In Chapter Three, Nick describes one of Gatsby's parties from afar, and then from the position of a guest.
To begin with, he describes the scene from the porch of his house in an "other-worldly" kind of sense. He uses the phrases "yellow cocktail music" which could imply, with the use of synthesisia, that it is a happy, golden place, as the colour yellow has connotations of joy.
The man met in the library of Gatsby's house originally appears to have as little real significance as the eyes of the oculist peering over the valley, but ole Owl Eyes could be compared to this sign, as he seems only ever present when immoral things are happening, such as the party, in which many of the people there are intoxicated beyond wildest dreams. This novel was written when prohibition was still going, in 1922, meaning that all the alcohol at the party was illegal. Owl eyes also appears when Gatsby and Daisy are rekindling their adulterous romance, which is not only against good morals but marital vows as well.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
TGG Chapter Two
In chapter two, Nick and Tom go to meet Myrtle, Tom's mistress.
The beginning of the novel talks about the eyes of an optician's sign, who has moved to Queens.
These eyes are recurrent throughout the novel, and are often described when evil or immoral things are happening, for example here when Tom goes off to the garage to meet Myrtle, with whom he is cheating on Daisy. This could mean that they symbolise the eyes of an omniprescence, staring down upon anyone who crosses their path, be they high or low in society.
The barren landscape this sign is set in can be interpreted in a few ways. The first is that it could represent the contrast between the lives of those living in the valley and the lives of those living in West Egg. Those in the valley have little entertainment and are separated from the dazzling lights of New York, where those in West Egg can afford to throw lavish parties with crates upon crates of oranges and lemons and booze. This may be why Myrtle, when confronted with Tom and his lashings of money, throws the biggest party she possibly can, inviting all her friends and acting as though she is of a higher class than she is when dressed in her dowdy dresses in the valley.
There is a comparison that can be made between Daisy and Myrtle in that they are both named after flowers, yet are so very different. Daisy is groomed and beautiful, with what seems to be no imperfections or flaws other than her insatiable appetite for attention, whereas Myrtle is a climber plant, that grips on to anything she can to make herself higher in the eyes of society.
When Tom breaks Myrtle's nose, there is little description of it from our unreliable and rather scatty narrator. He simply states it in a sentence, even though he goes into great detail about tiny little things like pictures on walls and the disintergrating biscuit in the dogbowl. This may have been meant by Fitzgerald to emphasise the moment, as it is not disguised in the waffle of Nick's normal storytelling. However, it could also be that this is the only really clear moment in the evening, as it is the most dramatic, but also because Nick is so drunk that he can only really remember the truly important detail, rather than tiny little ones.
The issue on whether or not Nick is gay is not a very important issue, as it isn't one that influences the plot in any way, but there is possibly evidence in this chapter to suggest that he possibly is. There is a moment towards the end of the chapter where Nick remembers in a drunken fog a man in his underwear. There is no evidence to disprove that Nick is gay, as the frequent affairs with women could be lies or over-compensating, seeing as how Nick has only proved to be an untrustworthy source of information, something considerably annoying in a novel.
The beginning of the novel talks about the eyes of an optician's sign, who has moved to Queens.
These eyes are recurrent throughout the novel, and are often described when evil or immoral things are happening, for example here when Tom goes off to the garage to meet Myrtle, with whom he is cheating on Daisy. This could mean that they symbolise the eyes of an omniprescence, staring down upon anyone who crosses their path, be they high or low in society.
There is a comparison that can be made between Daisy and Myrtle in that they are both named after flowers, yet are so very different. Daisy is groomed and beautiful, with what seems to be no imperfections or flaws other than her insatiable appetite for attention, whereas Myrtle is a climber plant, that grips on to anything she can to make herself higher in the eyes of society.
When Tom breaks Myrtle's nose, there is little description of it from our unreliable and rather scatty narrator. He simply states it in a sentence, even though he goes into great detail about tiny little things like pictures on walls and the disintergrating biscuit in the dogbowl. This may have been meant by Fitzgerald to emphasise the moment, as it is not disguised in the waffle of Nick's normal storytelling. However, it could also be that this is the only really clear moment in the evening, as it is the most dramatic, but also because Nick is so drunk that he can only really remember the truly important detail, rather than tiny little ones.
The issue on whether or not Nick is gay is not a very important issue, as it isn't one that influences the plot in any way, but there is possibly evidence in this chapter to suggest that he possibly is. There is a moment towards the end of the chapter where Nick remembers in a drunken fog a man in his underwear. There is no evidence to disprove that Nick is gay, as the frequent affairs with women could be lies or over-compensating, seeing as how Nick has only proved to be an untrustworthy source of information, something considerably annoying in a novel.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Ophelia's Role in the Tragedy, attempt one.five
In the play Hamlet, the role of Ophelia can be overlooked. On the outside, she seems like a character who is put in by the playwright simply for background. However, this is not so. Ophelia has a very large role in the play in several main ways.
The first of these ways is that she is a tool for Hamlet's use throughout. Chronologically speaking, the first time he begins to use her is for sex. On the exterior, there appears to be no evidence of this within the play, and therefore many people may think I'm talking nonsense. However, on a close analysis of Ophelia's singing in Act four, scene five, it appears that her father's warnings in Act One came much too late. Ophelia sings of being spurned by Hamlet just moments after they had had sex. Her words “To-morrow is Saint Valentine's day, All in the morning betime, And I a maid at your window, To be your Valentine. Then up he rose, and donn'd his clothes, And dupp'd the chamber-door;” suggest in no uncertain terms that, sometime in February, probably Valentine's Day, Hamlet made love to Ophelia, then swiftly got up from the bed, redressed, and left the room without a word. This shows Ophelia as a tool for Hamlet's gain as no self-respecting woman in the time of Shakespeare would have had sex with a man without coercing or a promise of marriage, it being seen as important that women remain virginal until the time of marriage. This idea of a promise or betrothal continues as she continues singing. “Quoth she, before you tumbled me, You promised me to wed. So would I ha' done, by yonder sun, An thou hadst not come to my bed.” seems to suggest that Hamlet did indeed promise to marry her before he 'tumbled' her, as she puts it, but then, after they have rolled in the hay, she goes to him, possibly a few days after they did it, and asks after the wedding. As an answer to this, she is told that actually, he would have married her if she was still a virgin. This meant that, even though she thought she was securing her future, because Hamlet is two-faced she has actually ruined all hope of ever getting married.
More evidence to support the fact that this happened is shown in Act Three, when Hamlet says to Ophelia “Get thee to a nunnery”. Whilst this might be to get her out of the way whilst Hamlet has his justice (as he has promised us since Act One), it is most likely to be because Ophelia is entirely likely to be pregnant, owing to the either lack or complete absence of contraception during Shakespearean times. Nunneries would take in pregnant girls from rich families back then, and so would have taken her in, looked after her during her pregnancy, and then converted her to a nun after the birth. Previous to this, there is further evidence, even before Ophelia's singing, that he has spurned her.
HAMLET : You should not have believed me; for virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of it: I loved you not.
OPHELIA: I was the more deceived.
HAMLET : You should not have believed me; for virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of it: I loved you not.
OPHELIA: I was the more deceived.
This implies that there was something Hamlet told Ophelia something that she shouldn't have believed, to do with her virtue and Hamlet's family (“our old stock”). This, if applied to the theory that Hamlet and Ophelia fornicated, then this could be Hamlet telling Ophelia that he never loved her because, whilst virginity won't continue the royal line, it's something relished upon and desired in a wife. Ophelia's answer shows her realising that she was used purely for sex, and she didn't really mean anything to Hamlet whatsoever.
It is not only Hamlet, however, who uses her as a tool. Her own father also does as much, with King Claudius going along with the idea. When they are trying to figure out whether or not Hamlet has truly gone mad, they plant Ophelia as bait in a hall, and secret themselves behind curtains so that they can spy on the events taking place. This application of Ophelia as general dogsbody shows that Polonius and Claudius have little concern for what may happen to her. Considering the fact that Hamlet has already been physical with her, grabbing her wrist in a moment described in Act Two, the fact that Ophelia's father doesn't seem to worry for her safety as she is left alone portrays her as someone considered more of an object than a person, strengthening the point that Ophelia is included in the play possibly just for the use of others.
It is possible that with these scenes, Shakespeare intended to make the audience feel affection and sympathy for her, as she is bashed about from abusive relationship to abusive relationship, be it between she and Hamlet or she and Polonius. On the other hand, Shakespeare may himself only be using Ophelia as a tool. Without her occasional input, the plot falls apart and the final scene may never have come about. For example, if we consider the fact that it is only declaring love for the departed Ophelia at her funeral that reveals Hamlet to Laertes et al, allowing Laertes to challenge Hamlet to the duel that ends in the death of the entire Danish royal family.
He might also be using her to portray another side of Hamlet. If we are to believe what Ophelia sings in Act Four, Hamlet promises her marriage if she goes to bed with him, then tells her he cannot marry her because she is no longer a virgin. Shakespeare could here be showing us that Hamlet is already two-faced and possibly scared of committing. This might then indicate that the reason Hamlet decided to fake madness after learning of the murder of his father, rather than doing what would then have been considered just, which would have been killing Claudius.
