilities, particularly in areas, which are now deemed to be, to put it delicately, highly charged. The setting is also well put together, and the danger of the foggy moor only adds to the drama. The way Holmes acts is a further addition to the suspense and atmosphere of the novel.
Upon meeting Sherlock Holmes Dr. Mortimer says, “I had hardly expected so dolichocephalic a skull or such well-marked supra-orbital development. Would you have any objection to my running my finger along your parental fissure?…I confess that I covet your skull.” I never expected such an exemplary example of early anthropological practice in Doyle, because at the time, anthropologists didn’t study the culture of native peoples, they wanted their skulls. Likewise the ladder of evolution is applied to races and classes (blacks, the poor, and criminals are presumed to be closer to animals, and ‘empirical’ evidence proves this). Sir Arthur Conyan Doyle is not necessarily an avid follower of such theories, despite costs incurred to so-called racial inferiors, but his books give a wonderful slice of late 19th century sensibilities. Those who are historically minded should find Doyle, and this book in particular, to be of extreme interest. In it one can see racial science applied ‘rationally’ and to effect by its practitioners in good faith and innocence.
This story had huge appeal for me, largely because of the believability of the characters. Holmes, Watson, and Henry are very realistic – and people that I would want to know. Holmes was so real to many readers that they actually wrote to 221 Baker Street, his fictional address. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was not only a great mystery writer, but a wonderful novelist as well. This novel is proof that he really deserved the title of knight.
In sum, the book is entertaining, well written, and most famous. It will be of interest to any interested in crime fiction, mysteries, literary history, “racial-science”, racism, the history of science, and the history of culture and sensibility. “The Hound” is a microcosm of actions and thoughts current at the time of its inception.
2.1 The Queer Feet
2.2 The Hammer of God
2.3 The Sins of Prince Saradine
3 The Innocence of Father Brown
3.1 Comparison of the three stories
3.2 Striking Elements in “The Innocence of Father Brown”
4 Father Brown
4.1 Characterisation of Father Brown
4.2 Father Brown in “The Innocence of Father Brown”
5 The title “The Innocence of Father Brown”1 Introduction
Gilbert Keith Chesterton started writing when he was still very young. He published hundreds of books and essays. His work consists of novels, short stories, poems and biographies.
But today he is only known for his Father Brown stories and they are also the most widely read stories of all Chesterton’s writing. Furthermore, they are the form of art in which he was most successful. You can call them his masterpiece. The Father Brown Stories consist of five books. Two of them are pre-War. They “constitute a fascinating summary of Chesterton practising what he preached” (Hunter 1983, p.140).
The first book of the Father Brown Stories is “The Innocence of Father Brown” consisting of twelve stories dealing with Father Brown. Then there is the “The Wisdom of Father Brown”, “The Incredulity of Father Brown”, “The Secret of Father Brown” and “The Scandal of Father Brown”.
All these books were published between 1911 and 1935.
In my work I will concentrate on the first collection of Father Brown Stories, “The Innocence of Father Brown” which was published in 1911 and was dedicated to Chesterton’s old friend Waldo D’Avigdor and his wife Mildred.
From this collection I chose three stories (“The Queer Feet”, “The Hammer of God” and “The Sins of Prince Saradine”).
I will give a summary of them and then I will compare them to find out differences or what is the same. After that I will talk about some striking elements in “The Innocence of Father Brown”.
As Father Brown is the only character that counts in the Father Brown Stories I will characterise him and later on write of his attitudes and role in this book. With the help of what I found out, I will try to explain the title of “The Innocence of Father Brown”.2 Summaries 2.1 The Queer Feet
The story “The Queer Feet” deals with Flambeau wanting to steal the silverware of the members of the Twelve True Fishermen having their annual club dinner at Vernon Hotel.
The Vernon Hotel is an exclusive hotel and a “topsy-turvy product” (Chesterton 1994, p.51). It only opens Thursday and only 24 people can dine there.
One of the 15 waiters of the Vernon Hotel whose owner is a Jew named Lever has been struck down with a paralytic stroke. Father Brown has been sent to the hotel for confession. After confession Father Brown asks for a room and writing material.
The room is between the office and the cloakroom without another outlet. Furthermore, there is no light. While writing the last and essential part of his document, Father Brown hears some strange footsteps consisting of a long rush of rapid little steps and at a certain point they stop and change “to a sort of slow, swinging stamp” (Chesterton 1994, p.56). Father Brown starts thinking of what that can be. Suddenly he has an idea. It is a “very strong, active man, in still yet tearing excitement” (Chesterton 1994, p.59).
