This past month has involved a lot of Ceremony, so I'm kind of glad this month is through because it was probably my least favorite of all the works we've read so far. It was a bit of a slog at times and I don't really identify with any of the characters. The writing style also wasn't my favorite. It's not that I didn't like the book, it just paled in comparison to everything else we've read this year.
We all were assigned different articles regarding the book to read to help further our analysis, and I basically lucked out by getting assigned the one discussing the significance of the various animals, because that one was chock full of great information and really went a long way in helping me understand the work. I'm largely satisfied with the theme statement that my hour came up with, though I'm not sure if it was worded as well as it could've been. But I think that out of all of the theme statements we've created the wording was trickiest for this one. I also feel like there's a lot I'm still missing, and when the AP exam rolls around, Ceremony is probably the least likely to be used by me on an essay.
And since the AP exam is now only a week and half away, we've been increasing the amount of practice. I'm largely banking on the multiple choice section to boost my score, so I was happy to see myself do well on the practice section we took. I was also completely shocked to get a seven on the most recent practice essay we did. If I can live up to my lofty expectations for the multiple choice section and then pull out sevens on the essays on top of that I think I can definitely score a five on this exam.
I wasn't crazy about the Weebly project. I'm not sure what use it's going to be for me and I don't think it's going to have much of an impact on how I do on the AP exam. I enjoyed researching Edward Albee, it's something I might have done on my own anyway for fun, but I'd be shocked if any of the information I learned through that research came in handy on the exam.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Open Prompt 4/20
2003 Open Prompt: Tragic Figures as Instruments of the Suffering of Others
According to critic Northrop Frye, “Tragic heroes are so much the highest points in their human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, great trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be instruments as well as victims of the divisive lightning.” Select a novel or play in which a tragic figure functions as an instrument of the suffering of others. Then write an essay in which you explain how the suffering brought upon others by that figure contributes to the tragic vision of the work as a whole.
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman follows the life of Willy Loman, whose struggle to be successful in the business world of America tears his family apart and ultimately kills him. The death of Willy Loman and the destruction of his family is used to signify the death of traditional American values and the breakdown of traditional American families.
Willy learns the keys to being successful from his older brother Ben. Those keys seem to all involve being a deceitful person and doing whatever it takes to get to the top. However, it becomes apparent that the closest Willy comes to following in Ben's advice is when he has an affair with The Woman. Other than that he doesn't commit a dirty act to advance himself, he just works hard and tirelessly. And as it turns out, the sole attempt by Willy to follow Ben's advice is the driving force behind the family's destruction, as it shatters Biff's ambitions and the guilt of that nearly drives Willy to insanity.
Willy's attempt to conform to the new business order drives his family apart, but his inability to succeed when not conforming also puts them under strain. Being subconsciously unable to actual do what it takes to succeed as Ben did, he's never able to advance too far up the ladder, and he's ultimately fired by his boss. The family struggles financially as a result, finding it difficult to pay the house off before Willy becomes too old to work. Willy's inability to succeed causes him to fall into a state of delusion in which he believes he is successful, and this delusion is passed down to his children, Biff and Happy. Due to Willy's psyche, his wife Linda has to dote on him almost as if he were a child in order to keep him from hurting himself. They go from a normal happy family to one of suffering, their tragedy being reflective of the deterioration of the American society's values.
This deterioration is largely seen through Ben and through Willy's ramblings. Ben talks about how we walked into the "jungle" and came back rich, but it's heavily implied that becoming rich in the jungle involved less than honest methods. Willy encourages his son Biff to steal and to cheat when he can. When Biff has to pass his math exam, Willy just encourages him to cheat in order to pass, something Ben might've encouraged, which would go against the typical American moral standard, which would be to work and study hard in order to pass. When Biff does these things, he succeeds, but after he catches Willy having an affair and goes back to being honest, he spirals into a meandering state of failure. And no one in the business world is sympathetic to hard work anymore, as is evidenced by the firing of Willy Loman. This is all proof that society is changing, and that traditional moral values are deteriorating in the name of business success.
As society's traditional values goes down the drain, we see Willy's mental state continue to crumble and his family fall apart. Willy serves as an instrument to the fall of traditional morals, and his firing and eventual death signifies the ultimate topple of morals in the business world.
