THE LAST BLOG

Thank God it this is finally our last blog. I do not think I could handle one more of these. Five hundred words have proven to be much more than I anticipated. Let’s see, what should I talk about… Well first of all, I think that our last seminar on “A Good man is Hard to Find” was pretty successful. Everybody assumed their typical positions- Max took his usual cynical outlook, Prosper attempted to bring in Bible verses in every scenario, Jonathan threw in some commentary for my own entertainment, and it got pretty heated. I think I will miss the enthusiasm of my first period peers. But anyways, personally, I think that The Misfit is exactly that of a distorted Christ figure. The Misfit ironically saves the grandmother in the end by shooting her. He has opened the grandma’s eyes and she can finally see things clearly. He even mentions that she would have been a good lady if someone shot her every second of her life. So, he acknowledges that she is saved in the end. He realizes that his actions made her a good lady. Also, he goes from believing that murder is a pleasure to shortly after discovering that it is not. In the end, it is almost as if he is plagued by this duty to continue on his evil ways, perhaps for the better of humanity. He has given up his life to save others. Although it is cruel and bizarre, The Misfit certainly has Christ-like characteristics. I think that he becomes so solemn in the end because he has accepted his fate and looks at murder as a job rather than a pleasure. The Misfit is a smart guy; he is just a bit confused on his path in life. What he knows for certain though is that his murders made someone good and I think he knows how rare it is to find a genuinely good person. I am not really sure what Flannery O’Connor’s goal was. I guess she had a lot in mind. Obviously hypocrisy is evident throughout the story so I guess she felt the need to satirize society in that matter. Another interesting thing to think about is that maybe Max was right and there really was not much meaning behind this story. Although where is the fun in that? I guess it could just be about an annoying old lady getting what she deserves but then the ending would not really make sense. That is why I am pretty sure there is a deeper purpose behind this. In the lit book Flannery O’Connor makes some comments on this story saying that The Misfit is not a Christ Figure and that there is hardly any symbolism. But all of the notes on her emphasize her Catholicism and her common use of a distorted Christ figure. O’Connor was probably just being sassy when she said what is in the lit book. Well, that’s all for now folks. yayyyy

The Grandma

Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is a very odd short story. Firstly, the grandma is super annoying. She never seems to stop talking and she passes judgment on everyone and everything. She is incredibly egotistical because she never stops talking about her wants, her needs, or her opinions. Furthermore, her entire family is killed entirely because of the grandma’s actions. Had the grandma listened to the other adults for a second none of the murders would have occurred. She brought her cat when she was asked not to, she lied to the kids, and she did not admit her mistakes. Also, she even fakes an injury to be sympathized with… Her pride and self-admiration is what ultimately kills the family. She also never asks the Misfit to spare her family. She only wishes for him to spare herself. Even after she had ruined everything she is still only thinking about herself. In this story, everything is according to the grandma. Things are good only if she deems them so and she believes that people should live by her moral standards. She basically inconveniences everyone for her own selfish desires. It is interesting because The Misfit is actually a very self-aware and non-judging person. He seems very wise actually. When I was reading the story I really did not mind The Misfit even though he murders people for the sake of it. The grandma’s last line is thought-provoking when she says “you’re one of my own children!”  (508). I think that this is some sort of moment of enlightenment for the grandma. Maybe she realizes that it is not all about her. I think she begins to care about The Misfit just as she should care for her own children. At this moment, I think some of her egocentrism has diminished. O’Connor makes some powerful remarks throughout the story. I think that the main point is to consider others in everything. Nobody is worthy to pass judgment, and those who pass judgment are those who will suffer. The grandma considers herself a good Christian lady, but she is definitely hypocritical. Maybe by the end she is actually a Christian when she realizes that she is equal to The Misfit. I am not really sure what the whole deal is with her being obsessed with being a lady. To her, it is as if being a lady is the best thing a person can be. She even begs The Misfit not to kill her simply because she is a lady. A lady is a woman who obeys societal expectations of a woman: politeness, Christian views, femininity, etc. I guess the grandma believes that because she is a lady, she is superior to most people. This short story is very strange. I like it, but it definitely has a shocking twist to it. The grandma got what was coming to her which was sad but well deserved in some ways. 