Father Brown flings down his paper and goes back into the cloakroom on the other side. A man standing outside the cloak room in the corridor wants to have his coat. Father Brown gives it to him. Then the man says that he has not got any silver and gives him a half sovereign. In that moment Father Brown loses his head and finds out that the man called Flambeau has made these strange noises. Father Brown tells him that he is ready for confession.
When the Twelve Fishermen have taken their seats it is the custom for all fifteen waiters to stand in a line at the wall. The first to two courses of the dinner proceed with success. For the fish course the Twelve True Fishermen take their special fish knives and forks and celebrate the pudding as if it costs as much as their silver fork. This ritual finishes with the remark of the young duke that they cannot do it anywhere but there.
A waiter enters the room and suddenly stops. The guests know that something is going wrong because the waiter is going something unexpected and they want it to be over. Mr Lever tells the guests that he has sent a waiter to take the plates away, but the waiter has found them already away. The colonel wants to know if all waiters are there. The young duke answers that he has seen all fifteen waiters. But Mr Lever tells them that today there are only fourteen waiters as one of them has died. So the fifteenth waiter has to be a thief.
Suddenly, the sixth waiter enters the room declaring that he has found the pile of fish plates but without the silver. So the crowd of diners and attendants start searching it. Colonel Pound, the chairman and the vice-president run down the corridor leading to the servants’ quarters. They pass a man and the duke asks him if he has seen anybody. Father Brown does not answer the question directly but shows him the silver. First, the colonel thinks that Father Brown has stolen the silver. Father Brown tells him that he has not stolen it and then starts telling him how everything happened.
The crime has been “built on the plain that a gentleman’s evening dress is the same as a waiter’s” (Chesterton 1994, p.70). The rest has been acting. Furthermore, the criminal has not hidden in dark corners where one would have searched for a suspicious person. Every time he came among the guests he came “in the lightening style of a waiter, with bent head, flapping napkin and lying feet” (Chesterton 1994, p.71). When he was together with the waiters he became another man and it had nothing special that a guest was running around there. The most difficult situation was when all waiters stood in a row.
Father does not tell the colonel who the criminal is and what he has done to him. Then the colonel suggests wearing green coats instead of black ones to prevent confusion.2.2 The Hammer of God
The story “The Hammer of God” deals with the murder of Norman Bohun, the elderly brother of Wilfrid Bohun, being murdered by a hammer.
After daybreak Wilfrid Bohun meets his brother just fishing his day. Wilfrid Bohun is very devout and seems to live for nothing but his religion. His brother is the opposite of him.
Meeting him he asks if he is afraid of thunderbolts and Norman shows him his head which is lined within with steel. Wilfrid Bohun realizes that it is from a trophy that hung in the old family hall. Then, he turns and goes into the church “with bowed head, crossing himself like one who wishes to be quit of an unclean spirit” (Chesterton 1994, p.116). When the curate enters the church he sees “Mad Joe”, the village idiot and nephew of the blacksmith, praying. As Joe leaves the church, Bohun sees how his brother throws pennies at his open mouth and he tries to hit it. This ugly picture shows him to his prayers and new thoughts. He goes to a pew in the gallery under the coloured window which he loves very much.
Half an hour later Gibbs, the village cobbler, arrives to tell him that he has to follow him because his brother is dead. His brother has been murdered by an incredible blow with a hammer. First, they think that it has been Simeon Barnes, the blacksmith. But he has been to Greenford. Father Brown looks at the hammer and thinks that such a strong man would not use such a small hammer. The doctor thinks that it could be a woman but Father Brown says that a woman cannot smash “a man’s skull out flat like that” (Chesterton 1994, p.124) because of physical impossibility. Wilfrid Bohun says that it has been the idiot. But he is a priest and a priest should not bring anyone to the gallows. Father Brown knows that it has not been the idiot.
The blacksmith tells them that Norman Bohun has died alone and that he has not murdered him as his hammer has no wings to fly half a mile. Then, Father Brown wants to go with Bohun to his church. They go to the balcony outside the building from which one can see the illimitable plain. Father Brown says that it is very dangerous to stand on these high places and to pray there. “Heights are made to be looked at, not to be looked from” (Chesterton 1994, p.130).
Then Father Brown tells Bohun that he knows what he has done. When he left his brother he was in such a rage that he took the small hammer. He did the hammer under his coat and prayed wildly in many places. Suddenly something snapped in his soul and “let God’s thunderbolt fall” (Chesterton 1994, p.132).
