1. “HAMLET” BY W.

SHAKESPEARE

In telling the story of a fatally indecisive character’s inability to choose the proper course
to avenge his father’s death, Hamlet explores questions of fate versus free will, whether it is
better to act decisively or let nature take its course, and ultimately if anything we do in our time
on earth makes any difference. Once he learns his uncle has killed his father, Hamlet feels duty-
bound to take decisive action, but he has so many doubts about his situation and even about his
own feelings that he cannot decide what action to take. The conflict that drives the plot
of Hamlet is almost entirely internal: Hamlet wrestles with his own doubt and uncertainty in
search of something he believes strongly enough to act on. The play’s events are side-effects of
this internal struggle. Hamlet’s attempts to gather more evidence of Claudius’s guilt alert
Claudius to Hamlet’s suspicions, and as Hamlet’s internal struggle deepens, he begins to act
impulsively out of frustration, eventually murdering Polonius by mistake. The conflict
of Hamlet is never resolved: Hamlet cannot finally decide what to believe or what action to take.
This lack of resolution makes the ending of Hamlet especially horrifying: nearly all the
characters are dead, but nothing has been solved.
The play’s exposition shows us that Hamlet is in the midst of three crises: his nation is
under attack, his family is falling apart, and he feels deeply unhappy. The Ghost of the old king
of Denmark appears on the castle battlements, and the soldiers who see it believe it must be a
bad omen for the kingdom. They discuss the preparations being made against the threat from the
Norwegian prince, Fortinbras. The next scene deepens our sense that Denmark is in political
crisis, as Claudius prepares a diplomatic strategy to divert the threat from Fortinbras. We also
learn that as far as Hamlet is concerned, his family is in crisis: his father is dead and his mother
has married someone Hamlet disapproves of. Hamlet is also experiencing an internal crisis.
Gertrude and Claudius are worried about his mood, and in his first soliloquy we discover that he
feels suicidal: “O that this too, too sullied flesh would melt”
(II.ii.). Second, he’s worried that the Ghost wasn’t really a ghost but a devil trying to
trick him. He decides he needs more evidence of Claudius’s crime: “I’ll have grounds/More
relative than this”
The play’s falling action deals with the consequences of Polonius’s death. Hamlet is sent
away, Ophelia goes mad and Laertes returns from France to avenge his father’s death. When
Hamlet comes back to Elsinore, he no longer seems to be concerned with revenge, which he
hardly mentions after this point in the play. His internal struggle is not over, however. Now
Hamlet contemplates death, but he is unable to come to any conclusion about the meaning or
purpose of death, or to resign himself to his own death. He is, however, less squeamish about
killing innocent people, and reports to Horatio how he signed the death warrants of Rosencranz
and Guildenstern to save his own life. Claudius and Laertes plot to kill Hamlet, but the plot goes
awry. Gertrude is poisoned by mistake, Laertes and Hamlet are both poisoned, and as he dies
Hamlet finally murders Claudius. Taking his revenge does not end Hamlet’s internal struggle. He
still has lots to say: “If I had time […] O I could tell you— / But let it be” (V.ii.) and he asks
Horatio to tell his story when he is dead. In the final moments of the play the new king,
Fortinbras, agrees with this request: “Let us haste to hear it” (V.ii.). Hamlet’s life is over, but the
struggle to decide the truth about Hamlet and his life is not.
2. “MACHBET” BY W. SHAKESPEARE