Shakespeare could be using her to heighten the tragedy as well. The main moments that influence how she ends are not shown within the acting, simply spoken about later. This increases the tragedy because Ophelia is simply being overlooked by the playwright at times when she is frightened, or her character is being developed the most. To extend this her perhaps most defining moment, that in which she and Hamlet make love to each other, can be missed out entirely by watching audiences because the language in which she describes it is ambiguous and can be put purely on the ravings of a madwoman.
Another role for Ophelia in the play is that of a whole tragedy unto herself. Evidence of this is displayed throughout. We begin when she seems to be at her prime, a beautiful young woman with a prince as a boyfriend. This swiftly goes downhill, when said boyfriend begins to display signs of madness, and playing her on. For example, in the beginning of act three, she is cast aside by Hamlet, who tells her to “get thee to a nunnery” and that he never loved her. Later on, within the same act, he has his head in her lap, making innuendo and flirtation. This already is making her life distinctly harder, but when Hamlet mercilessly slaughters through a curtain in the same day, it appears that she is sent utterly insane with this as the final nail in the coffin of her sanity. Possibly even the final nail in her own coffin, as not long later she is drowned without any way to tell if it was accidental or suicide. This way of going, long and drawn out, could be considered something of a prolonged tragic scream. This particular scream stretches over several acts until it is silenced.
She also has a role in that she adds to Hamlet's tragedy. By spurning her ("get thee to a nunnery" act three, and also the apparent earlier spurning as made apparent in Ophelia's madness songs), he is getting rid of the one woman he loves, as he does love her, which we find out when he discovers her dead and leaps into her grave in Act Five. This adds to his tragedy as well as her own because, if he was really in love with her, Hamlet may have thought that it was possible to redeem himself in her eyes after he has killed his uncle in revenge. He may even have wanted to marry her, as he says “Be buried quick with her, and so will I” indicating that he doesn't want to continue living without her, and would much rather be buried along with her.
In conclusion, Ophelia's role in tragedy could seem to an outsider one that is basic and even a side story to the main plot. When looked at with hindsight, she can be seen as a major role with many levels. Saying this, it is my belief that her main role is one of a tool for the use of others, as this is how she appears most frequently. In fact, she only really appears of her own accord, and not at the direction of a family member, once she has lost all her inhibitions and madness has become her master.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
My Mind Map Plan, But Translated To Don Language.
(My apologies for hideous typos, wireless keyboard running low on batteries)
Key for highlightednessnosity
Vague notes
Adding to H's pain
H forced to cast her aside
She thinks ill of him (innuendo, nunnery)
Why is she there?
Princes of Hamlet's age require heirs - shows H's life going well until occurances of play?
Tool for H (Trousers, nunnery, play, grave fighting)
Tragic element in herself (life going well, boyf goes nuts, boyf kills dad, she goes mad, kills self either accidentally or on purpose yet real intentions questionable as of madness)
Used by all (sex, madness, investigation, excuse to duel)
What was Shakey thinking?
Sex before act 1 - Wants to look like average castle or like they had a chance of being together?
Shows no major moments in Ophy's life - Not seeing heightens imagination of events, increasing tragedy? - Invisibility of women?
Intro
In my opinion, two main questions to ask r.e. Ophelia's role.
Why is she there?
How is she adding to Hamlet's pain?
Q. can be answered by analysing each section she is in in each scene
Para one,
Act one,
Brother leaves, leaving Ophy without main source of protection
Dad forbids her to go near H - Tragic in itself, as they may be in love, or she may be up the duff.
She's there because it provides H with element of life already going down tube, love is lower class etc.
Heightens pain simply by existing. ( I know what I mean)
Para two, act two
Trousers scene. - Ophy quite traumatised.
She's stopped writing to him.
Trousers scene traumatising maybe because she knows is improper, is shocked to see he who she is avoiding, rejects him again.
She's there as is being used as a tool by H, main reason she is there, really, just a tool used, very topical as women's rights were rubbishy back then. Women used for babbies and no more!!
Causes H pain because he may be in love with her and she rejects over and over
Para three, act three
Nunneryism - Ophy cast aside, used again but by father (supposed protector) and kingy.
Play - H uses innuendos and the like just after he casts her away, head in lap, seems like he is undecided, confusing her into insanity? (Not literally, though probably cause in long run)
H kills her dad.
There again as a tool; by rejecting then taking Ophy back, H seems more mad, maybe giving into desires.
ADding to H's pain, seems "cool" about him not being around, if he loves her that would sting.
Para 4, act 4, longest para tbh
Boyf chops up dad's body, hints at hiding in food.
Singing -
-Sex
-With H
-H gets up and leaves
-Death
-Own?
-Love?
-H?
-Polonius?
Drowns -
-Traigc as just had found happiness (be it also madness)
-Playing
-Eventual innocence and joy.
-Wreaths of flowers
-Funeral tradition!!
-Knew was dying, therefore?
-Childlike, daisy chains etc.
-Allows self to die
-Slips from willow tree, apt as weeping willow
-Preggers, then?
-Singing
-Knew/ignorant to danger?
Why is she there? Entire act is great big massive tragic scream for her.
H's pain? Not much atm, but when he comes back he's gonna be pretty upset his girlfriend's dead, having been driven mad by him pretending to be mad. (yes yes, debateable.)
Para five, act five
Debated if she should be buried in church, as suicide poss.
H ignorant
H discovers death in very insensitive manner, jumps in grave in despair.
Ophy's death possibly used to intitiate duel. Could mean she is being used as tool AGAIN. Also could mean indirectly causes death of pretty much everyone but Horatio and Osrick. (And some Norwegians, but really, they just turn up at the last bit and are of little to no real consequence).
Conclusion.
Ophy's role is to be used, as women were, as a tool for men to get what they want, and could be classed in herself, in my opinion, a tragic device (literally!!)
Key for highlightednessnosity
Act One
Act Two
Act Three
Act Four
Act FiveVague notes
Adding to H's pain
H forced to cast her aside
Already lower class
Maybe pregnantShe thinks ill of him (innuendo, nunnery)
Why is she there?
Princes of Hamlet's age require heirs - shows H's life going well until occurances of play?
Tool for H (Trousers, nunnery, play, grave fighting)
Tragic element in herself (life going well, boyf goes nuts, boyf kills dad, she goes mad, kills self either accidentally or on purpose yet real intentions questionable as of madness)
Used by all (sex, madness, investigation, excuse to duel)
What was Shakey thinking?
Sex before act 1 - Wants to look like average castle or like they had a chance of being together?
Shows no major moments in Ophy's life - Not seeing heightens imagination of events, increasing tragedy? - Invisibility of women?
Intro
In my opinion, two main questions to ask r.e. Ophelia's role.
Why is she there?
How is she adding to Hamlet's pain?
Q. can be answered by analysing each section she is in in each scene
Para one,
Act one,
Brother leaves, leaving Ophy without main source of protection
Dad forbids her to go near H - Tragic in itself, as they may be in love, or she may be up the duff.
She's there because it provides H with element of life already going down tube, love is lower class etc.
Heightens pain simply by existing. ( I know what I mean)
Para two, act two
Trousers scene. - Ophy quite traumatised.
She's stopped writing to him.
Trousers scene traumatising maybe because she knows is improper, is shocked to see he who she is avoiding, rejects him again.
She's there as is being used as a tool by H, main reason she is there, really, just a tool used, very topical as women's rights were rubbishy back then. Women used for babbies and no more!!
Causes H pain because he may be in love with her and she rejects over and over
Para three, act three
Nunneryism - Ophy cast aside, used again but by father (supposed protector) and kingy.
Play - H uses innuendos and the like just after he casts her away, head in lap, seems like he is undecided, confusing her into insanity? (Not literally, though probably cause in long run)
H kills her dad.
There again as a tool; by rejecting then taking Ophy back, H seems more mad, maybe giving into desires.
ADding to H's pain, seems "cool" about him not being around, if he loves her that would sting.
Para 4, act 4, longest para tbh
Boyf chops up dad's body, hints at hiding in food.
Singing -
-Sex
-With H
-H gets up and leaves
-Death
-Own?
-Love?
-H?
-Polonius?
Drowns -
-Traigc as just had found happiness (be it also madness)
-Playing
-Eventual innocence and joy.
-Wreaths of flowers
-Funeral tradition!!
-Knew was dying, therefore?
-Childlike, daisy chains etc.
-Allows self to die
-Slips from willow tree, apt as weeping willow
-Preggers, then?
-Singing
-Knew/ignorant to danger?
Why is she there? Entire act is great big massive tragic scream for her.
H's pain? Not much atm, but when he comes back he's gonna be pretty upset his girlfriend's dead, having been driven mad by him pretending to be mad. (yes yes, debateable.)
Para five, act five
Debated if she should be buried in church, as suicide poss.
H ignorant
H discovers death in very insensitive manner, jumps in grave in despair.
Ophy's death possibly used to intitiate duel. Could mean she is being used as tool AGAIN. Also could mean indirectly causes death of pretty much everyone but Horatio and Osrick. (And some Norwegians, but really, they just turn up at the last bit and are of little to no real consequence).
Conclusion.
Ophy's role is to be used, as women were, as a tool for men to get what they want, and could be classed in herself, in my opinion, a tragic device (literally!!)