According to critic Northrop Frye, “Tragic heroes are so much the highest points in their human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, great trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be instruments as well as victims of the divisive lightning.” Select a novel or play in which a tragic figure functions as an instrument of the suffering of others. Then write an essay in which you explain how the suffering brought upon others by that figure contributes to the tragic vision of the work as a whole.
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman follows the life of Willy Loman, whose struggle to be successful in the business world of America tears his family apart and ultimately kills him. The death of Willy Loman and the destruction of his family is used to signify the death of traditional American values and the breakdown of traditional American families.
Willy learns the keys to being successful from his older brother Ben. Those keys seem to all involve being a deceitful person and doing whatever it takes to get to the top. However, it becomes apparent that the closest Willy comes to following in Ben's advice is when he has an affair with The Woman. Other than that he doesn't commit a dirty act to advance himself, he just works hard and tirelessly. And as it turns out, the sole attempt by Willy to follow Ben's advice is the driving force behind the family's destruction, as it shatters Biff's ambitions and the guilt of that nearly drives Willy to insanity.
Willy's attempt to conform to the new business order drives his family apart, but his inability to succeed when not conforming also puts them under strain. Being subconsciously unable to actual do what it takes to succeed as Ben did, he's never able to advance too far up the ladder, and he's ultimately fired by his boss. The family struggles financially as a result, finding it difficult to pay the house off before Willy becomes too old to work. Willy's inability to succeed causes him to fall into a state of delusion in which he believes he is successful, and this delusion is passed down to his children, Biff and Happy. Due to Willy's psyche, his wife Linda has to dote on him almost as if he were a child in order to keep him from hurting himself. They go from a normal happy family to one of suffering, their tragedy being reflective of the deterioration of the American society's values.
This deterioration is largely seen through Ben and through Willy's ramblings. Ben talks about how we walked into the "jungle" and came back rich, but it's heavily implied that becoming rich in the jungle involved less than honest methods. Willy encourages his son Biff to steal and to cheat when he can. When Biff has to pass his math exam, Willy just encourages him to cheat in order to pass, something Ben might've encouraged, which would go against the typical American moral standard, which would be to work and study hard in order to pass. When Biff does these things, he succeeds, but after he catches Willy having an affair and goes back to being honest, he spirals into a meandering state of failure. And no one in the business world is sympathetic to hard work anymore, as is evidenced by the firing of Willy Loman. This is all proof that society is changing, and that traditional moral values are deteriorating in the name of business success.
As society's traditional values goes down the drain, we see Willy's mental state continue to crumble and his family fall apart. Willy serves as an instrument to the fall of traditional morals, and his firing and eventual death signifies the ultimate topple of morals in the business world.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Ceremony Summary and Analysis
Theme: Silko's Ceremony shows that personal and natural balance can only be achieved by balancing your own cultural traditions with new ideas.
Betonie points out that animals adapt to changes in their surroundings and that that's how they survive, meanwhile humans tend to resist change. In order to ensure the survival of his spirit, the land, and the larger community, Tayo has to reconcile the older, traditional Laguna culture and the newer, modern white culture. Tayo's own hybridity is what makes him especially suited for this task, it's the return of the hybrid cattle that ultimately complete the ceremony.
Summary: Tayo is very sick after returning to the Laguna Reservation after serving as a soldier in WWII. He is especially haunted by the deaths of his cousin Rocky and his uncle Josiah. At the Laguna Reservation, a drought is plaguing the people and many other Laguna are having mental and emotional problems to Tayo. Many are trying to escape the Laguna culture and immerse themselves in white culture, with Emo being among the worst. With modern medicine and traditional Laguna methods unable to cure Tayo, he goes to see the medicine man Betonie who gives him instruction on how to reconcile the two traditions and cure himself, the land, and the community. Tayo begins by seeking out a herd of hybrid cattle bought by Josiah. He finds them, and encounters Ts'eh and Hunter. He has a fleeting romantic encounter with Ts'eh, who represents Yellow Woman. After returning the cattle, Tayo learns that Emo is recruiting people to come after him, claiming that he is crazy. Tayo runs. He encounters Emo and two other Laguna veterans, who have joined Emo's side, at the emergence point and hides. Tayo watches as he kills one, but knows that he must do nothing. Having returned the cattle and evaded Emo, the ceremony is completed. The drought ends and the destruction of the land and the community is stopped.
Author: Leslie Marmon Silko is mixed race, she is both Laguna Pueblo and white. She grew up on the Laguna Pueblo Reservation.