Macbeth is a tragedy that tells the story of a soldier whose overriding ambition and thirst
for power cause him to abandon his morals and bring about the near destruction of the kingdom
he seeks to rule. At first, the conflict is between Macbeth and himself, as he debates whether or
not he will violently seize power, and between Macbeth and his wife, as Lady Macbeth urges her
husband toward a course of action he is hesitant to take.
Once Macbeth stops struggling against his ambition, the conflict shifts. It then primarily exists
between Macbeth and the other characters, in particular Banquo and Macduff, who challenge his
authority. Macbeth is the protagonist in the sense that he is the main focus of the narrative and
that audiences frequently have access to his point of view. However, as he often acts against his
own best interests, as well as the best interests of the other characters and his country, he is also
the antagonist. The characters who oppose Macbeth and eventually defeat him do so in order to
restore order and justice.
The play actually opens with the consequences of someone else’s ambition. In the first
scene, audiences hear about the bloody conflict that resulted from the rebellion led by the Thane
of Cawdor. The rebellion foreshadows the consequences of overreaching one’s role. The conflict
is initiated when Macbeth encounters the witches who prophesize that he will become first the
Thane of Cawdor, and then the King of Scotland. As soon as he learns that their first prophecy
has come true, he is awakened to the possibility of the second also being realized. As Macbeth
marvels to himself, “Two truths are told/As happy prologues to the swelling act/ Of the imperial
theme” (1.3.128-130).
In a crucial turning point in the play, Macbeth is faced with a choice: to take decisive action to
claim the crown as his own, or to simply wait and see what happens. Every choice he makes, and
every thing that happens for the rest of the play stem from his decision here. Macbeth feels
ambivalence, as he wants to be king but also knows that he owes Duncan loyalty both “as his
kinsman and as his subject” (1.7.13).
Ultimately, Macbeth’s overreliance on his belief he is fated to be king leads to his
downfall, since he arrogantly misinterprets the witches’ prophecies, believing that they promise
him glory while in fact, the prophecies predict how he will be defeated. While the audience has
long understood that the witches are untrustworthy and up to no good, Macbeth only realizes this
fact when facing his own death. He laments that the witches “palter with us in a double
sense/That keep the word of promise to our ear/And break it to our hope” (5.8.20-22). Although
he blames the witches, his own ambition is equally to blame. He heard what he wanted to hear
and believed what he wanted to believe from the first moment he met the witches.
Yet Macbeth is not entirely unsympathetic, as he had several powerful forces inciting him to
action, and for a long time truly believed he was following his fate. His death resolves the
political and social conflict, since the legitimate king can now return to power and restore order
to Scotland. The play’s brief falling action allows for the promise of a brighter future under
Malcolm’s new reign.
3. “MERCHANT OF VENICE” BY W. SHAKESPEARE

The Merchant of Venice is essentially a play about property: in telling the story of a
merchant who treats his own flesh as property to secure a loan, and the moneylender who calls in
the debt, the play asks questions about the value of life itself. Throughout the play, tangible
objects such as rings and caskets stand in for intangible ideas about love and fidelity. A test
where three suitors must choose between silver, lead, and gold caskets functions to remind
audiences that “all that glisters isn’t gold,” and the true value of life has no financial equivalent.
However, money plays a significant role for most of the characters, for whom financial security
equals independence. Language about penalties, bonds, and forfeitures add to the sense of life
reduced to commercial transactions. The fact that the most avaricious, greedy character in the
play ends up having lost both his physical wealth as well as his daughter and his religion warn
against the dangers of excessive greed. While the play culminates in a trial scene, Portia’s
soliloquy suggests that mercy, or forgiveness, is ultimately more important than legal justice.
The major conflict driving the plot of The Merchant of Venice takes place between
Bassanio, who wants to marry Portia to gain the financial means to pay back his debt to Antonio,
and Shylock, who wants revenge on Antonio for lending money without interest and for his anti-
Semitic insults. Shylock’s desire for revenge on Antonio implies a deeper desire to defend his
humanity and his way of life. During the play’s inciting incident, Bassanio uses Antonio’s credit
to secure a loan from Shylock, binding Antonio to Shylock and making their final confrontation
inevitable. Though the men separate after this incident, the stakes of their conflict are raised
during the rising action of the play. First, Lancelot and then Jessica rob and abandon Shylock in
quick succession, fueling his fury. Next, Bassanio wins the chance to marry Portia in the casket
game, fulfilling his superficial desires for money and marriage and bringing him close to proving
his character by repaying Antonio in money, love, and loyalty. Finally, Antonio’s ships fail to
return, giving Shylock has the opportunity to get his revenge and Bassanio the opportunity to
prove his character by coming to Antonio’s rescue.
The conflict between Bassanio’s desire to redeem his character by proving himself a
loyal friend and Shylock’s desire to defend his humanity by enacting revenge on Antonio comes
to a head in the play’s climactic trial scene. Shylock makes the case for his right to collect his
bond by arguing that he has the same rights as any other hateful character in Venice. But Portia,
disguised as Balthazar, argues that in trying to collect on his loan, Shylock has threatened
Antonio’s life, and therefore broken the law. Not only can Shylock not collect the money he
loaned, he is stripped of his livelihood and religion, signaling that the world of the play will not
accept Shylock’s humanity or his way of life. Bassanio, Portia, Gratiano, Nerissa, Lorenzo, and
Jessica all finish the play happily married and financially secure in Belmont. While the couples
in the play end up happy, Shylock’s punishment seems neither merciful nor just. Not only is he
unable to collect the money he is rightfully owed by Bassanio, he loses the rest of his wealth, his
daughter, and his Jewish faith. While Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have seen Shylock’s
conversion to Christianity as a victory for his immortal soul, Shylock’s forced conversion is
shockingly anti-Semitic and unjust to modern readers.
4. “THE LITTLE PRINCE” BY ANTOINE DE SAINT EXUPERY