Monday, November 15, 2010
A Personal Opinion on Nick Carroway
(Why Don? You know I'll only rant!)
From the first few pages of the novel, already I am taking a deep disliking to Nick.
It is not because he has money, or can go to an Ivy League college, or because he seems like an intelligent man.
It's because he is already starting to grate on me in that he seems obsessed about class and status and exactly what he did over the last few years of his life.
I'll be honest, I already read the rest of the novel, and the feeling I get from the first chapter in that he is basically just a messenger is only excacerbated by the fact that really, he seems to be lacking in any kind of personality.
All I can get from these few pages is that he has money, and he does banking, and he's practically in love with this man Gatsby.
Bankers. Ugh. So very boring. And completely and entirely inconsequential.
I would be fascinated by this character if something interesting had happened to him. He was in the Great War, so why are we not told of some enormous achievement from during his time in France?
He moved across the country, so surely something more interesting than meeting a fellow who asked him directions happened to him? Please?
Honestly, he is just a blank canvas to me at the moment. Dull, and barely there.
And really, if the most exciting encounter he had with another human being was "Do you know the way to the West Egg?" then he has clearly not travelled far enough, and should try Mexico or something. Maybe Canada.
I honestly think very little than general dislike for him.
"Yes, I went to New Haven, but people are bores". CLEARLY you are not listening to the people, Nick. People are fascinating. People have stories about wars and murders and bombs and stuff!! LISTEN TO THEM. If you don't have any interesting stories of your own to tell, you could at least have told us some of the initimate secrets divulged to you.
"I'm going to be a banker." Oh dear. Money stuff, for a man whose family have enough money to support him without a job for a whole year. People like him make me feel fairly ill at ease with the world.
In conclusion, for the first few pages of The Great Gatsby, I have not been endeared to Nick Carroway.
From the first few pages of the novel, already I am taking a deep disliking to Nick.
It is not because he has money, or can go to an Ivy League college, or because he seems like an intelligent man.
It's because he is already starting to grate on me in that he seems obsessed about class and status and exactly what he did over the last few years of his life.
I'll be honest, I already read the rest of the novel, and the feeling I get from the first chapter in that he is basically just a messenger is only excacerbated by the fact that really, he seems to be lacking in any kind of personality.
All I can get from these few pages is that he has money, and he does banking, and he's practically in love with this man Gatsby.
Bankers. Ugh. So very boring. And completely and entirely inconsequential.
I would be fascinated by this character if something interesting had happened to him. He was in the Great War, so why are we not told of some enormous achievement from during his time in France?
He moved across the country, so surely something more interesting than meeting a fellow who asked him directions happened to him? Please?
Honestly, he is just a blank canvas to me at the moment. Dull, and barely there.
And really, if the most exciting encounter he had with another human being was "Do you know the way to the West Egg?" then he has clearly not travelled far enough, and should try Mexico or something. Maybe Canada.
I honestly think very little than general dislike for him.
"Yes, I went to New Haven, but people are bores". CLEARLY you are not listening to the people, Nick. People are fascinating. People have stories about wars and murders and bombs and stuff!! LISTEN TO THEM. If you don't have any interesting stories of your own to tell, you could at least have told us some of the initimate secrets divulged to you.
"I'm going to be a banker." Oh dear. Money stuff, for a man whose family have enough money to support him without a job for a whole year. People like him make me feel fairly ill at ease with the world.
In conclusion, for the first few pages of The Great Gatsby, I have not been endeared to Nick Carroway.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
A Detailed Plan For An Essay
Dear Don (yes, another one of those posts),
Am finding it much more useful to create a plan via spider diagram, and would be happy to scan it for you onto the blog at some point in the not very distant future. Will very unlikely be before the lesson tomorrow, as sleep is also quite high on my list of priorities.
And also my computer is acting up.
Will bring plan on paper to our lesson, commit to the internet as soon as possible afterwards.
Hope you had a good weekend
Maddy :)
Am finding it much more useful to create a plan via spider diagram, and would be happy to scan it for you onto the blog at some point in the not very distant future. Will very unlikely be before the lesson tomorrow, as sleep is also quite high on my list of priorities.
And also my computer is acting up.
Will bring plan on paper to our lesson, commit to the internet as soon as possible afterwards.
Hope you had a good weekend
Maddy :)
Monday, November 8, 2010
Chapter One Of TGG
(I'll be honest. I didn't like TGG. Not until the end, when things got bloodthirsty.)
The starting chapter in TGG begins by explaining a little about the narrative character, Nick Carraway. He comes from a fairly posh family full of bankers, and apparently snobs. It is roundabouts the Twenties, and in America, with Nick being fresh out of university. He is travelling away from home, toward the home of his cousin Daisy Buchanan, and her husband Tom, who Nick was friends with in "college". He gets a house on the West Egg, across from the East Egg where most of the posh people live. This house on the West Egg is coincidentally next door to Gatsby's. Gatsby is described as a great, wonderful man.
Nick goes for dinner at Daisy and Tom's, during which he meets Jordan Baker, who is apparently rather good at tennis, and hears an argument between Daisy and Tom about Tom having a lover.
After the dinner, Nick sees Gatsby hovering in the garden, but he disappears before getting a moment to talk.
This is basically naught but an explanatory chapter, discussing a few of the characters but none in any particular depth. It also gives a little backstory to the majority of the characters, although Gatsby remains a mystery feature, with no real evidence that he even really exists. He may be at this point a figment of Nick's imagination, almost like an imaginary friend.
There isn't really all that much to write about chapter one, as nothing major really happens. The evidence of Tom's mistress will become a major issue, but in the chapter it it just brushed over with the dinner continuing and it not being mentioned again. Certainly having read the novel, I know it will become a huge plot key. However within the chapter itself there is not really all that much to discuss, simply a little bit of narrative on a dinner with an outwardly happy family who clearly has cracks in it like every goshdarn family on the planet!!
The starting chapter in TGG begins by explaining a little about the narrative character, Nick Carraway. He comes from a fairly posh family full of bankers, and apparently snobs. It is roundabouts the Twenties, and in America, with Nick being fresh out of university. He is travelling away from home, toward the home of his cousin Daisy Buchanan, and her husband Tom, who Nick was friends with in "college". He gets a house on the West Egg, across from the East Egg where most of the posh people live. This house on the West Egg is coincidentally next door to Gatsby's. Gatsby is described as a great, wonderful man.
Nick goes for dinner at Daisy and Tom's, during which he meets Jordan Baker, who is apparently rather good at tennis, and hears an argument between Daisy and Tom about Tom having a lover.
After the dinner, Nick sees Gatsby hovering in the garden, but he disappears before getting a moment to talk.
This is basically naught but an explanatory chapter, discussing a few of the characters but none in any particular depth. It also gives a little backstory to the majority of the characters, although Gatsby remains a mystery feature, with no real evidence that he even really exists. He may be at this point a figment of Nick's imagination, almost like an imaginary friend.
There isn't really all that much to write about chapter one, as nothing major really happens. The evidence of Tom's mistress will become a major issue, but in the chapter it it just brushed over with the dinner continuing and it not being mentioned again. Certainly having read the novel, I know it will become a huge plot key. However within the chapter itself there is not really all that much to discuss, simply a little bit of narrative on a dinner with an outwardly happy family who clearly has cracks in it like every goshdarn family on the planet!!
An Essay Title
Dear Don.
I'm not entirely sure how to phrase my title, but I'm sure that by the time you have read this I will have discussed Ophelia's madness songs with you, discovered a decent and proper essay title that will make me look like a right smart arse, and begun to make a delightful plan that will for certain allow me to achieve an A*, which will then get me a scholarship to uni, reducing my uni costs, and maybe even getting me to Cambridge, which would just be a laugh, as I am not remotely posh. However, it would be a delightful bonus for my cousins, as they live in Cambridge, and I could just move in with them, and babysit the babies they will inevitably have after they get married and discover that a life without children is a life without joy or some such whatnot. Cheers muchly.
Mads
(Where I would like to be.)
I'm not entirely sure how to phrase my title, but I'm sure that by the time you have read this I will have discussed Ophelia's madness songs with you, discovered a decent and proper essay title that will make me look like a right smart arse, and begun to make a delightful plan that will for certain allow me to achieve an A*, which will then get me a scholarship to uni, reducing my uni costs, and maybe even getting me to Cambridge, which would just be a laugh, as I am not remotely posh. However, it would be a delightful bonus for my cousins, as they live in Cambridge, and I could just move in with them, and babysit the babies they will inevitably have after they get married and discover that a life without children is a life without joy or some such whatnot. Cheers muchly.
Mads
Friday, November 5, 2010
Analysis Of Two Hands
The structure of the poem is in one continual stanza, and is essentially the train of thought of a son sitting in his room whilst his father stays up late reading medical journals. This includes the literary feature of enjambement, as the lines continue past the end of the physical lines, as though the man's thoughts were running away with him and not forming proper sentences.
The tone of the poem is sort of contemplative, with the son comparing his hand to his father's hand, finding both similarities and differences. This may be because, while he loves his father (so seeing similarities between them), there are very obvious differences, which may show the separation between the two of them. This might be because his father is a very accomplished surgeon (the poem mentions that the father can complete easily thirteen surgeries in a day.