Setting: The Laguna Pueblo Reservation in western New Mexico post World War II, though there are some passages that occur in the Pacific Theatre of World War II
Characters:
Tayo: Half-white, half-Laguna, Tayo is the protagonist of the story. He grew up on the Laguna reservation and fights in WWII along with his cousin Rocky. He is very traumatized by the death of Rocky during the war, and the death of his uncle Josiah while he is away. Tayo becomes very ill after the war and the story follows his journey to be cured through ceremony. He represents the Sun Father and the completion of his ceremony brings spiritual balance to him and balance to nature and his community.
Rocky: Tayo's cousin who dies in the war. He was often disdainful of Laguna culture and was more prized in the eyes of Auntie.
Josiah: Tayo's uncle who dies while Tayo is fighting in the war, and is Tayo's father figure. He believes in Laguna customs and buys the hybrid cattle.
Auntie: Tayo's aunt, she is effectively the head of the family given Grandma's age. She does not adhere to the Laguna customs and tends toward white culture and customs. She is a Christian. She alienates Tayo and always holds Rocky on a higher pedestal. Her relationship with Tayo becomes especially strained after Rocky dies.
Grandma: Tayo's grandmother, She very much adheres to Laguna tradition.
Betonie: A "hybrid" medicine man, as he uses Navajo and Pueblo methods. He sets Tayo on the right path to complete the necessary ceremony, telling him to reconcile with change and to adapt to it. It's his instruction that ultimately leads Tayo to balance and cure.
Ts'eh: The Yellow Woman. She helps guide Tayo through his ceremony and has a fleeting romantic relationship with him. She essentially impregnates Tayo with stories.
Hunter: The husband/partner of Ts'eh, represents the mountain lion. Also assists in guiding Tayo through his ceremony.
Emo: The main antagonist of the story. He is a witch, looking to work against the reconciliation between the Laguna and white cultures that Tayo is working toward. He was one of the Laguna natives who fought in WWII.
Motifs:
BALANCE
NATURE
ANIMALS
STORIES
CULTURE
Hybridity
Ceremony
Change
Tradition
Sickness
Cyclicity
Sex
Weather
Direction
Ground
Fertility
Matriarchy
Color
Spirits
Witchcraft
Imagery: Heavy emphasis is placed on natural imagery and the significance of natural landmarks. The colors yellow and turquoise are given powerful spiritual significance, while white is significant in its artificiality. Red and brown colors are often used to depict drought and gray often represents conflict, usually spiritual conflict.
Perspective: From Tayo's perspective, though it will sometimes shift time periods oddly as if his thoughts are drifting through various memories. There are some poems that break up the book to help guide the story that are not from Tayo's perspective, but could be told by any Laguna.
Tone: Silko's tone is serious and thoughtful. She carries us through Tayo's thoughts and wants to feel the anguish and personal struggle that he does, while still considering the bigger picture and considering the larger implications that the story deals with.
Symbols:
Mountain Lion: The mountain lion is associated as the helper of Yellow Woman, and can be seen in characters such as Hunter. But the mountain lion also embodies faith in spirit, which is why the mountain lion is there for Tayo when he is trying to return the cattle, even distracting the two white men who capture Tayo so that Tayo can escape.
The Hybrid Cattle: The cattle bought by Josiah represent the clouds in the sky and rain. Their very appearance is supposed to suggest clouds, but their absence also aligns with the disappearance of the clouds and rain in an old Laguna story. When Tayo returns the cattle, he also returns the rain to the Laguna people and ends the drought.
Quotes:
"it seems like I already heard these stories before--only thing is, the names sound different" (242)
Demonstrates the common motif of cyclicity. The old Laguna stories can be applied to real life, and used to help the newer generation. Tayo's own story of returning the cattle greatly mirrors an old Laguna story about returning the rain. It shows the importance of the old Laguna tradition.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead Summary and Analysis
Theme: Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead contrasts the confusion and language of the stage with the audience, commenting that because life is not a work of art, we are not limited by the same laws of fate that characters are and can therefore exercise free will.