The Importance of Being Earnest

Oscar Wilde was quite the witty character. I never imagined that I would find The Importance of Being Earnest to be so funny. Now that we are nearly finished, it’s cool to see all of the connections. First we have Jack who is interested in Gwendolyn. He is incredibly responsible and has a high moral tone in the country for his ward, Cecily. However, he has a double life. He is also a more care-free person called Ernest. It is obviously ironic that a name such as Ernest would be the name for a double life. Perhaps Wilde is noting that what appears earnest is most likely not earnest at all. Then there is Algernon. He is incredibly sarcastic and cynical, but also the voice of truth about society. Ironically, Algernon is almost never telling the truth about personal matters. He too has an alter ego which he calls “Bunburrying”. So, both Jack and Algernon lead double lives as a way to escape the real world. Next there is Lady Bracknell. She is something else. Lady Bracknell is the epitome of what was wrong with society at the time. Everything trivial she takes seriously and everything serious she takes trivially. She cares deeply about social standing and outer appearance. However, she is rather indifferent to actual feelings. To Lady Bracknell, life is a business deal. Also, we have our dear air-headed young women, Gwendolyn and Cecily. They are essentially the same person. They are dead set on marrying men named Ernest but could not care less if the men they marry are actually earnest. Evidently, the girls care more about how the world sees a person named Ernest rather than the actual character of the person. Both of them are completely lied to by their beaus to the point where they pretty much know nothing about them. Yet, they quickly forgive them once the men express their love for the ladies. Wilde seems to be commenting a bit on the role of women in society. He apparently finds women superficial and dumb. I suppose it makes sense that Wilde was into guys. It is interesting that this entire play is based on materialistic awards. The love that the couples have for one another is halted because a) the men’s names are not actually Ernest b) Jack has no important background or name for himself. Their relationships are fueled by a) Cecily’s million dollar fortune b) their names potentially being Ernest c) Jack’s habit of smoking. Okay, obviously something is wrong with this society. Life at this time period is strictly money, names, and deception. As long as the lie is good, it is acceptable. Basically all society wanted was for society to approve of them. The members of society trapped themselves in a vicious cycle of superficiality and snootiness. Overall, I like this play. It is short, funny, and satirical. It brings up some interesting points about society that are still relevant today and probably always will be.

Middlesex

I really enjoyed reading Middlesex for my free-choice. I have unfortunately not been reading very much on my own this year, so it was awesome to read a book that I would have chosen for myself had I walked through Barnes and Noble. I find it interesting that literally every character has a battle to fight. Desdemona and Lefty are plagued by their incestuous relationship and must live their life in secret and also they must face whatever consequences their relationship might create. Additionally, Milton and Tessie struggle to be successful within American society. Milton struggles to support his family while Tessie struggles to accept her children and embrace their lifestyles. Additionally, they have to deal with Chapter Eleven’s bizarre phases and Calliope’s unique condition. Speaking of Chapter Eleven, the name says it all. The term “Chapter Eleven” can be associated with United States code for bankruptcy. So, Chapter Eleven must deal with the financial ruin that he digs himself into. Also, throughout the novel he tries to find himself through drug experimentation and free thinking. He battles society and himself all throughout Middlesex. And of course Calliope has his/her own battle to fight. She struggles to first be the girl that she is expected to be. She becomes frustrated with her slow physical development and her awkward body appearance. By the end of the book, Callie has become Cal and he thus now battles to be a perfect male. Although Cal has endured all types of difficulties in life, he still struggles to be completely comfortable with himself. Every other character really had an issue of some sort as well. I like that Eugenides includes every character’s personal battle because he is able to include the reader in one way or another. Some of my favorite parts of the novel were the discreet things. I love how Desdemona’s spoon predicts Calliope’s sex even though it appears to be incorrect. It was kind of a battle between old world cultures versus the new world cultures, and in this case, old world wins. I also love that his name is Calliope. In Greek Mythology, Calliope is the muse of poetry. She wrote several epics such as the Odyssey and Iliad. It makes sense that Cal, being named after her, is on an adventure of his own. Attempting to live life as a hermaphrodite is brave and dangerous, just like the men Calliope wrote about in her poems. Also, I like that hair is a symbol throughout the novel. Desdemona is forced to chop her hair when she enters America. This symbolizes the shedding of her old life. Later, Cal discusses the constant waxing that women must endure. Again, hair is used, this time to portray the beginning of womanhood. Lastly, Callie becomes Cal by chopping her long hair into a boy’s haircut. She has abandoned her life as a girl just as Desdemona abandoned her life in Greece. Eugenides’ use of so many minute details makes for a wonderful read. 