He compares their hands, both the same size and shape, yet he says they have nothing else in common but that. This might suggest that he envies the brilliance of his father's hands, and wishes that he could be his father; this may especially be true when combined with the fact that later in the poem, he says his hand may have the chance to be just like his father's.
This feeling and tone of ambition, admiration, and yet distance may indicate that the narrative voice is a child, or maybe the author is writing it from his feelings as a child.
The language suggests this second option, as it is very formal language, filled with imagery, which would either indicate some kind of child genius or a grown up.
The theme seems to be admiration, yet annoyance at his father. He indicates that his father spends many nights up late, maybe meaning that they don't spend any time together at all. This may be the reason for the distance between them.
The tone of the poem is sort of contemplative, with the son comparing his hand to his father's hand, finding both similarities and differences. This may be because, while he loves his father (so seeing similarities between them), there are very obvious differences, which may show the separation between the two of them. This might be because his father is a very accomplished surgeon (the poem mentions that the father can complete easily thirteen surgeries in a day.
He compares their hands, both the same size and shape, yet he says they have nothing else in common but that. This might suggest that he envies the brilliance of his father's hands, and wishes that he could be his father; this may especially be true when combined with the fact that later in the poem, he says his hand may have the chance to be just like his father's.
This feeling and tone of ambition, admiration, and yet distance may indicate that the narrative voice is a child, or maybe the author is writing it from his feelings as a child.
The language suggests this second option, as it is very formal language, filled with imagery, which would either indicate some kind of child genius or a grown up.
The theme seems to be admiration, yet annoyance at his father. He indicates that his father spends many nights up late, maybe meaning that they don't spend any time together at all. This may be the reason for the distance between them.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Is Fortinbras Right In His Assessment Of Hamlet?
In my opinion, Fortinbras could not be more wrong on his assessment of Hamlet.
He claims that Hamlet would have "proved most royal" had he been given a chance.
If you look at everything that happens within the play, there is nothing kingly about him!!
The first thing Hamlet could have done that would have been royal was prevent the too-soon marriage of his mother and his uncle. A royal may have stood up for what he believed was right (not adultery, in this case) and now, being the protector of his mother after his father's death, put his foot down and said "No! It has only been two months since your husband, my father, died. I demand you grieve some more!"
That would have been very royal, and many may have held him in a very high esteem.
Even if he didn't put to rest the idea of his mother's remarriage, a good, noble thing to have done would have been, having learnt of his father's murder, to have chopped Claudius' head off in vengeance (something which would have been respected and honoured in the day of the play). Instead, he does something which seems meak and weedy, and pretends to go insane.
The author of this does not in the slightest see how madness would help in this situation.
Fortinbras must KNOW that Hamlet went mad.
So how has he come to the conclusion that Hamlet would have made a fit king? Ridiculous.
The next thing Hamlet does that I disagree with is the fact that, whilst mad, Hamlet bares himself infront of the woman he has seduced. That is not in the least royal, regal, noble, or however you call it. This is humiliating for Ophelia, and not even a tiny bit dignified, which kings always seem to be.
So Hamlet is being highly unkingly now, and continues to be for the rest of the play.
In actual fact, the only good things that this author can see about Hamlet is that he does want revenge (yet goes entirely the wrong way about it), and then has a duel.
The duel is a noble thing to do.
I'm unclear as to the reason they duel. Possibly for Laertes' father's honour, or Ophelia's honour. But I'm not sure. At least this part is in all fairness.
This is the only part however.
The rest of the play is spent with Hamlet dashing about the castle acting like someone out of an asylum, when he could actually be doing something useful with his time, like defending his father's honour, ending his mother's adulterous marriage, or, and this would be the best ending in my opinion, getting Ophelia's hand in marriage, forgetting the whole affair with the murder and the adultery and the throne, and taking Ophelia off to somewhere nicer, or warmer, and marrying her there, having a whole bunch of good looking babies, and being generally happy with life.
So no. Fortinbras is NOT right in that Hamlet would have made a great king. He was a philosopher and a pansy.
He claims that Hamlet would have "proved most royal" had he been given a chance.
If you look at everything that happens within the play, there is nothing kingly about him!!
The first thing Hamlet could have done that would have been royal was prevent the too-soon marriage of his mother and his uncle. A royal may have stood up for what he believed was right (not adultery, in this case) and now, being the protector of his mother after his father's death, put his foot down and said "No! It has only been two months since your husband, my father, died. I demand you grieve some more!"
That would have been very royal, and many may have held him in a very high esteem.
Even if he didn't put to rest the idea of his mother's remarriage, a good, noble thing to have done would have been, having learnt of his father's murder, to have chopped Claudius' head off in vengeance (something which would have been respected and honoured in the day of the play). Instead, he does something which seems meak and weedy, and pretends to go insane.
The author of this does not in the slightest see how madness would help in this situation.
Fortinbras must KNOW that Hamlet went mad.
So how has he come to the conclusion that Hamlet would have made a fit king? Ridiculous.
The next thing Hamlet does that I disagree with is the fact that, whilst mad, Hamlet bares himself infront of the woman he has seduced. That is not in the least royal, regal, noble, or however you call it. This is humiliating for Ophelia, and not even a tiny bit dignified, which kings always seem to be.
So Hamlet is being highly unkingly now, and continues to be for the rest of the play.
In actual fact, the only good things that this author can see about Hamlet is that he does want revenge (yet goes entirely the wrong way about it), and then has a duel.
The duel is a noble thing to do.
I'm unclear as to the reason they duel. Possibly for Laertes' father's honour, or Ophelia's honour. But I'm not sure. At least this part is in all fairness.
This is the only part however.
The rest of the play is spent with Hamlet dashing about the castle acting like someone out of an asylum, when he could actually be doing something useful with his time, like defending his father's honour, ending his mother's adulterous marriage, or, and this would be the best ending in my opinion, getting Ophelia's hand in marriage, forgetting the whole affair with the murder and the adultery and the throne, and taking Ophelia off to somewhere nicer, or warmer, and marrying her there, having a whole bunch of good looking babies, and being generally happy with life.
So no. Fortinbras is NOT right in that Hamlet would have made a great king. He was a philosopher and a pansy.
The End Of Hamlet, Having Lost Which Act We Got Up To
WELL.
About time some people died.
Okay, since last time I typed this thing, Hamlet Jr has come running back from wherever he was (he never got as far as England, where he was sent by Claudius to get killed off because he'd gone batty.) and found Ophelia's funeral.
He didn't even realise she was dead.
So NOW he declares massive great love for the woman who made flower garlands to wear whilst she drowned herself, which has made room for a LOVELY picture by Millais, here featured:
This painting is the ONE reason I am glad Ophelia died in Hamlet.
But I digress.
When Hamlet finds Ophelia's funeral, possibly the one bit of true madness happens, (as far as Hamlet is concerned) and he throws himself into her grave, swiftly followed by her brother, who is understandably angered.
They have a bit of a tiff.
Hamlet is dragged out of the grave by Horatio, and Hamlet has a bit of a grieve.
The inherent and unending issue I still have with this is that NONE of the bad guys are dead.
Or are they?
Previous to this, Hamlet sent a letter to the King saying that he was on his way back, having been attacked by pirates, and brought back to Denmark by them.
Personally, this seems more than unlikely.
My experience of pirates, though limited, suggests that they are a wee bit bloodthirsty, and, even if they were not to kill him, surely they would get a ransom for him.
So here's my theory.
He killed off Rosencrantz and Gildernstern sharpish, then legged it back on a rowing boat or something.
Although, personally, I'm not even sure they got as far as the ship. Possibly, Hamlet got his big sword out and knocked em off before they even got as far as the sea.
So anyway.
Hamlet is BACK.
And Hamlet is MAD.
Not mad mad. Angry mad. You get it.
Anywho.
Hamlet is angry, because Ophelia is dead and he STILL hasn't avenged his father's death.
He REALLY wants Claudius dead.
This is NOT however what he immeadiatly goes off to do, like a normal, vengeful person would.
OH no.
He waits a bit, then gets challenged to a duel by Ophelia's brother.
So yeah, that seems like the honorable thing to do.
Now, if only that was what Ophelia's brother was thinking.
Pfft.
He's poisoned his sword so that one single little scratch will kill Hamlet.
Niiiice. Very much a decent thing to do. Uh, not.
Now, you'd think that'd be enough for brother dearest.
HA.
He's scheming with the King to get rid of Hamlet, so the King also poisons the drink that Hamlet will have so that he is DEFINATELY dead.
Oh dear.
This is not looking good for Hamlet.
So, Hamlet and the brother guy start their duel, and it begins pretty well, with fairness and all.
THEN it gets bad.
They take a quick break to refresh themselves, and Hamlet's mum has a drink to toast to Hamlet's health and success. The drink the King poisoned.
So she's going to die.
She doesn't die instantly, however.
First off, Hamlet and the brother start fighting again.
Brother scratches Hamlet.
Somehow the swords swap, and Hamlet scratches brother.
NOW the queen collapses.
The king claims it's because she doesn't like seeing blood.
She goes, no, the drink was poisoned, and promptly dies.
Brother has also collapsed onto the floor, and goes, yeah Hamlet, sorry about that, but the sword is poisoned too. You're gonna die, I'ma die, and the king was the one that poisoned your ma.