Summary: The play begins with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern onstage flipping coins that are all landing heads. They aren't really anywhere. They come across a group of Tragedians led by the Player, who they banter with for some time ultimately winning a bet with the Player, where the Tragedians will put on a show for them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern then begin to encounter various characters from Hamlet, first by seeing Hamlet chase after Ophelia fretfully. They then encounter Claudius and Gertrude, and follow their lines in Shakespeare's play unknowingly. While not in the presence of other characters from Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern contemplate their existence and try to sort things out for themselves, but they never get anywhere. At one point, the Tragedians perform a show for them, which foreshadows the future events of Hamlet including the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but it goes over their heads. Eventually, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up on a boat with Hamlet, as they do in Shakespeare's play. When the pirates attack and take Hamlet back to Denmark with them, the Tragedians emerge from barrels on the ship. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern read the letter that Hamlet traded in and learn that they are marked to die. The Player angers Guildenstern by seeming to have a relatively decent understanding of death that challenges Guildenstern's own. In a fit of rage, Guildenstern seemingly kills the Player with a knife, but the other actors applaud and it's revealed that the Player was only acting and that it was a prop knife. Ultimately, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die as they do in Hamlet.
Characters:
Guildenstern - One of the two main characters. Practically inseparable from Rosencrantz. He has an almost desperate desire to understand his surroundings, but he's never able to come to any conclusion that he's satisfied with. He's more contemplative and quick-thinking than his counterpart Guildenstern, but he'll often veer off course while thinking aloud to himself and only confuse himself further. He doesn't like the Player very much, largely due to the perception that the Player knows more about the universe they're in than he does. He like to think, contrasting with Rosencrantz, who tends to think more emotionally.
Rosencrantz - One of the two main characters. Practically inseparable from Rosencrantz. He's very curious, but his desire to understand everything around him isn't as intense as that of Guildenstern's. He's a bit slow but also very kindhearted. He has a few emotional outbursts later in the play, showing that he's more of an emotional thinker in contrast to Rosencrantz, who thinks logically.
Player - The leader of the Tragedians. The Player is an actor who has no problem adjusting to the times, performing whatever's most popular even if he doesn't particularly enjoy it all. He seems to understand the rules of the universe he exists in, and acts with it as opposed to against it like Guil and Ros attempt to do (but fail to do).
Motifs:
-Death
-Chance/Fate
-Language
-Theater/Art
-Confusion
-Logic
-Identity
-Coins
-Repetition
-Religion
-Direction
-Control
-Sex
-Eroticism
-Buying and Selling
-Meta
-Eternity
-Color
-Light
-Trust
Symbols:
-Unicorns
-England
-Light
-Boxes
-Boats
Quotes:
"Consistency is all I ask!" (p. 39) -- Ros and Guil can't seem to grasp their situation, so in desperation Guil exclaims that he would like some consistency. He doesn't realize that the rules of this universe are consistent, and this quote represents the struggle of Ros and Guil to understand their situation. They try too hard to use logic but they just end up confusing themselves.
"And besides, anything could happen yet." (p. 95) -- This quote has so much irony in it. Ros still believes that there's hope with their situation, that he and Ros might still have some control. But the fact is, they're going to die. No matter what they try to do, after they get on the boat, Hamlet will switch their letter, pirates will attack and take Hamlet, they will continue to England, and they'll be hung. Nothing can possibly change that. But Ros has yet to figure that out.
Summary: The play begins with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern onstage flipping coins that are all landing heads. They aren't really anywhere. They come across a group of Tragedians led by the Player, who they banter with for some time ultimately winning a bet with the Player, where the Tragedians will put on a show for them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern then begin to encounter various characters from Hamlet, first by seeing Hamlet chase after Ophelia fretfully. They then encounter Claudius and Gertrude, and follow their lines in Shakespeare's play unknowingly. While not in the presence of other characters from Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern contemplate their existence and try to sort things out for themselves, but they never get anywhere. At one point, the Tragedians perform a show for them, which foreshadows the future events of Hamlet including the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but it goes over their heads. Eventually, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up on a boat with Hamlet, as they do in Shakespeare's play. When the pirates attack and take Hamlet back to Denmark with them, the Tragedians emerge from barrels on the ship. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern read the letter that Hamlet traded in and learn that they are marked to die. The Player angers Guildenstern by seeming to have a relatively decent understanding of death that challenges Guildenstern's own. In a fit of rage, Guildenstern seemingly kills the Player with a knife, but the other actors applaud and it's revealed that the Player was only acting and that it was a prop knife. Ultimately, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die as they do in Hamlet.