Cavalier Poems

I like the cavalier poems because I like that they are relatively straight forward. Of course, the poems can still contain deeper meaning, but for the most part, I think they are what they are. Like in class today, I disagreed with some of my peers’ interpretation of “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars”. I understand where some of them might have seen a battle of love between one another or some sort of love triangle, but it just does not add up. To me, Lovelace is clearly declaring his love for war as greater than his love for his lover. I just do not think that there is more to really say. It is beautifully written, and the idea is interesting and captivating, but in my opinion, it is not meant to be looked at too deeply. Some poems are written to be witty and straightforward and not all poems necessarily need to be scrutinized so severely to where it changes the poet’s original meaning. Well that is how I see it anyway. I like the reoccurring theme of “Carpe Diem”. I know that the phrase can be used in destructive ways, but in life, I have found this quote to be incredibly important. When I think about it, the most spontaneous and sporadic things that I have done have been some of my best memories. Like I said, some people (such as many of the poets we have studied) tend to take this saying a little out of hand. But all in all, taking advantage of every opportunity is a great way to live. The people only thinking of the future might forget to live in the present. Every second is a gift and nobody knows what life will bring. You might as well live life to the fullest because tomorrow is not definite. The bird imagery used throughout some of the poems is a cool concept. Birds migrate with the seasons, almost as if they carry time or something. Also, they shed their feathers as if starting anew. Furthermore, birds chirp in the morning and owls hoot at night. For centuries, people depended on birds for a wake up call… it is interesting to think that birds are programmed to be our natural alarm clock and also clock. Birds are also fast and they do not live particularly long. Likewise, time is rapid and the more time has been spent, the less a person has to live. By living minute by minute, one is keeping up with time. But unfortunately, it is easy to let time’s rapid pace pass us by. So, I guess the term “time flies” is appropriately deemed. Overall, I’m enjoying this segment of poetry although I find it difficult to discuss for too long of a time. I suppose most poems can be looked at more deeply, but I feel like these are meant to personally relate to the individual reading them. So, no analysis can really capture how one is personally affected by it.