The Little Prince draws unflattering portraits of grown-ups as being hopelessly narrow-
minded. In contrast, children come to wisdom through open-mindedness and a willingness to
explore the world around them and within themselves. The main theme of the fable is expressed
in the secret that the fox tells the little prince: “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly:
what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
French- and English-language versions of the novella were published in April 1943
(though the book did not appear in France until 1946). Critics were unsure what to make of The
Little Prince, and it was not immediately popular. It was unclear whether the book was meant for
children or adults, though British writer P.L. Travers said that it had the necessary ingredients for
a children’s book in that “it is true in the most inward sense, it offers no explanations and it has a
moral.” However, the novella ultimately became a beloved classic, its story resonating with
readers of all ages. Saint-Exupéry had little time to enjoy its success. The same month that the
book was published, he joined the Free French Air Force, and in July 1944 he disappeared while
flying a reconnaissance mission, reportedly shot down.
Many critics drew parallels between the characters and events of The Little Prince and
the life of its author, who wrote the book while living in New York City, having fled the turmoil
of World War II in France. Like the narrator, Saint-Exupéry was a pilot who experienced a plane
crash in a desert (Libya). His wife, Consuelo, is also said to have had erratic behaviour similar to
that of the prince’s rose—a parallel further emphasized by Consuelo’s later autobiography, The
Tale of the Rose (written in 1945 and published 2000). Thus, the narrator and little prince have
been viewed as expressions of different aspects of Saint-Exupéry himself. This theory is
explored in the 2018 documentary Invisible Essence: The Little Prince, which also discusses the
work’s themes and legacy.
5. “THE GIFT OF THE MAGI” BY O. HENRY