Characters:
Guildenstern - One of the two main characters. Practically inseparable from Rosencrantz. He has an almost desperate desire to understand his surroundings, but he's never able to come to any conclusion that he's satisfied with. He's more contemplative and quick-thinking than his counterpart Guildenstern, but he'll often veer off course while thinking aloud to himself and only confuse himself further. He doesn't like the Player very much, largely due to the perception that the Player knows more about the universe they're in than he does. He like to think, contrasting with Rosencrantz, who tends to think more emotionally.
Rosencrantz - One of the two main characters. Practically inseparable from Rosencrantz. He's very curious, but his desire to understand everything around him isn't as intense as that of Guildenstern's. He's a bit slow but also very kindhearted. He has a few emotional outbursts later in the play, showing that he's more of an emotional thinker in contrast to Rosencrantz, who thinks logically.
Player - The leader of the Tragedians. The Player is an actor who has no problem adjusting to the times, performing whatever's most popular even if he doesn't particularly enjoy it all. He seems to understand the rules of the universe he exists in, and acts with it as opposed to against it like Guil and Ros attempt to do (but fail to do).
Motifs:
-Death
-Chance/Fate
-Language
-Theater/Art
-Confusion
-Logic
-Identity
-Coins
-Repetition
-Religion
-Direction
-Control
-Sex
-Eroticism
-Buying and Selling
-Meta
-Eternity
-Color
-Light
-Trust
Symbols:
-Unicorns
-England
-Light
-Boxes
-Boats
Quotes:
"Consistency is all I ask!" (p. 39) -- Ros and Guil can't seem to grasp their situation, so in desperation Guil exclaims that he would like some consistency. He doesn't realize that the rules of this universe are consistent, and this quote represents the struggle of Ros and Guil to understand their situation. They try too hard to use logic but they just end up confusing themselves.
"And besides, anything could happen yet." (p. 95) -- This quote has so much irony in it. Ros still believes that there's hope with their situation, that he and Ros might still have some control. But the fact is, they're going to die. No matter what they try to do, after they get on the boat, Hamlet will switch their letter, pirates will attack and take Hamlet, they will continue to England, and they'll be hung. Nothing can possibly change that. But Ros has yet to figure that out.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Hamlet Summary and Analysis
Theme: In Hamlet, Shakespeare warns that when you don't know who you are you are unable to effectively exercise moral judgement.
Summary: Bernardo, Marcellus, Fernando, and Horatio come across Old Hamlet's ghost on a night watch but he doesn't respond to them. They resolve to tell Hamlet about this. Claudius allows Laertes to go to France but he and Gertrude don't allow Hamlet to return to Wittenberg for school. Polonius tells Ophelia to not see Hamlet. Hamlet confronts his father's ghost and the ghost tells Hamlet that Claudius killed him. Hamlet promises to avenge his father's death. Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet has gone mad and describes how Hamlet came to her in her closet. Polonius concludes that Hamlet is mad from his love for Ophelia and tells Claudius. They decide to spy on him. Claudius recruits Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern to find what afflicts Hamlet. Claudius and Polonius spy on a conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia where Hamlet tells Ophelia he never loved her. Claudius decides that something else is afflicting Hamlet. Hamlet has the Players put on The Murder of Gonzago and Hamlet decides that Claudius truly is guilty based on his reaction to the performance. Claudius wants Ros and Guil to take Hamlet to England. Hamlet finds Claudius praying confessional but can't bring himself to kill him while he's praying. Hamlet has a heated conversation with his mother while Polonius spies. Polonius heres Gertrude yell and calls for help. Hamlet murders him, believing him to be Claudius. Hamlet continues to berate his mother for her actions before seeing his father's ghost again. Gertrude tells Claudius of Polonius' death. Claudius reveals that he plans to have Hamlet executed in England. On his way to the boats, Hamlet runs into Fortinbras' army and resolves to kill Claudius. Ophelia goes insane and Laertes returns to Elsinore and swears revenge on Hamlet. Horatio learns that Hamlet escaped the ship and is coming back to Denmark dues to pirates. Ophelia commits suicide. Hamlet contemplates the meaning of death with a skull in his hand. He and Horatio stumble upon Ophelia's funeral procession and Hamlet and Laertes tussle over her casket over who loved her more. They agree to duel later. Hamlet reveals to Horatio that he left orders for Ros and Guil to be executed. Hamlet also tells Laertes that he's prepared to die. Before the duel, Hamlet apologizes Laertes, who pretends to accept it. Claudius has poisoned wine meant for Hamlet and Laertes has tipped his sword with poison. But Gertrude ends up drinking the wine and Hamlet and Laertes are both hit with the poisoned sword. Gertrude dies. Laertes sells out Claudius and accepts Hamlet's apology. Hamlet stabs Claudius and forces him to drink the poisoned wine, who dies along with Laertes. Hamlet dies. Horatio lives! Fortinbras storms in and takes over.