The Epic of Calliope

Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides, is so far a captivating read. The content is rather controversial and unique which makes it a book that is incredibly difficult to put down. I like how Eugenides has the main character be the narrator as well. Cal’s story telling makes the novel scientifically informative and all the while entertaining. It is interesting how he goes all the way back to his grandparents to discuss the beginnings of his mutation. Cal seems like a great guy. He has gone through the entire trauma one can surely take in a life, yet he talks almost light heartedly. I suppose with his situation one almost has to take it light heartedly. His story of his grandparents is intriguing and incredibly disturbing…  I do not get squeamish about much. I can handle the whole hermaphrodite ordeal, but incest… It is hard to swallow. Although, it is cool to see the roots of his family just because it makes the novel more intimate and it has certainly made me attached to their Greek family heritage. Although his grandparent’s situation is bizarre, the way that Cal tells the story also makes it semi understandable. It is still very difficult for me to wrap my head around it, but the entire chapter based solely on explaining the chain of events helps me slightly grasp the concept. Regardless, it is pretty weird. But anyways, I am still trying to figure out why his brother is named Chapter Eleven. Hmmm.. Also, Calliope is the muse of epic poetry in Greek Mythology. She apparently always carries around a tablet and is the wisest of the Muses. She is supposedly also the inspiration of the Odyssey and Iliad. So, it seems that the main character, Calliope or Cal, is very intelligent. This is already evident. The first couple of pages make him sound as if he is a science experiment. So, Cal is exposed to the various depths and complexities of science which thus suggests that he is educated far beyond his years. Also, the fact that the Greek Muse Calliope created the most famous epic adventures suggests that Cal will be enduring an adventure of his own. As a hermaphrodite, I would certainly think that his life would be an adventure. “Adventure” suggests over coming obstacles, achieving tasks, and discovering something new. Maybe Middlesex will do just that. Furthermore, Calliope may have been the lover of a war god. In parallel, I am certain that Cal’s condition creates a war amongst society and his friends and family. Lastly, “Calliope” means “beautiful voiced”. Just as Calliope the Greek Muse told poetry, Cal is eloquently telling his story. Perhaps his name means “beautiful-voice” because he is a voice of reason and intrigue. I am not sure what all will happen in this novel, but I am sure it will include times of trial and harshness. But, by barely even reading the novel it is apparent that he has overcome his obstacles and is living to tell his epic. 

Gatsby and such

Today in class I realized that I would be happy to read any of the lit-circle book choices. I’m looking forward to reading something enjoyable but also with literary value. It was cool to see how the opening couple pages really do reveal so much about a book. Like you said, we definitely have become better readers. Now I do not know if I can read a book or watch a movie without attempting to analyze it… This is somewhat concerning to me. It is safe to say that your teaching is rubbing off on us. I think that all of us are AP-litting things we never imagined we would. I think over the summer I will try to read all of the books that you listed because they all seem like they will be beneficial to have read for college, and they sound interesting. Also, I started to do my part of the major works chart and quickly remembered how much I like The Great Gatsby. I think I enjoy it so much because I am intrigued by the twenties. I just like the fact that the twenties were so rebellious and everything seemed so glamorous. When I picture the upper class described in The Great Gatsby, I imagine them all to be incredibly attractive. Nick definitely has swag. The guy is level headed, relatively wealthy, and in my mind, attractive. Gatsby is a bit of a mess, but hey, he throws some killer parties. Tom is a jerk but still ends up with Daisy, so props to him. Overall, these men create quite the prime cast of 1920’s men. Also, The Great Gatsby includes everything anybody could ever want in a book: infidelities, illegal actions, crazy parties, amazing fashion, murder, and mystery. It’s the whole package! It is also a short and quick read. I like the fact that it can be read for enjoyment or looked at in a much deeper meaning. Salinger really exemplifies the likely results of having too great of dreams. Americans have the sense that anything is possible, which I guess it is to a degree, but it is important to keep reality in mind. The characters of The Great Gatsby deeply experience the consequences of avoiding responsibilities and realities. Salinger throws several social criticisms into a seemingly light and entertaining read which is why the book is so brilliant. Overall, The Great Gatsby totally drew me into the story. While I read, I could picture everything so vividly and I felt like I knew all of the characters. I’m glad we had to do a chart on an old book that we have read because it now makes me want to re-read some of the earlier books I read in high school. I am sure I will notice so much more and I will undoubtedly appreciate the novel more. I guess I am going to have a lot to read this summer.

Pasta and Chrysanthemums?

