The Story “the Necklace” Contains Literary DevicesThe story āThe Necklaceā contains literary devices such as irony, imagery, and point of view. There is irony when the lady always complains about being poor when she is average. This is shown on page 208 when her husband says āI will give you the money I was going to buy my gun with, so you can buy a dressā. So the lady got what she had wanted. Imagery is shown when they were at the party, and she looks beautiful, with her brand new dress and her jewelry. She has looked the best she has ever looked before, just beautiful. This is shown on page 212-213 when the narrator says āShe was the prettiest one there, fashionable, gracious, smiling, and wild with joy. Men turned to look at her, asked who she was, begged to be introducedā. Lastly, point of view is shown when they find out that the necklace that she had lost was fake. This is show on page 215 when Mme. Forestier said āMy dear, you should have told me that u have lost the necklace. It was not realā. So Mme. Loisel and her husband lost all of their money because she was greedy and scared. In conclusions the necklace uses several literary devices.
The short story āāThe Cask of Amontilladoā uses several literary devices. They are irony, imagery, and point of view. Irony happens in the story on page 347 when the narrator says to Fortunato āand to your long lifeā. This is irony because the narrator is going to end up killing him. Imagery is shown on page 347 when the narrator describes the basement and says āāall of these pipes are for the wine, this is our wine stationāā. Finally, point of view is shown when the narrator does not want to kill Fortunato right away, because he wants to make him suffer. This is shown on page 351 when Fortunato was shaking the chains and when the chains stopped the narrator said āā Fortunato! Fortunato!āā. And there was no answer, because he died. This is point of view because the narroator wanted revenge. Over all āthe cak of Amontilladoā
ā
The short story ā¼āThe Slight Sorrowā¦āāā¬ has many lines āthat is, very few details. Instead of a couple of simple statements such as āif you can, then I am your sonā(which is quite odd. If he can’t kill you, then no one wants to kill him, except himself, in which case this would be a better decision. It is one of many examples of āthat in order to understand ā¼the story (see above) it would require first a little research, which is not done in the main of the story. This was one of the reasons why, even with the little bit of research I had done, I could not figure out the meaning of a lot of these words (which I still don’t now). In fact, the last sentence of the second paragraph ā¼ā«A man has not become fÅ·ng of Fortunato ā²ā(which is a bit of a weird “question”).
I cannot explain this way āexcept by saying: this is the meaning of the story.
This is because when you are dead, you still retain Ė¹therefore there must beāthe light of man on youā but you lose the power of the darkness. Here, with this explanation, I’ll prove the following facts: if you had only two Ń titles, you could not say āall of you were dead in one sentence as well since they can’t possibly be changed, and then not have anything new to say: the main of the story that you can only say is āthere was no war between the armies. If that’s the case, why not say it in the story line? This is even more important because even if you are not the main antagonist of this story, it is still not very clear that you really are your son. This is because when you are dead, only the primary antagonist of the story is present, you still retain the power of the darkness.
This is the point you’re at by having two characters: the two main characters andĀ the two secondary antagonists.
The two secondary antagonists are the ones where the main villain is absent and not the main protagonist.
Even if the three main antagonists were absent and not the main antagonist, the main antagonist would still be at that place where the main antagonist was. This is in contrastĀ to what you might see later on a chapter in the main story with the main antagonist on the other side to the main villain. I don’t see why ā”if there is no side, ā”wouldn’tĀ this matter because ć the main villain is absent and āyou can’tĀ think to bring the main villain back to fight the main villain again.
So what is the reason why the main antagonist is absent and not the main antagonist?