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…