Hamlet gets very angry, even more than usual, and FINALLY kills the king by forcing him to drink the poison that killed his ma.
Then the brother dies.
Right now, Hamlet, Horatio, and the one that's a bit of a fop are the only ones left alive.
At which point, having heard the prince of Norway heading in his direction, he leaves the country of Denmark in the capable hands of the man who's invading them, and dies.
Okay.
So let's summarise the whole of Hamlet.
King Hamlet dies.
Claudius becomes King.
Hamlet sees a ghost of his dad.
Hamlet wants to kill Claudius.
Hamlet goes mad, getting his bojangles out.
Hamlet kills Ophelia's dad.
Ophelia kills herself.
Everyone else dies.
Elements of tragedy?
I think the fact that everyone dies is fairly tragic, especially the hero, who in my opinion was NOT all that heroic and instead a wuss.
Didn't really like Hamlet, honestly.
THIS is a good tragedy.
This is the Lady Of Shallot.
All King Arthur and the like.
Rather amazing.
Here's a painting :
Have a good read.
About time some people died.
Okay, since last time I typed this thing, Hamlet Jr has come running back from wherever he was (he never got as far as England, where he was sent by Claudius to get killed off because he'd gone batty.) and found Ophelia's funeral.
He didn't even realise she was dead.
So NOW he declares massive great love for the woman who made flower garlands to wear whilst she drowned herself, which has made room for a LOVELY picture by Millais, here featured:
This painting is the ONE reason I am glad Ophelia died in Hamlet.
But I digress.
When Hamlet finds Ophelia's funeral, possibly the one bit of true madness happens, (as far as Hamlet is concerned) and he throws himself into her grave, swiftly followed by her brother, who is understandably angered.
They have a bit of a tiff.
Hamlet is dragged out of the grave by Horatio, and Hamlet has a bit of a grieve.
The inherent and unending issue I still have with this is that NONE of the bad guys are dead.
Or are they?
Previous to this, Hamlet sent a letter to the King saying that he was on his way back, having been attacked by pirates, and brought back to Denmark by them.
Personally, this seems more than unlikely.
My experience of pirates, though limited, suggests that they are a wee bit bloodthirsty, and, even if they were not to kill him, surely they would get a ransom for him.
So here's my theory.
He killed off Rosencrantz and Gildernstern sharpish, then legged it back on a rowing boat or something.
Although, personally, I'm not even sure they got as far as the ship. Possibly, Hamlet got his big sword out and knocked em off before they even got as far as the sea.
So anyway.
Hamlet is BACK.
And Hamlet is MAD.
Not mad mad. Angry mad. You get it.
Anywho.
Hamlet is angry, because Ophelia is dead and he STILL hasn't avenged his father's death.
He REALLY wants Claudius dead.
This is NOT however what he immeadiatly goes off to do, like a normal, vengeful person would.
OH no.
He waits a bit, then gets challenged to a duel by Ophelia's brother.
So yeah, that seems like the honorable thing to do.
Now, if only that was what Ophelia's brother was thinking.
Pfft.
He's poisoned his sword so that one single little scratch will kill Hamlet.
Niiiice. Very much a decent thing to do. Uh, not.
Now, you'd think that'd be enough for brother dearest.
HA.
He's scheming with the King to get rid of Hamlet, so the King also poisons the drink that Hamlet will have so that he is DEFINATELY dead.
Oh dear.
This is not looking good for Hamlet.
So, Hamlet and the brother guy start their duel, and it begins pretty well, with fairness and all.
THEN it gets bad.
They take a quick break to refresh themselves, and Hamlet's mum has a drink to toast to Hamlet's health and success. The drink the King poisoned.
So she's going to die.
She doesn't die instantly, however.
First off, Hamlet and the brother start fighting again.
Brother scratches Hamlet.
Somehow the swords swap, and Hamlet scratches brother.
NOW the queen collapses.
The king claims it's because she doesn't like seeing blood.
She goes, no, the drink was poisoned, and promptly dies.
Brother has also collapsed onto the floor, and goes, yeah Hamlet, sorry about that, but the sword is poisoned too. You're gonna die, I'ma die, and the king was the one that poisoned your ma.
Hamlet gets very angry, even more than usual, and FINALLY kills the king by forcing him to drink the poison that killed his ma.
Then the brother dies.
Right now, Hamlet, Horatio, and the one that's a bit of a fop are the only ones left alive.
At which point, having heard the prince of Norway heading in his direction, he leaves the country of Denmark in the capable hands of the man who's invading them, and dies.
Okay.
So let's summarise the whole of Hamlet.
King Hamlet dies.
Claudius becomes King.
Hamlet sees a ghost of his dad.
Hamlet wants to kill Claudius.
Hamlet goes mad, getting his bojangles out.
Hamlet kills Ophelia's dad.
Ophelia kills herself.
Everyone else dies.
Elements of tragedy?
I think the fact that everyone dies is fairly tragic, especially the hero, who in my opinion was NOT all that heroic and instead a wuss.
Didn't really like Hamlet, honestly.
THIS is a good tragedy.
This is the Lady Of Shallot.
All King Arthur and the like.
Rather amazing.
Here's a painting :
Monday, October 11, 2010
The nice little endy bit of Act Three, blurring in with Act Four.
WELL.
That is more goddamn like it!!
Some death!
This is what I was waiting for.
So Hamlet runs off to his ma's room because she wants to talk to him, maybe hoping that, just maybe, she's realised that Claudius killed her first husband, and so he can tell her what's really going on.
Alas.
She calls Claudius his dad and says that Hamlet has upset him.
I think this probably started making Hamlet a fair bit angry, seeing as how, even after his dramatic efforts, no-one believes him that Claudius killed Hamlet Sr.
Although, to be honest, I'm querying if turning it into a play was the best idea, because now people of the court, thinking that he's gone a bit doo-lally as it is, are just going to tell him "No, dear, that was just a play." So possibly there's the fact that Hamlet's master plan of wonderfulness is actually a bit rubbish.
And HE STILL HASN'T KILLED CLAUDIUS.
But I digress.
He runs into his mum's room and she goes "Alas, Hamlet, you've gone mental" (not exact words).
Then Hamlet starts mucking about, shoving her around and Polonius, from where he's hidden in her closet, freaks out and shouts for help.
So Hamlet stabs him.
This is actually fairly refreshing after his general pansiness of before. He's previously been a bit of a weakling, and more of a thinker than a fighter, which, in Shakespeare, is a little bit disappointing.
But NOW he's stabbed his girlfriend's dad.
Wahey, really.
Much more exciting. Before, there haven't been so many major plot twists. Sure, espionage and forbidding and all sorts, but no real TWISTS, apart from that big old "poison in the ear" thing.
So Hamlet has gone even more mental than before, possibly now sincerely mental.
Now it's really getting fascinating, and is becoming more compelling to read onwards and discover what's going to happen next, where before it was all a bit like "Oh, he's going to go mad. Oh, he's got his bojangles out. Oh, he's being packed off to England because they want him got rid of."
Now it's getting good.
So, he's killed the dad of his girlfriend.
And now SHE'S going mad.
Madness seems rather prevalent in this play, whether accidental (i.e. brought on by the brutal and unfortunate killing of the character's father) or put on (i.e. oh my God, Uncle Claudius killed my Dad, let's pretend to go mental).
And so Ophelia, the lovely Ophelia, starts singing all over the place.
And when her brother shows up, trying to steal the throne from Claudius, he declares her insane and now has to grieve the loss of his father, his father's body, and now his sister's sanity. Not a good day for Laertes.
Not that it won't get worse if he finds out that Hamlet not only stabbed his father to death, sent his sister mad and hid the father's body, but that the body is more than likely chopped into thousands of pieces because Hamlet rather let go of all his control and took his sword to the corpse.
Pretty mad.
That is more goddamn like it!!
Some death!
This is what I was waiting for.
So Hamlet runs off to his ma's room because she wants to talk to him, maybe hoping that, just maybe, she's realised that Claudius killed her first husband, and so he can tell her what's really going on.
Alas.
She calls Claudius his dad and says that Hamlet has upset him.
I think this probably started making Hamlet a fair bit angry, seeing as how, even after his dramatic efforts, no-one believes him that Claudius killed Hamlet Sr.
Although, to be honest, I'm querying if turning it into a play was the best idea, because now people of the court, thinking that he's gone a bit doo-lally as it is, are just going to tell him "No, dear, that was just a play." So possibly there's the fact that Hamlet's master plan of wonderfulness is actually a bit rubbish.
And HE STILL HASN'T KILLED CLAUDIUS.
But I digress.
He runs into his mum's room and she goes "Alas, Hamlet, you've gone mental" (not exact words).
Then Hamlet starts mucking about, shoving her around and Polonius, from where he's hidden in her closet, freaks out and shouts for help.
So Hamlet stabs him.
This is actually fairly refreshing after his general pansiness of before. He's previously been a bit of a weakling, and more of a thinker than a fighter, which, in Shakespeare, is a little bit disappointing.
But NOW he's stabbed his girlfriend's dad.
Wahey, really.
Much more exciting. Before, there haven't been so many major plot twists. Sure, espionage and forbidding and all sorts, but no real TWISTS, apart from that big old "poison in the ear" thing.
So Hamlet has gone even more mental than before, possibly now sincerely mental.