Many of O. Henry’s short stories – the majority of which stretch to only five or six pages
– are marked by their ironic twists, and ‘The Gift of the Magi’ is a good example of this typical
feature of his work. In their attempts to buy each other their dream Christmas gift, young Jim and
Della end up sacrificing the very things that their presents are designed to complement: the
combs for Della’s (sold) hair, and the chain for Jim’s (sold) watch. As the narrator observes in
the final paragraph:
The magi, as you know, were wise men – wonderfully wise men – who brought gifts to the
Babe in the manger. They invented the art of giving Christmas presents. Being wise, their gifts
were no doubt wise ones, possibly bearing the privilege of exchange in case of duplication. And
here I have lamely related to you the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who
most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house.
But O. Henry is not inviting us to laugh at their folly, but to celebrate their sacrifice.
Indeed, what motivated them was not foolishness but wisdom, as the narrator remarks in the
story’s closing words:
But in a last word to the wise of these days let it be said that of all who give gifts these
two were the wisest. Of all who give and receive gifts, such as they are wisest. Everywhere they
are wisest. They are the magi.
So there are, in a sense, two surprise twists at the end of ‘The Gift of the Magi’: the
trademark plot twist which characterises most of O. Henry’s short stories, and the narratorial
‘twist’ in which he overturns our initial response – which might be to laugh good-naturedly at the
unhappy turn of events which have just been narrated – and makes a moral point that Jim and
Della behaved out of wisdom, even though they ended up with ‘useless’ presents from each
other.
This is all well and good, but it’s worth noting that the narrator doesn’t gloss why he believes
that Jim and Della were ‘wisest’ of all gift-givers. Of course, ‘wise’ here is suggested by the
Magi, the Zoroastrian astrologers who, in the Gospel of Matthew, visited the infant Jesus and
brought him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh: hence the title of the story. But what makes
Jim and Della wise? And why doesn’t O. Henry tell us? Is it because he wanted us to make up
our own minds, or did he assume that the answer was fairly self-explanatory?
The latter seems more likely. For surely the ‘moral’ of ‘The Gift of the Magi’, given its
Christmas setting and the fact that Jim and Della clearly love each other and treat each other well
despite having no money to afford the finer things in life, is that love is more important than
possessions. And when it comes to Christmas and buying gifts for our loved ones, it really is the
thought that counts.
But they are happy about this, not because of the gesture of buying the gift but the great
cost that it has incurred for the other. Love, O. Henry seems to say, is about giving up that which
you most treasure in order to show your beloved – whom you should love even more – the extent
of your devotion. In other words, what is remarkable about ‘The Gift of the Magi’ is that its
moral seems to be not just ‘giving is better than receiving’ but ‘giving and losing is all that
matters’, since what they receive is of no practical use to them.
6. “CANTERBURY TALES” BY GEOFFREY

In The Canterbury Tales, a group of pilgrims traveling to Canterbury Cathedral compete

in a storytelling contest. This overarching plot, or frame, provides a reason for the pilgrims to tell
their stories, which reflect the concerns sparked by the social upheavals of late medieval
England. The General Prologue sets the scene for these societal tensions by introducing a wide
variety of pilgrims from across different social classes. When the Host suggests the storytelling
contest and claims the best storyteller will win a free tavern meal, he incites the plot because this
contest both creates a reason for the pilgrims to tell stories and also places the pilgrims in
competition with each other.
The Knight, who speaks first in accordance with his rank, roots his tale firmly in rigid
courtly sensibilities. However, the Miller insists on going next, disrupting the hierarchy. His
bawdy tale that celebrates adultery contrasts sharply with the courtly love of “The Knight’s
Tale.” The Reeve follows in response to a slight in “The Miller’s Tale,” emphasizing that social
class no longer plays any role in determining the order of the tales.
The subsequent tales often respond to each other thematically, creating dialogues about social
concerns in the Middle Ages. Several tales depict tensions around the changing roles of women,
particularly in regard to marriage. “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” ignites this conflict, using courtly
romance to subvert courtly norms and arguing for female independence. “The Clerk’s Tale” aims
to refute the Wife’s story, asserting that marriage is happiest when the wife is obedient. The
Franklin promotes a middle ground. He describes a devoted young couple who share power in
their marriage.
Other tales in this middle section examine tensions around the role of the church in public
life, particularly given the institution’s prevalent corruption. The Friar tells a story about a
corrupt summoner, while the Summoner describes a friar who, seeking to cheat parishioners of
their money, is himself cheated. Their tales introduce the theme of corrupt church officials
abusing their positions for financial gain while also illustrating the rivalries among different
religious professions. The repeated hypocrisy demonstrated by most of the higher ranking
clerical characters brings up questions about the sincerity of church officials and their prominent
roles in the community.
Ultimately, The Canterbury Tales concludes with no real resolution to the multiple
conflicts it raises and with no conclusion to the storytelling contest. The final tale is told by the
Parson, a generous and honest religious leader who, in lieu of a story, preaches repentance to the
pilgrims, wanting them to remain in good standing with God. Following “The Parson’s Tale,”
Chaucer includes several paragraphs apologizing if his readers did not like parts of The
Canterbury Tales and retracting any sexual or violent content that offended rigid church
morality.
Because Chaucer maintains a wry tone throughout, it’s difficult to tell whether Chaucer means
for “The Parson’s Tale” and his own subsequent Retraction to be received sincerely or as a satire
of religious performances. Nevertheless, the fact that The Canterbury Tales ends with a call for
individual repentance of wrongdoing suggests that there is no collective resolution for the
conflicts introduced throughout the tales. Rather, as Chaucer writes his own Retraction, so
people are individually responsible for navigating the tensions among class, gender, and religion,
ultimately determining their own courses of action.
7. “THE NECKLACE” BY GUY MAUPASSANT

