Prufrock is a tragic hero because we get the sense that he is in on some secret that no one else knows ( his "overwhelming question") but his lack of self-worth prevents him from asking it. He constantly says that there is "time enough", but the last few stanzas allude to time slipping by and Prufrock slipping into senility while the "overwhelming question" is left behind. (We know this because of the contrast between the questions "Do I dare disturb the universe?" and "Do I dare eat a peach?")
At the time of it's release in the 1960's, it was a horror movie. Today it would be considered suspense or murder mystery.
He doesnt have a tragic flaw. Read aristotles view of tragedy in "Aristotles poetics" and you can see that there is no such thing as a tragic flaw. It is a simple miss-judgment of the character in which he can change, but may choose not too.
Alfred Hitchcock lived from 13 August 1899 - 29 April 1980. He died from kidney failure at the age of 80.
Tragic flaw is a concept derived from Aristotle's poetics which was extremely popular in the 19th century and still has currency among schoolteachers who use older textbooks. The idea is this: Tragedies have to have tragic heroes, main characters who have something bad happen to them. We have to sympathize with the tragic heroes, or otherwise we would conclude that they deserve what they get. But it is unfair to God to say that bad things happen to people because, well, they happen that way. We have to say that bad things happen to people because they have something wrong with them. This need to point a moralistic finger means that although we might think that the tragic hero is mostly good, there is something wrong with him. This "something wrong" is called a "tragic flaw". The need to find these permanent flaws in people's characters has driven students to distraction trying to find some quality in the hero they can deplore and say "There! That's why the bad things happened to him."
Haha i would probably say that it is not very helpfull not teing the tone so u can figure it out yourself
To provide an appropriate completion for the analogy from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," I would need the specific excerpt you're referring to. If you share that excerpt, I can help identify the best line to complete the analogy.
your dad's house is ugly. that's what a herois . okay/ good (:
Alfred Nobel would be 183 years old today.
At the time of it's release in the 1960's, it was a horror movie. Today it would be considered suspense or murder mystery.
This excerpt is from T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." The speaker is reflecting on whether pursuing a romantic relationship would have been worth it, considering the mundane and trivial aspects of life that come after. It conveys a sense of hesitation and uncertainty about taking a chance on love.
The opposite would be the rarely-used form "tragical" or more commonly "tragic." Other antonyms would be serious, unfunny, sad, or unfortunate.
'Lord Alfred' would indicate noble birth. Tennyson was promoted into the peerage. 'Lord Tennyson' would also be a correct usage in his case.
Matthew realized, lying in the hospital bed, that driving drunk and crashing into a tree would have tragic consequences for him, for the rest of his life.
that would be tragic
In the resolution period of Freytag's Pyramid, a reader would learn about the effects of a tragic hero's fall.
alfred packer didnt really eat people he killed bell because bell came after alfred with a hatchet so alfred shot him and ate the meat or he would starve to deth
Arthur Miller would say that a typical working man or woman would make the best tragic hero for a modern play and a modern audience.