After writing several weeks on Hamlet, I’ve decided that I simply can no longer do it. It was quite a journey, but that part of my literature life is temporarily on lock down. That being said, I also cannot find it in me to write about sonnets. I am not a romantic and I am not a poet, so sonnets also will not be the subject of my blog. Considering these are the top two things occurring in AP Lit, I found myself in quite the dilemma. Literature typically does not sneak its way into Figo Pasta, but lucky for me, my co-workers are extreme procrastinators when it comes to English papers. Having nothing to really blog about, I decided that tonight would be an opportune time to help out my buddy Andy with his Georgia Perimeter College English paper. Being a Monday night, the restaurant was hardly busy so Andy decided he should probably start writing his midterm paper (that is due by midnight tonight). I immediately began channeling my “inner English professor” as I reviewed his rough draft. Actually, let me rephrase that- I immediately began channeling my “inner English professor” as I reviewed the one sentence that he had. “‘The Chrysanthemums’ by John Steinbeck, is about a couple living on a ranch.” At this point, I had never read “The Chrysanthemums”, but I had inkling that it was a bit more about a couple living on a ranch. I asked if I could look at the copy of his story so that I would have a better idea of what he needed to write about. It turns out that Andy has no idea how to annotate and that “The Chrysanthemums” is a thought provoking short story. Firstly, the imagery is wonderful. Steinbeck includes vivid images of the seasons, weather, plants, and animals, all which add to the somewhat dismal mood of the overall story. Elisa, the woman in the story, perhaps portrays the tension that most women felt or feel about life. She is incredibly moody and unpredictable. She goes from being brutally short to gushing with pride in seconds. Maybe Steinbeck wants to suggest that no single interpretation can exist because people feel a mix of emotions at any single moment. Also, these conflicted emotions stem from the repressed feelings that women suffered through. Women were meant to be a certain way; these expectations probably made it difficult for them to portray their true selves thus leading to build up and unhealthy emotions. Maybe that’s why women are so confusing. Also, she is absolutely elated by the stranger’s compliment regarding her chrysanthemums. That is probably because the chrysanthemums are entirely her own. She is able to do with them what she pleases and they turn out beautifully. Her chrysanthemums represent her independence. Any ways… Andy got a decent amount of his paper done and I got an idea for my blog. Who would have thought that literature could somehow may its way into an Italian restaurant… 

The End

Well, I officially finished Hamlet. I never really thought this day would come… the play seemed abysmal. I really liked it though. This is the first time I have had an appreciation for Shakespeare and I must say, the man is a genius. Everything about the play baffled me because it has so much depth and can therefore be read in so many different ways. The whole “madness” theme was very interesting to me. It seems that the more a person was “ising”, the more mad they were to society. Hamlet struggled throughout the play on whether to be himself, or to act a certain way. That being said, he was one step closer to actually being than any other person in the play. He was the closest thing to truth and was also considered mad. Once Ophelia became mad, she became entirely herself. She allowed the deeper truths in the world to be in the open unlike most members of society. Her nonsensical words held profound reasoning within them. On a madness scale, Ophelia was at a ten. On a “being” scale, Ophelia was also at a ten. There is an evident correspondence between actually being and madness. Hamlet was not completely mad in my opinion, so he never achieved complete self-being. People act a certain way to achieve an image dictated by others in society. Acting is for others while being is for one’s self. Madness strips a person from reality and leaves a person in solitude with him or herself. It makes sense that a person alone with himself would actual be and not act. Additionally, the whole “no one can ever achieve certainty” idea is pretty cool. And it is true. It is hard to ever really know anything for certain and that’s why ceasing opportunities is so important. That also has to be why there are so many questions in the play. Nobody knows anything! Is the ghost real? Is Hamlet insane? Did Claudius confess? Did Ophelia commit suicide? Etc, etc. The point is, nobody in the play is certain about anything. Hamlet’s indecisiveness to kill Claudius in the chapel led to the killing of Polonius, Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, Laertes, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern. Everything is a mess. Had Hamlet killed Claudius, those deaths probably would not have taken place. But again, who knows. In the end, it seems like Hamlet begins to understand the idea that life is full of uncertainties and you just have to go with it. Rather than stopping the duel as he thought he should, he allowed life to take its course. He realizes that things happen for a reason, and for once, Hamlet let go of being the director to his play called Life.  Although the end is tragic, things end up for the better. Hamlet learns a little more about death, Claudius is caught in his own trap, and Laertes ends up with the rest of his family. Everybody gets what is coming for them. 