Now it's really getting fascinating, and is becoming more compelling to read onwards and discover what's going to happen next, where before it was all a bit like "Oh, he's going to go mad. Oh, he's got his bojangles out. Oh, he's being packed off to England because they want him got rid of."
Now it's getting good.
So, he's killed the dad of his girlfriend.
And now SHE'S going mad.
Madness seems rather prevalent in this play, whether accidental (i.e. brought on by the brutal and unfortunate killing of the character's father) or put on (i.e. oh my God, Uncle Claudius killed my Dad, let's pretend to go mental).
And so Ophelia, the lovely Ophelia, starts singing all over the place.
And when her brother shows up, trying to steal the throne from Claudius, he declares her insane and now has to grieve the loss of his father, his father's body, and now his sister's sanity. Not a good day for Laertes.
Not that it won't get worse if he finds out that Hamlet not only stabbed his father to death, sent his sister mad and hid the father's body, but that the body is more than likely chopped into thousands of pieces because Hamlet rather let go of all his control and took his sword to the corpse.
Pretty mad.
Acts Two and Three of Hamlet
Hamlet starts getting dramatic when he goes and flashes Ophelia.
This is a bit like a big ole tragic scream, particularly from Hamlet Jr, as it's like a huge cry for help where he's gotten to the point where he's gone so mad he's getting his bojangles out.
There's also the MASSIVE GREAT HUGE pivotal moment where Hamlet Jr gets the actors to put on a performance of what he believes happened to his father, with the poisoning and the like. Just prior to the performance, Hamlet does his "to be or not to be" speech.
There are LOADS of different opinions on this speech, and what the hell he's talking about.
Some people reckon he's discussing suicide, and whether or not to top himself.
Others think he's discussing whether or not he should continue existing at all.
I honestly think he's discussing whether or not ANYTHING should exist at all.
Which is a pretty cool thing to be thinking.
He's being a bit melodramatic, in my opinion, but it's actually pretty profound. He wishes that we could all sleep, and never feel hurt again, but then realises that if we sleep, we are "perchance to dream", which is a bit rubbish, because they may be nightmares and that would just defy the point. So really, he's contemplating the life, the universe and everything, which is average for a philosophy student, but cool for a prince who's gone a little bit mad.
When we get to the bit with the players, Hamlet Jr sets Horatio to watching the King to see what expression he has on his face when he realises the play is about him, and whether or not this look is of guilt or more "Eh?"
Turns out, VERY guilty, and off Claudius goes, ending the play and conspiring with Polonius.
After deciding Polonius will spy on Hamlet talking to his ma, Claudius prays.
Hamlet shows up, decides to kill him, then can't kill him because he's worried that, as he's praying, he'll go straight to heaven, when actually he'd rather he go to hell.
So he doesn't kill him.
I mean really.
Just get on with it, mate.
This is a bit like a big ole tragic scream, particularly from Hamlet Jr, as it's like a huge cry for help where he's gotten to the point where he's gone so mad he's getting his bojangles out.
There's also the MASSIVE GREAT HUGE pivotal moment where Hamlet Jr gets the actors to put on a performance of what he believes happened to his father, with the poisoning and the like. Just prior to the performance, Hamlet does his "to be or not to be" speech.
There are LOADS of different opinions on this speech, and what the hell he's talking about.
Some people reckon he's discussing suicide, and whether or not to top himself.
Others think he's discussing whether or not he should continue existing at all.
I honestly think he's discussing whether or not ANYTHING should exist at all.
Which is a pretty cool thing to be thinking.
He's being a bit melodramatic, in my opinion, but it's actually pretty profound. He wishes that we could all sleep, and never feel hurt again, but then realises that if we sleep, we are "perchance to dream", which is a bit rubbish, because they may be nightmares and that would just defy the point. So really, he's contemplating the life, the universe and everything, which is average for a philosophy student, but cool for a prince who's gone a little bit mad.
When we get to the bit with the players, Hamlet Jr sets Horatio to watching the King to see what expression he has on his face when he realises the play is about him, and whether or not this look is of guilt or more "Eh?"
Turns out, VERY guilty, and off Claudius goes, ending the play and conspiring with Polonius.
After deciding Polonius will spy on Hamlet talking to his ma, Claudius prays.
Hamlet shows up, decides to kill him, then can't kill him because he's worried that, as he's praying, he'll go straight to heaven, when actually he'd rather he go to hell.
So he doesn't kill him.
I mean really.
Just get on with it, mate.
Monday, October 4, 2010
What I Reckon Of Hamlet So Far
Right so.
Hamlet.
Bit of an idiot, really.
In his last soliloquy, which we just read, he's basically berating himself for doing a whole big bunch of stupid stupid things.
LIKE getting some actors to add in a speech to their play that directly references the tyranical murder of his father by his father's brother.
Right. That'll help.
So, when the actors tell your father/uncle/thing EXACTLY what you did, and he finds out that you think he killed your dad, and he knows he killed your dad, and he gets mad, and he has you killed, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN?
Apart from rotting in a grave, of course.
Okay, so let's think about what Hamlet Jr could have done to make it all better.
To start off with, he could have told his little guardy mates that they were being ridiculous, his dad was dead, and OBVIOUSLY ghosts don't exist.
Then, if that didn't happen, he could have just gone and chopped off his stepdad's head, rescued his mum and declared himself King Of Denmark.
OR given this Claudius bloke a piece of his own medicine and poured poison in his ear!!
NOT pretended to go mad.
If he wasn't already acting mad, I would debate whether or not he was going mad.
Clearly, he's got bats in the belfrey.
Okay, so now, having decided to go a bit mad (WHY HAMLET??? JUST GET YOUR BIG SWORD OUT, YOU MENTAL BLOKE!!), he goes and flashes the girl he's in love with AKA Ophelia.
Um.
Why?
Would it not just have been more sensible to, I don't know, danced around in jelly or something??
Equally mad, SO much less offensive.
He could have climbed a tree in the garden and sung christmas carols in June or something.
FLASHING WOMEN IS NOT THE WAY TO GO MAD.
Frankly, it's not mad, it's just a bit stupid. Her dad could have had him killed for that.
My dad would have if I was Ophelia!!
Although, actually, if you think about it, he could have just gone to talk to his ma about the whole thing.
THAT would have him construed as a bit like a fruitcake, whether or not he actually saw a ghost.
In my honest and undying opinion, of which I have many about varying things here, Hamlet is going about this in entirely the wrong way.
To escape all the stress and such, get a horse, grab Ophelia and some cash, leg it to Switzerland.
They're neutral, will probably let you marry Ophelia, and then everything will be fine.
DUH.
Why didn't he think of that??
Hamlet.
Bit of an idiot, really.
In his last soliloquy, which we just read, he's basically berating himself for doing a whole big bunch of stupid stupid things.
LIKE getting some actors to add in a speech to their play that directly references the tyranical murder of his father by his father's brother.
Right. That'll help.
So, when the actors tell your father/uncle/thing EXACTLY what you did, and he finds out that you think he killed your dad, and he knows he killed your dad, and he gets mad, and he has you killed, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN?
Apart from rotting in a grave, of course.
Okay, so let's think about what Hamlet Jr could have done to make it all better.
To start off with, he could have told his little guardy mates that they were being ridiculous, his dad was dead, and OBVIOUSLY ghosts don't exist.
Then, if that didn't happen, he could have just gone and chopped off his stepdad's head, rescued his mum and declared himself King Of Denmark.
OR given this Claudius bloke a piece of his own medicine and poured poison in his ear!!
NOT pretended to go mad.
If he wasn't already acting mad, I would debate whether or not he was going mad.
Clearly, he's got bats in the belfrey.
Okay, so now, having decided to go a bit mad (WHY HAMLET??? JUST GET YOUR BIG SWORD OUT, YOU MENTAL BLOKE!!), he goes and flashes the girl he's in love with AKA Ophelia.
Um.
Why?
Would it not just have been more sensible to, I don't know, danced around in jelly or something??
Equally mad, SO much less offensive.
He could have climbed a tree in the garden and sung christmas carols in June or something.
FLASHING WOMEN IS NOT THE WAY TO GO MAD.
Frankly, it's not mad, it's just a bit stupid. Her dad could have had him killed for that.
My dad would have if I was Ophelia!!
Although, actually, if you think about it, he could have just gone to talk to his ma about the whole thing.
THAT would have him construed as a bit like a fruitcake, whether or not he actually saw a ghost.
In my honest and undying opinion, of which I have many about varying things here, Hamlet is going about this in entirely the wrong way.
To escape all the stress and such, get a horse, grab Ophelia and some cash, leg it to Switzerland.
They're neutral, will probably let you marry Ophelia, and then everything will be fine.
DUH.
Why didn't he think of that??
Hamlet, Act One.
Tragedy begins to be established in Hamlet's act one by the old King Hamlet being poisoned by his own brother. This creates a position in which the villain is in charge of everything, and essentially winning.
Hamlet Jr is already somewhat coming down from being in his prime. He was previously swanning around at university, getting his education, until the tragic demise of his father, then the wedding two months later of his mother to his uncle, the now King of Denmark. Hamlet Jr considers this incestual, and is really rather angry about it all.