As writer in 19th-century France, Maupassant writes in a style called Literary Realism.

The clearest example of this style comes in the final third of the story, when he describes the
poor, working lives of the Loisels. Maupassant contrasts this with the almost romantic
description of the party that the Loisels attend, at which Mathilde wore the titular necklace.
As gender played an important role in 19th-century French society, so too does it in "The
Necklace." Women of the middle and upper classes did not work, instead being taken care of by
their husbands. Thus, many of the Loisels’ problems involve money. Not only is Mme. Loisel
bitter about her inability to improve her social class, but the Loisels also value different things,
with those values mapping along gender lines. When invited to the party, Mme. Loisel begins to
weep, asking her husband to lend her the money for a new dress, as clothing and jewelry were
especially important indicators of status for women. In contrast, M. Loisel thinks to himself that
he had wanted to save that money to buy a new gun, a manly pursuit that he could have used to
bond with male friends and relax from his busy work schedule.
Beauty is treated in "The Necklace" at times as objective and at times as quite subjective,
dependent on social class. On one hand, Maupassant writes that beauty was the way women
could advance their place in society. On the other hand, Mme. Loisel sees Mme. Forestier's
necklace as beautiful largely because of its supposed worth and the social capital it provides. At
the party, it is said that Mme. Loisel felt and looked quite beautiful, and that many men desired
to dance with her. In this case, the reader must ask whether this is because of her natural beauty,
the upper-class attire she was able to acquire for the event, or perhaps simply her confidence
from her clothing.
Until the end of the story, Mme. Loisel is not presented as a particularly likeable or sympathetic
character. One example of Mme. Loisel's flaws comes when the couple has just gotten home
from the party: Mme. Loisel says, "I have--I have--I no longer have Mrs. Forestier's
necklace."(p.35) In this moment, it seems that she is trying, even in her panicked state, not to
take the blame of what has happened, refusing to admit that she lost the necklace.
In setting up the eventual irony in one of his classic twist endings, Maupassant is careful
to write that the necklace "seemed to them exactly like the one they had lost"(p.36). This is not
enough to alert the reader to the eventual irony, but it points to the couple's inability to tell the
two necklaces apart precisely because they were not accustomed to lavish jewelry. This in turn
raises the question of whether Mme. Forestier would have recognized the substitution; though
she does not let on that she recognizes any difference upon seeing the replacement for the first
time and seems genuinely surprised when she hears Mme. Loisel's tale after ten years, it is
suspicious that a woman of a higher class would not be able to tell the difference.
Finally, the fact that the characters never find out what happened to the necklace points
toward the randomness of life and importance of circumstance. As Maupassant writes, "How
would it have been if she had not lost that necklace? Who knows? Who knows? How singular is
life, and how full of changes! How small a thing will ruin or save one!"(p.37) This moral of the
story may be seen as a critique of the importance of social class, since the story demonstrates that
a simple accident or circumstance forced upon a person (since the necklace could have been
stolen purposefully) can doom a person to a completely different way of life. At the same time,
Maupassant demonstrates that social class does not correlate to happiness, as Mme. Loisel seems
more content in her life and her marriage when in the poor class than when behaving either as a
middle- or upper-class woman.

TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT

OF LITERATURE

ANALYSIS
MIDTERM FINAL TASK

SUBMITTED BY: NOR-AIZA E. SAHI

BSED – 2B

SUBMITTED TO: GERALD L. MARCHAN

INSTRUCTOR