Gertrude and such

I would have to simply describe Hamlet as bizarre. I don’t know if he is insane, or just really smart, or maybe so sane that he appears insane. First of all, he has just killed a man and appears to be oddly indifferent to the fact. However, the man who murdered his dad is still alive… So, as the class originally predicted, the little allusion to Pyrrhus was correct. Hamlet had the incentive, he had the weapon, and he had the chance- but his sword stuck in the air. Maybe the visit from his father will persuade him to do it. It is interesting to wonder whether Hamlet is a coward, or if he actually is just being cautious and thoughtful. If he is a coward, why was he so okay with accidentally killing Polonius? And If he is thoughtful, than how much more thinking does he really need? But the person who really puzzles me is Gertrude. I sort of suspect that she knows about the murder and is possibly even associated with it. I would at least like to think this. If Gertrude is not associated with the murder, than she is giving women a horrible name. Yes, of course murder and adultery are terrible, but it’s an embarrassment to women if she is so easily captivated by a man’s charm. To think that she is so vulnerable and dull to almost immediately move on to her brother in law… Gertrude is either a dim-witted, easy lady, or she is incredibly cunning and evil. I’m not sure. Although, Hamlet needed to inherit his smarts from somebody, so maybe it is partially Gertrude. But also, in this past scene, it seems like Hamlet actually goes in and out of madness. He is completely barbaric for a while and then he calmly explains to his mother that he is perfectly sane. But I mean, he did kill a man for no actual reason. That seems a bit spontaneous and mad. It is as if he goes from a tame and calm mind to all of a sudden a jumbled up mind of crazy thoughts. Like, why is he so calm and poised when he is about to kill Claudius? Why is he thinking when anger should be masking all rationality? It seems to me that the person he truly truly hates is his mother. When he was talking to her, the anger that should have existed when he saw Claudius repenting was instead brought up around her. She fuels his anger. Obviously he hates his uncle but he is absolutely disgusted by his mother. And if there is a bit of Oedipus complex up in here, than he probably really really hates her. His uncle drives him to be a smart-ass and incredibly thoughtful; his mother makes him completely livid. He becomes so angry that he turns absolutely mad. I think that as long as his mother is around, he is going to become more and more insane. 

Ham

As was established at the beginning of the play, Hamlet is still the smartest character. That being said, although he may be seemingly insane, I think that he is playing everybody. Hamlet shows his passion for acting when the players come, which suggests that he is good at it. So, although he seems mad, he may just be really good at acting. However, he sort of reminds me of Heath Ledger. He got so deep into his character that he couldn’t get out of it… I sometimes wonder if that is what’s happening to Hamlet. In which case, maybe he is going crazy from trying to act crazy. Hamlet is absolutely a philosopher, so his ideas are deeper than everyone else in the play which could possibly suck him into a fake character. The fact that at one point there is a play inside of Hamlet which is also a play is overwhelming. At that point it seems like Hamlet has detached from reality and has created his own sort of reality. It is like he is a part of his own world, like he knows everything and everybody else is ignorant. It has to be terribly lonely being as intellectually superior as he is. Acting is the only way for him to detach from his actual self and relate to others. That is why he always makes double sided remarks- he has to entertain himself while being socially acceptable. It is like the world is his playground; he does things for his amusement. But being in a world where you are above everyone would either make you crazy out of isolation or just crazy in everybody else’s minds because you aren’t like them. So you’re either crazy in your own eyes or crazy in someone else’s. Soo Hamlet might be going slowly crazy because he is so isolated while he also goes crazy in everybody else’s minds for being different. Hamlet questions, I think, whether there really is an “is”. Are people “being” or are they all “seeming”? Is there such thing as “ising”? or is everybody too much of a tarnished and guarded version of himself to actually be? Also, I wonder if the Pyrrhus story will foreshadow Hamlet’s revenge. Will he choke? And also is his uncle guilty or not. It seems that he is because of his said heavy conscience, but it was also noted that ghosts at night are evil. So is King Hamlet’s ghost the devil? It’s also weird though to think that Hamlet could actually be crazy… Maybe he actually is going insane and is falling under his uncle’s and mom’s spying scheme. But I doubt that. Hamlet is too cool and smart to fall for the shallow plans of his authority. And, whose side are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on anyway? First they are about to turn on Hamlet, but now they are sort of on his side because they haven’t told the king and queen that he knows. Everybody is so deceiving. 