As the act moved on, the character of Hamlet Jr developed into a man we are rather confused by. He begins relatively normally, and at that point we are sympathetic towards him and understanding of his plight. Then he meets the ghost of his dead dad, has a chat with him, and, on hearing that his uncle/stepdad/king thing killed Hamlet Sr, he decides to pretend to be mad.
Um, what?
So, let me get this straight.
Your dad got killed by your uncle, who then started, in your opinion, to have an incestuous relationship with your ma, and you AREN'T going to go downstairs, where he's lying there a bit drunk, and chop his head off with your great big sword??
The character of Hamlet Jr here is being developed as the tragic hero, but one that we just don't understand at the moment. He makes odd decisions and swears his soldiers to secrecy on the ONE thing that could help him, literally, get away with murder.
A tragic element already being portrayed is that of conflict in Ophelia. She seems to be pretty mad over Hamlet Jr, but her brother and father are warning her away from him to the point of forbidding her from having anything to do with him. So what does she do?
Hamlet Jr is already somewhat coming down from being in his prime. He was previously swanning around at university, getting his education, until the tragic demise of his father, then the wedding two months later of his mother to his uncle, the now King of Denmark. Hamlet Jr considers this incestual, and is really rather angry about it all.
As the act moved on, the character of Hamlet Jr developed into a man we are rather confused by. He begins relatively normally, and at that point we are sympathetic towards him and understanding of his plight. Then he meets the ghost of his dead dad, has a chat with him, and, on hearing that his uncle/stepdad/king thing killed Hamlet Sr, he decides to pretend to be mad.
Um, what?
So, let me get this straight.
Your dad got killed by your uncle, who then started, in your opinion, to have an incestuous relationship with your ma, and you AREN'T going to go downstairs, where he's lying there a bit drunk, and chop his head off with your great big sword??
The character of Hamlet Jr here is being developed as the tragic hero, but one that we just don't understand at the moment. He makes odd decisions and swears his soldiers to secrecy on the ONE thing that could help him, literally, get away with murder.
A tragic element already being portrayed is that of conflict in Ophelia. She seems to be pretty mad over Hamlet Jr, but her brother and father are warning her away from him to the point of forbidding her from having anything to do with him. So what does she do?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Hamlet, and his first act, and a bit of Maddy style honesty.
I'm gonna write it in terms I understand, so very little will be Shakespeare.
Essentially, in the start of Hamlet, we learn that Hamlet Sr was the king of Denmark until two months ago, when he died.
Hamlet Sr's brother (Claudius) then got the throne (not sure why, seems sensible to just give the throne to Hamlet Jr, what with Hamlet Jr being Hamlet Sr's child and all).
Claudius then married Hamlet Jr's mum, Gertrude, which Hamlet Jr is deeply displeased about.
2 months go past, and the guards of the palace of Denmark start seeing the ghost of Hamlet sr. They decide it's probably a good idea to tell H.J.
In a little court meeting doohickey, H.J. is told by new stepdad Uncle Claudius that he can't go back to Uni, because it will upset his ma, but he should also just get over the whole "OMG my dad is dead" thing.
Laertes leaves, but warns his sister Ophelia that she should stay away from H.J., because he's a bit messed up, and getting preggers without marriage would probably be a bad idea.
H.J. is then told by the guards that there is a ghost of his dad floating about, but not talking to anyone. H.J. stays up late, and sees his dad's ghost, who then tells him that Claudius put poison in his ear to kill him, and actually it wasn't a snake, like what was publiscised.
H.J. is clearly very upset by this. He vows to get revenge, but to pretend that he is mad first.
Now, this last bit is a bit confusing for everyone, and has caused much debate about the classroom.
Why would he pretend to be mad?
Why not just get a sword and go chop Claudius' head off while he's drunk downstairs?
Really, just what?
This COULD be an insanely clever attempt at tactics.
If he pretends to be mad, he might get away with killig his Uncle/Stepdad thingy.
He could blame his madness on his completely messed up family.
It could work very well!!
However.
This really does make him seem a wee bit of a wuss.
He could have just killed his uncle on being an adulterer and saying that actually, hey, this bloke killed my dad!!
Then again, where's the proof? Frankly, if some grieving prince came up to me, killed his uncle, and said "I did that because the ghost of my father told me that my uncle murdered him!" I would probably tell him to get some help.
So, either way, he could be construed as mad.
Which begs the question: Why pretend to be mad when, actually, you're probably going to be seen as mad anyway?
Silly Hamlet.
Essentially, in the start of Hamlet, we learn that Hamlet Sr was the king of Denmark until two months ago, when he died.
Hamlet Sr's brother (Claudius) then got the throne (not sure why, seems sensible to just give the throne to Hamlet Jr, what with Hamlet Jr being Hamlet Sr's child and all).
Claudius then married Hamlet Jr's mum, Gertrude, which Hamlet Jr is deeply displeased about.
2 months go past, and the guards of the palace of Denmark start seeing the ghost of Hamlet sr. They decide it's probably a good idea to tell H.J.
In a little court meeting doohickey, H.J. is told by new stepdad Uncle Claudius that he can't go back to Uni, because it will upset his ma, but he should also just get over the whole "OMG my dad is dead" thing.
Laertes leaves, but warns his sister Ophelia that she should stay away from H.J., because he's a bit messed up, and getting preggers without marriage would probably be a bad idea.
H.J. is then told by the guards that there is a ghost of his dad floating about, but not talking to anyone. H.J. stays up late, and sees his dad's ghost, who then tells him that Claudius put poison in his ear to kill him, and actually it wasn't a snake, like what was publiscised.
H.J. is clearly very upset by this. He vows to get revenge, but to pretend that he is mad first.
Now, this last bit is a bit confusing for everyone, and has caused much debate about the classroom.
Why would he pretend to be mad?
Why not just get a sword and go chop Claudius' head off while he's drunk downstairs?
Really, just what?
This COULD be an insanely clever attempt at tactics.
If he pretends to be mad, he might get away with killig his Uncle/Stepdad thingy.
He could blame his madness on his completely messed up family.
It could work very well!!
However.
This really does make him seem a wee bit of a wuss.
He could have just killed his uncle on being an adulterer and saying that actually, hey, this bloke killed my dad!!
Then again, where's the proof? Frankly, if some grieving prince came up to me, killed his uncle, and said "I did that because the ghost of my father told me that my uncle murdered him!" I would probably tell him to get some help.
So, either way, he could be construed as mad.
Which begs the question: Why pretend to be mad when, actually, you're probably going to be seen as mad anyway?
Silly Hamlet.
Maude Clare - Christina Rossetti
1: How is the story told within the poem you are studying? E.g. from whose perspective, 1st/2nd/3rd person is there a beginning, middle and end?
We believe it is being told from an onlookers view, in third person. We felt the beginning was the first five stanzas. The next three are the middle, and the last four are the end. The narrative is omniscient as they know all the inner feelings and turmoil of the characters. Within the narrative it is suggested that Thomas’ father has been through a similar experience in the past, yet had more conviction than his son does.
It is told with backstory, adding into the poem how they feel and why their emotions are as such, making the poem very narrative and understandable.
2: What themes are explored within the poem?
The themes explored are vindication, love, lust, and betrayal. The poem says a lot through its sing song couplets. Love is at the crux of the situation, with two women in love with the same man in very different ways, and one man at a total loss as to what he has done and what he should do. Maud Clare is obviously lust, stimulation, and she considers herself as his equal. She is fierce, clever and fiery, but also clearly the woman he is deeply in love with, as he cannot cross her even as she denounces him at his own wedding. Nell on the other hand, his wife, is very demure and “pale with pride.” She considers it her duty to love him and now that they are wed she knows that he will come to forget his passionate affair and come to appreciate a loving, uncomplaining, and totally submissive life partner. Far more reliable and steadfast. Thomas does not, however, love her. Maude is portrayed as flighty. You get the impression that Thomas' mother very strongly agrees with the match. It may even have been arranged. You gather from the information that the affair with Maude Clare may have been from childhood, and his mother did not approved so he forsook her, to her anger and despair, and settled for something much less, but much more suitable.
3: What poetry and poetic devices are used for what effect?
An awful lot of imagery is used during Maude Clare's speech, where she describes intensely and with some passion the things they did when together, such as "waded ankle-deep for lilies in the beck". This produces such an image in your head that you can sense the coolness of the water and the tickling of gentle currents.
There also seems to be somewhat of an extended metaphor through the choice of memories she tells of. She speaks of spring moments when they were happy, which may suggest that their relationship was like the changing seasons, and by the next spring they had finished and he had a new love.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Analysing A Smack Of Fate
The characterisation we used for the two main characters, Derek and Chantelle, were pretty stereotypical. Derek was shown as a bonkers, decaying old scientist, who'd never really done anything of note, and Chantelle as a traditional crackhead supermodel who ate nothing and (very nearly) suffered a tragic and early demise. I think it was probably the fact that we didn't have them die in the end (a much debated subject!!) that made it individual and a bit more of a fairy tale in comparison to real life. The Destiny's Child godmothers were also fairly stereotypical, but mixed in with more of a punch rather than just the traditional "you shall go to the ball, *poof*" nonsense we are used to. (Surely it would have been more character building for Cinders to have carved out the inside of a giant pumpkin rather than just having a magical carriage put forth??)
