Compare and Contrast To Kill a Mockingbird and Macbeth
In literature, "evil often triumphs but never conquers."(Joseph Roux) A triumph is only short- term, for example, something short- term would be an achieved title, a victory in a battle, or a winner in a game. These three things are only temporary, as triumphs usually are in novels. When something is conquered, it remains conquered permanently. Usually the evil force is unable to conquer, because of the opposite side's mentality. Because of these definitions, this statement is showing that even though evil characters or actions prevail in battles or events, the feat would not last forever, especially in the hearts and minds of the opposite side. I agree with this statement because there is proof that this is true in novels that I have read. Many novels have this common theme: good versus evil. This theme is shown in two works, Macbeth and To Kill A Mockingbird. Macbeth is a tragic play about a man who lusted after power, stole the throne of Scotland from the rightful Prince Malcolm, and threw the country into chaos throughout his evil reign. In the end, his own greed and guilt consumed him. Ironically, at the beginning of the play, Macbeth has everything going for him. This is an example of situational irony, because the audience sees him acquiring all of this power very rapidly, and would not expect that he would lose it all in the end. Macbeth, manipulated and encouraged by his own wife, murders King Duncan in order to seize the throne for himself. The stolen crown gives him no satisfaction, for he is riddled with guilt over the murder and fear of being discovered. All of these foul things Macbeth does to gain the throne are considered to be evil triumphs, which fuels his greed even more. In his own mind, he faces serious internal conflict, seeing these triumphs as not enough, because he wants to achieve absolute power. The climax of the play is at the banquet scene, when Macbeth can no longer hide his...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document