After that Father Brown says that he has to do the next step and that he leaves things to him because he has not got wrong very far. Then, they go down the stairs and Wilfrid Bohun admits that he has killed his brother.
Excerpt out of 14 pages - scroll topTitle Chesterton's "The Innocence of Father Brown" Course The Detective Story Inside and Outside the Classroom Author
Summary: Discusses major themes in the William Golding novel, Lord of the Flies. Considers the loss of innocence experienced by the boys. Describes how Golding is able to continuously convey throughout the book that the innocence of the boys is severely diminishing.
There are many themes evident in Lord Of The Flies by William Golding. One of the most evident themes in the novel would be loss of innocence. It is continuously conveyed throughout the book that the innocence of the boys is severely diminishing. The existence of civilization is essential to keep the innocence and legitimacy of man from "escaping." Due to the lack of civilization throughout The Lord of The Flies the boys become progressively cruel and primitive revealing the true nature of man.
The loss of innocence is evident in most characters of The Lord of The Flies. The spar between Jack and Ralph appears to be constantly stirring. It occurs in the begging of the novel with the election of Ralph as chief all the way to the hunting of pigs. It seems that all Jack wants to do is hunt and kill even before they.
This section contains 469 words
(approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page)
I'm trying to shorten this up from 1600 to about 1200 words without losing content, and cleaning it up a little. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
With an opening line that reads much like a modern day movie critic's review, Renée Curry's article Construction of Innocence begins by citing the promotional tagline that accompanied the movie it seeks to discuss. The movie is a "chilling investigation" of two potential murder suspects, Randall Adams and David Harris, the former of which has been wrongly convicted of "cold-blooded murder" of a police officer. Can the "boundaries of justice" possibly hope to rectify the situation and reverse the judicial decision? From there however, it deals a truthful but crushing blow by stating the singular word that would instantly turn away a significant percentage of the movie-going public: documentary. It is with this disregard for merely placating the common viewer that Curry moves forward to delve deeper into the film and explore the interrogation techniques that construct the innocence of one character and the lack thereof in another. Throughout her piece, Curry details three major methods that Morris employs to accomplish this task including both the use of visual and auditory cues in the context of language, and most importantly, the use of a blank slate, or the notion that the viewer's mind is barren and void of all biasing implications that were previously assigned in the context of society. It is only through the interweaving of these three themes that Morris successfully creates a web of innocence and sets Randall Adams free.
Unlike other academic papers, Curry does not focus on providing a detailed summary of the events that unfolded on the night of the shooting of a Dallas police officer. Instead, she uses only one paragraph to specify the assertions made by each of the two men potentially responsible for the murder. This is in stark contrast to Morris's style of building knowledge. Whereas Morris expects the audience to enter into the story with a blank slate Curry hopes for the exact opposite, relying on prior knowledge of the case to guide readers through the opening paragraphs and into her main claims. As a replacement for this lack of formal summary, she details the techniques Errol Morris used in the film to construct Randall Adam's innocence. Citing verbal monologues and newspaper graphics, psychologically triggering images and sounds, Curry blends the numerous steps undertaken to encourage an audience belief of Adam's innocence. It is then the reader's job to sort through the examples and place them neatly into the three categories (visual, auditory, and blankness) that Curry has created. Before she is able to do address these claims however, she must first introduce the man behind the lens himself: Errol Morris.
With a brief introduction to his two previous documentaries, Curry immediately points out that attention to storytelling through auditory and visual cues is a trademark of Errol Morris and not just seen in The Thin Blue Line. She contrasts Morris's work in this film however, by noting that it "detours with a deliberate linearity by interjecting anecdotes, fantastical images, and dead-on shots" (Pg154). Morris clearly employs the use of strategically placed visual cues and auditory signals throughout the film. By utilizing visual prompts and reminders, otherwise referred to as 'film language' by Curry, he is able to keep the audience slightly biased towards the innocence of Adams while the rest of the tale is allowed to unfold before them. Curry argues that 'film language' in this documentary encompasses everything from the tone of Adam's voice, his usage of wording, and his clean-shaven appearance. It takes all of these qualities working in tandem to contribute to the positive audience opinion of Adams. In short, Morris works to create the appearance that Adams is nothing more and nothing less than the average Joe. It was through use of this same language that Morris was able to construction a questioning, even slightly negative, view of David Harris. For as Curry emphasizes, it easier to trust this clean-shaven and average portrayal of Adams than it is to trust this smirking, suspicious, and newly adult depiction of Harris. It is only at this point when both Morris and Curry have exhausted all innocent qualities of Randall Adams that they must introduce carefully selected secondary characters into the script.