The time and place of the story were made so that the readers had a sense that Derek was very much determined to have his love. The fact that he was in Morocco and she in England made his ardour for her more desperate and perverted, yet with a nice dash of wholesome determination.
The audience was possibly more involved with our story than perhaps traditional fairy tales as we had references to modern culture such as a Mini or heroin, rather than spinning wheels and riders on horseback. Younger, yet in a way older (teenagers) readers could become more into this story as it has those references to what may be considered "their culture".
(Don, not entirely sure what is meant by point of view?? I.e. first person or something else??)
The time and place of the story were made so that the readers had a sense that Derek was very much determined to have his love. The fact that he was in Morocco and she in England made his ardour for her more desperate and perverted, yet with a nice dash of wholesome determination.
The audience was possibly more involved with our story than perhaps traditional fairy tales as we had references to modern culture such as a Mini or heroin, rather than spinning wheels and riders on horseback. Younger, yet in a way older (teenagers) readers could become more into this story as it has those references to what may be considered "their culture".
(Don, not entirely sure what is meant by point of view?? I.e. first person or something else??)
Monday, September 20, 2010
A Smack Of Fate
Once upon a time, in Leicester, flat 32c, there lived a beautiful supermodel called Chantelle. Every day she would wake up and cross the dual carriageway to get to her job at Maybelline. After posing and pouting and demanding endless Red Bulls, she would retire to the hypodermic needle-filled alleyway outback to shoot up a few grams of the finest heroin her riches could afford. One day, when getting her daily fix, she miscalculated her measurements. With one hundred grams of smack circulating her veins, the cross across the dual carriageway became a little more complicated. In her drug induced haze, she did not see the oncoming orange convertible Mini, and was thrown into the air so she could have seen through her bedroom window on the top floor if she had been conscious.
An ambulance was called by the Mini driver, and she was rushed to hospital, pronounced comatose, and tucked up in a clean bed on the intensive care ward, stomach pumped and tubes inserted.
Far, far away in Morocco, a scientist sat in his lab, lighting the candles in a shrine dedicated to Chantelle, complete with discarded underwear and used needles. His name was Derek, and he was mourning the hideous accident suffered by the love he added on Facebook. He may have been rejected, but that was only because her feelings were clearly so strong that she could not put it across in words.
He vowed then that he would invent a cure to save her. If it took five months, a year, even ten years!!
Ten years later, the now 60 year old scientist was leaning over his test tubes, tinkering and still hoping that soon the eureka moment would happen. He was depressed, his beard was long and he’d gotten awfully skinny and wrinkled.
Suddenly from behind him came the sweet sounds of a familiar pop song. “I’m a survivor, I'm gonna make it, I will survive, Keep on survivin'” An aura of pink mist surfaced from the darkness of the musty lab, filling it with the scent of Beyonce’s Heat perfume. Derek spun in his tattered wheely chair, and was confronted with a vision of the Destiny’s Child of yester-year.
“Derek,” the Kelly Rowland spirit said, “You WILL find a cure! Do not give up hope!”
“But Kelly!” Derek exclaimed, “I have been sat here for ten years, formulating and becoming thoroughly discombobulated! I am a shadow of the man I used to be! Even if I do come up with the cure, Chantelle could never love me.”Michelle Williams’ ethereal voice piped in. “Derek, Chantelle will not need to love you for your physique or your organisation or even your charisma! She will love you because you saved her from a terrible and pointless existence.”
“Do you really think so?”
“Yes Derek,” proclaimed Beyonce Knowles, “She will love you!”
“But I can’t find the cure!”
Kelly Rowland sighed deeply. “You see the purple stuff?”
“Yes?”
“Mix it with the pink.”
Derek did as instructed. As the mixture bubbled and fizzed, Derek did not notice the pink glittery puffs of smoke as the voluptuous visions dissipated. As it calmed, he grabbed a syringe, filled it with the wonder-drug and injected it into his comatose test mouse. Immediately, the mouse jumped up and looked suspiciously at Derek and his needle. Derek also jumped, but with rather more joy and jubilation that he could finally dash to Leicester to save the addict he was so desperately infatuated with.
On the flight from Morocco’s main airport, Marrakesh, Derek stared nervously into the plane’s small mirror, oblivious to the angered knocking of fellow passengers busting for it. He combed and re-combed his straggly hair, straightened his tie and even experimented with clear mascara and concealer purchased from the airport shop with the little savings left from his large jackpot win that he had been surviving off for the last three decades. When he finally felt that he was the best presented he could possibly be, he sauntered back to his seat, buckled up for the final descent and as the plane shuddered to a halt, he felt he had finally reached the pinnacle of his existence.
He made a headlong dash straight for the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He sprinted past reception, brandishing the needle in his hand. As he rounded the corner for intensive care, he screeched to a halt as he saw the name of his beloved written on the door. Apprehensively, he pulled open the door, frail hand shaking in anticipation. He had finally laid eyes on the woman he was destined to love. He lurched forward, screamed her name, “Chantelle! Now we can be together forever and always!” and stabbed her right in the forearm.
Her azure eyes fluttered into consciousness, widening at the sight of the world she had been blocked from for so many years. In her head were the words “Who is this old bloke stabbing me with such a large needle? I can take my own heroin, thank you!”
He was of a rather different attitude. He had broken down sobbing.
“Ten years I have worked to save you, my beloved. And now we can be together!”
He got to his knees, and pulled out his grandmother’s ring.
“Chantelle, darling, will you do me the incomparable honour of being my lawfully wedded wife?”
Chantelle was shocked and appalled that such a wrinkly old fellow could possibly think that she would marry someone like him.
She opened her mouth to decline rather impolitely, when a doctor burst into the room.
“Good God!” he exclaimed. “How on Earth is this woman awake? She just last week was declared brain dead, and we were going to shut off her life support later this afternoon! If you have cured her, you’re going to be a very rich man!!”
Registering this in her vegetative state, Chantelle finally understood the true meaning of love; money. Grinning to herself, she shuffled her left hand forwards and slipped the rather minute diamond onto her ring finger. “Of course I’ll marry you!”
Once more, Derek’s eyes filled with tears as he grasped her hand tightly. He pulled her into his aged arms and embraced her.
And in one ear he heard a delicate whisper.
“So, uhm, what was your name?”
Thursday, September 16, 2010
What IS so good about Hamlet??
Well, what is so good about Hamlet?
According to the nice bloke who wrote http://www.pathguy.com/hamlet.htm, Hamlet is pretty awesome because it's the first play to discuss the toughtest questions in life. And it's so different because it leaves us with a sense that life is indeed worth living.
I will admit now I haven't read it, I haven't seen it, and that I'm overall really rather passionate about Shakespeare in an over the top kind of way.
So, actually, I know it's good because Shakespeare was a genius of EPIC proportions with stories that have applied to modern life throughout the ages and applies to modern life now.
But what makes Hamlet apply to modern life?
He's young, confused, and his family life is a bit rubbish. His dad is dead, his uncle got what was rightfully his, and his mum has married another bloke. Children from anything other than the "nuclear family" can relate to something here, making Hamlet relevant, even though it was written several hundred years ago by an old bald guy who had affairs (Probably. Let's not go into the whole conspiracy about Shakespeare now. Whoever the hell Shakespeare was, my commendations go out to them).
Hamlet is also inspirational. He goes from wanting himself dead (don't blame the guy) to loving being alive. I'll put my hands up and say I don't know WHY, but he does, which is good :)
The message is one of HOPE. Lovely hope. We all need some hope going on. If everyone was doom and gloom the whole time, we wouldn't have cheese in a tube. It can only have taken a LOT of hope to sort THAT out.
So yeah. Hamlet is great. But I feel I should read it properly before getting to involved by saying how entirely awesome it is. It feels a bit stupid doing this with no real knowledge of the thing I'm writing about.
According to the nice bloke who wrote http://www.pathguy.com/hamlet.htm, Hamlet is pretty awesome because it's the first play to discuss the toughtest questions in life. And it's so different because it leaves us with a sense that life is indeed worth living.
I will admit now I haven't read it, I haven't seen it, and that I'm overall really rather passionate about Shakespeare in an over the top kind of way.
So, actually, I know it's good because Shakespeare was a genius of EPIC proportions with stories that have applied to modern life throughout the ages and applies to modern life now.
But what makes Hamlet apply to modern life?
He's young, confused, and his family life is a bit rubbish. His dad is dead, his uncle got what was rightfully his, and his mum has married another bloke. Children from anything other than the "nuclear family" can relate to something here, making Hamlet relevant, even though it was written several hundred years ago by an old bald guy who had affairs (Probably. Let's not go into the whole conspiracy about Shakespeare now. Whoever the hell Shakespeare was, my commendations go out to them).
Hamlet is also inspirational. He goes from wanting himself dead (don't blame the guy) to loving being alive. I'll put my hands up and say I don't know WHY, but he does, which is good :)
The message is one of HOPE. Lovely hope. We all need some hope going on. If everyone was doom and gloom the whole time, we wouldn't have cheese in a tube. It can only have taken a LOT of hope to sort THAT out.
So yeah. Hamlet is great. But I feel I should read it properly before getting to involved by saying how entirely awesome it is. It feels a bit stupid doing this with no real knowledge of the thing I'm writing about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)