So many questions

It’s kind of bothering me that Polonius us spying on his son. Here I thought that Polonius and Laertes had this wonderful father/son relationship, only to discover that Polonius is faking it. Granted, he is a clever guy for sure. It’s just annoying that the one seemingly clean relationship in the book ends up being an act. And, Polonius has exhibited some rather expertise advice on discovering the facts on his son. This expertise advice leads me to believe that he has been in the corruption/ spying/ manipulating business for quite some time. Maybe he and Claudius worked together or something… I don’t know. But I’m sure he has some sort of evil about him. So far, we have Polonius spying on Laertes, Hamlet attempting to murder his uncle, Claudius killing Hamlet, Gertrude partaking in an incestuous relationship, Ophelia possibly opening her chaste treasure, the ghost of King Hamlet emerging in the wilderness, and Hamlet rapidly losing all sanity. I’d say that this is a classic case of chaos vs. order. These people certainly know how to stir up drama. All I know is that I’m just going to go ahead and call that Hamlet fools us all. He is obviously the smartest one of all of the characters, so any ludicrous actions are very likely an act. He says that he will from now on be devoted to avenging his father, so I believe that he will now be doing whatever is in his power to do just that. So, if Hamlet has to pretend to be crazy in order to kill Claudius, than he will absolutely do that. If his first insane act was that skit with Ophelia, than he’s doing a nice job. That was really awkward. Hamlet certainly knows how to turn on the cheese in a situation. Speaking of which, did Ophelia or did Ophelia not open her chaste treasure? That is the question. And if she did (as Kate Winslet suggests), was it because Hamlet truly loves her or because he truly is a great actor? Or because Kenneth Branagh wanted a sex scene? All are completely valid ideas. Speaking of so many questions, what’s up with all the questions in Hamlet? I guess it ties into the whole “play within a play” theme. You never know what’s true and what’s fake, so questions are always appropriate and always showing up. “To be or not to be” is essentially turning into the punch-line of the play. Is anybody in this play actually being themselves? Not really. Oh, and also, why are the girls so dumb? I’m not a raging feminist by any stretch, but really Shakespeare? Gertrude is weak and easily persuaded and sleeping with her brother in law. And Ophelia is possibly completely fooled by Hamlet… and if she isn’t, than she just told on her lover for being insane which will inevitably hurt him. Either way, Ophelia has lost her love. And Gertrude is common. Come on ladies. Pull it together.