While not the first person introduced in the film, the first individual Renée Curry chooses to bring up is Adams' lawyer Edith James. It is through the introduction of a person of law that allows Morris as Curry states to "use a personalized law language as well as cinematic apparatus to persuade others of the innocence that both he and Edith James perceive as the truth about Randall Adams" (Pg158). This use of dual language, both legal and familiar, is mirrored by a use of dual principles, both cinematic and documentary, to present a multi-faceted view of innocence on the screen. It is this multi-sided look at innocence that is warranted to provide the strength needed to combat the pressures mounting against Adams. As Morris details and Curry reiterates, there was near insurmountable pressure to find this cop-killer and to find him fast. She stresses that while David Harris may have had enough priors to cause suspicion, he was also a mere 'child' and this fact alone was enough to deflect that doubt.
The final nail in the coffin for Harris, and resultantly the final unbolted latch of Adam's cell, has been evident throughout the entire documentary. It comes from the notion of self-reflexivity that Morris so cleverly utilizes by constructing a blank slate in the viewer's mind, void from all social context and constraint. It is important that in order to successfully prove innocence, Morris must first make sure that there are no underlying assumptions of guilt. Instead of providing his viewing public with a perfect reenactment of the crime scene with all the details from the start, he muddles the waters and allows the audience to learn the facts according to him and at his pacing. One important ploy of this is the 'empty-interview' style that is a staple throughout the documentary. While the interviewer is not heard or seen during the entire sequence, Morris's presence is still realized through the empty space that is a result of the interviewee being set back from the camera and at eye-level. In this way, it is as though he is interactively controlling each question and response despite his lack of immediate presence on film. Curry is then quick to assert that just as one might view the documentary as not being completely objective and dedicated to providing only the facts, many of those 'observers' were also not objective when providing information that helped convict an innocent man. By learning only what Morris has selectively given to the viewer, it becomes easier to craft a tale of innocence by building it piece by piece, word by word.
Curry methodically describes Morris's use of extreme close-ups of ink-jet printed photographs and single word statements in order to demonstrate how public opinion can be visually constructed. It is only when these single words are coupled to form sentences and these sentences coupled to form a story that we see the power these seemingly harmless black dots hold. It is at this point that the audience has been transformed from viewers watching with empty minds void of all damaging preconceived notions to individual detectives invested in analyzing each new piece of evidence whether seen or heard.
With all of the facts sufficiently laid out in plain view, Curry finally moves forward to discuss the concluding moments of the documentary. She carefully details the lack of visual imagery in the tape-recorder scene, as well as the multitude of visual angles on that single stationary object. This is in stark contrast to the rest of techniques used by the documentary to prove innocence. Instead of filling the viewer with additional auditory and visual cues, Morris lets the simple wording and the single object filled frame to 'speak' for itself. The stage has been set and while the audience may not be steadfast in their acceptance of Adams' innocence they are no longer hounding and pressing for his guilt. This is in direct appeal to the notions of self-reflexivity in the film. The opinions, belief, and judgments that are formed both before and during the film are expressed in relation to a larger cultural context that is steadfast in its values. Morris has taken those beliefs that were once constructed and formed by society at large and forced them to be malleable, so that they can be reformed and reshaped throughout the course of his documentary. In this fashion, each viewer was turned into a blank slate, void of societal notions, and able to be written upon anew as Morris sees fit. All of this is actualized and realized during the tape-recorder scene when a viewer is finished with the malleable stage and is now able to construct their own beliefs and opinions within Morris' not society's context.
Despite her multiple citing of various and varied examples, Curry is quick to state that it takes each of these techniques working in tandem to ultimately provide the stable backdrop needed for Morris to construct his web of innocence. For once the foundation for the audience beliefs are set, the larger scene upon which self-reflexivity is set, it becomes possible to construct the desired view upon them, namely that of Adams innocence. It is through his use of both visual 'language' and auditory speech that Morris is able to 'prove' the innocence of Randall Adams and consequently the guilt of David Harris. In so doing, Errol Morris has accomplished what Adams story had spurred him to do and in turn helped to set free a supposedly 'innocent' man.
shofa_nefertete Threads: 12
Author: Walter Evans Lasula