Hamlet

It’s taking me awhile to get used to the language, but I am enjoying Hamlet thus far. Shakespeare truly is amazing. I have never read so much craft within literature which makes me appreciate his work even more. I like how sarcastic and ornery Hamlet is. All of the remarks he makes to his mom and step-dad are very funny and witty. It’s extremely entertaining to see somebody maintain the necessary politeness all the while blatantly calling them out on their flaws. Hamlet has perfected the art of just barely getting away with being arrogant. It’s rather admirable really. I like the fact that although this was written a long time ago, it is still relatable today. Hamlet is yet another angry young adult throwing back rude remarks towards his parents- he’s just way better at it than anybody I know. I do not know anything about this book besides what we have read, so it is hard for me to connect the importance of the themes that we have found. But I am interested in the connection of the father/son theme. Religiously, a father/son relationship most definitely alludes back to God and Jesus. Jesus was sent from God to the earth to save people from sins. Hamlet, the father, dies and thus leaves his son on the earth alone, as does Fortinbras, the father, leave his son. Like Jesus, both of these sons are physically fatherless. However, as the opening scene suggests, King Hamlet is still watching over his kingdom like God watches over his people. And if this play alludes to Jesus and God in anyway, maybe King Hamlet will expect for Hamlet to save the kingdom. Sooo who knows, maybe there will be more Jesus allusions to come.  Additionally, it is disturbing that the Queen and Hamlet’s Uncle are first of all married, and second of all, completely over the King’s death. I mean, I know that people die every day, but how is she already remarried? And to her brother in law for that matter! Twisted stuff. I just wonder how that arrangement even occurred. Why would the queen be okay with so rapidly remarrying her brother in law? It’s as if they have been lovers for a while. These people have to be fools to not understand why Hamlet is mad. The odd thing is that even compared to Hamlet the step-dad is pretty smart. So right now, everybody is playing a bizarre game with one another. Obviously, this situation is abnormal, yet people are continuing on as if all is well. It is like a play within a play. As of now, I am just confused by everything so I’m anxious to see what is in store. As I learned, seeing ghosts at night time is typically not the best sign.. and sleeping with a brother in law probably is not either. Right now, the kingdom is in absolute chaos which of course opens the theme of chaos vs. order… wow there are a lot of connections. 

The Shakespeare Craze

I’m pretty excited to start Hamlet. I have only read Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and The Twelfth Knight- and that was a few years ago. I thought that the video today was interesting too. It’s interesting how different speech was back then than today. Perhaps the speech goes along with the day and age. For example, we do not really emphasize our vowels, we talk quickly and efficiently. In contrast, during Shakespearian time, people emphasized certain letters, and as you had suggested, talked “rounder”. The thoughtful and lengthy speech from long ago may emulate the more leisurely or at least thoughtful way of life. Today, we are all so busy and rushed that speech is just as rapid. It is a shame really; Shakespeare proved that language is an art, and we are almost minimizing the capacity of it. We have taken out the quality in words that make them sound especially interesting and been left with simplicity. Not that simplicity is a bad thing, but it just seems weird that society would take out the beauty in the actual sound of words. Also, I find the fact that Shakespeare created an exceptional vocabulary quite intriguing. It makes me wonder where we would be today without his words. It’s cool that he just decided to take authority and develop these words. I know that society creates new words as well to a degree today, but that is society as a whole. Shakespeare totally changed his society. It is amazing that he had a 34,000 word vocabulary when the average educated person has half of that. Life would be so much more poetic with a larger vocabulary. Shakespeare was able to express so many feelings and thoughts where everybody else is confined to maybe half of those words. If everybody talked like Shakespeare, one would be able to share more personal thoughts which would lead to a more empathetic society. Shakespeare apparently did this wonderfully with his thirty seven plays. He was able to portray and include every social class and way of life. This allowed for a broader audience because everybody felt included. To be able to include all people in something so artistically touching is quite the accomplishment. It is amazing to think that one man changed the face of history with his passion for language. To think that words themselves can change something so immensely… So anyway, I’m excited to really understand the whole “Shakespeare craze”. I have already noticed the vast difference between reading as a sophomore and reading as a senior, so I’m sure Hamlet will be no exception. Also, I’m interested in comparing such an old piece of literature to the more recent novels that we have read. As we saw from the video today, language changes, but emotions and day to day life are sometimes oddly similar. Shakespeare is obviously incredibly bright and creative, and apparently he’s pretty humorous as well. That sounds like a pretty mixture to me; hopefully I won’t get too tired of five weeks of him…