Characters: (Adapted from the Collaborative Review)
Summary: Bernardo, Marcellus, Fernando, and Horatio come across Old Hamlet's ghost on a night watch but he doesn't respond to them. They resolve to tell Hamlet about this. Claudius allows Laertes to go to France but he and Gertrude don't allow Hamlet to return to Wittenberg for school. Polonius tells Ophelia to not see Hamlet. Hamlet confronts his father's ghost and the ghost tells Hamlet that Claudius killed him. Hamlet promises to avenge his father's death. Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet has gone mad and describes how Hamlet came to her in her closet. Polonius concludes that Hamlet is mad from his love for Ophelia and tells Claudius. They decide to spy on him. Claudius recruits Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern to find what afflicts Hamlet. Claudius and Polonius spy on a conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia where Hamlet tells Ophelia he never loved her. Claudius decides that something else is afflicting Hamlet. Hamlet has the Players put on The Murder of Gonzago and Hamlet decides that Claudius truly is guilty based on his reaction to the performance. Claudius wants Ros and Guil to take Hamlet to England. Hamlet finds Claudius praying confessional but can't bring himself to kill him while he's praying. Hamlet has a heated conversation with his mother while Polonius spies. Polonius heres Gertrude yell and calls for help. Hamlet murders him, believing him to be Claudius. Hamlet continues to berate his mother for her actions before seeing his father's ghost again. Gertrude tells Claudius of Polonius' death. Claudius reveals that he plans to have Hamlet executed in England. On his way to the boats, Hamlet runs into Fortinbras' army and resolves to kill Claudius. Ophelia goes insane and Laertes returns to Elsinore and swears revenge on Hamlet. Horatio learns that Hamlet escaped the ship and is coming back to Denmark dues to pirates. Ophelia commits suicide. Hamlet contemplates the meaning of death with a skull in his hand. He and Horatio stumble upon Ophelia's funeral procession and Hamlet and Laertes tussle over her casket over who loved her more. They agree to duel later. Hamlet reveals to Horatio that he left orders for Ros and Guil to be executed. Hamlet also tells Laertes that he's prepared to die. Before the duel, Hamlet apologizes Laertes, who pretends to accept it. Claudius has poisoned wine meant for Hamlet and Laertes has tipped his sword with poison. But Gertrude ends up drinking the wine and Hamlet and Laertes are both hit with the poisoned sword. Gertrude dies. Laertes sells out Claudius and accepts Hamlet's apology. Hamlet stabs Claudius and forces him to drink the poisoned wine, who dies along with Laertes. Hamlet dies. Horatio lives! Fortinbras storms in and takes over.
Characters: (Adapted from the Collaborative Review)
Hamlet: Protagonist. Thirty-some. Quite obviously a Christ figure, though perhaps in certain adaptions and interpretations a failed Christ figure or even a figure of the Devil. Son of Old Hamlet and Gertrude, nephew to Claudius, who has just wed Gertrude. We presume that when he is in Elsinore, he loses the personality he had when he was at school in Wittenberg. Hamlet is in a “relationship” with Ophelia, which may result in a possible pregnancy. May have an Oedipal relationship with Gertrude. Constantly contemplates suicide, and is perhaps having an existential crisis to due his conflict of character and values as a Protestant man coming from schooling in Germany, and the values of Elsinore.
Gertrude: Hamlet’s mother, previously married to Old Hamlet, currently married to Claudius. It is strongly suggested that she is guilty of incest, either with her affair with Claudius while Old Hamlet still lived, or the sketchy Oedipal relationship between herself and Hamlet as portrayed in certain adaptions.
Claudius: King of Denmark, as elected by the council of Denmark’s elders. Hamlet’s father and uncle. Killed Hamlet’s father for Gertrude, and subsequently crowned the new king of Denmark.
Ophelia: Daughter of Polonius, sister to Laertes. In a relationship with Hamlet, unbeknownst to most of the court. Possibly pregnant, goes insane after her father’s death and subsequently kills herself. And of course, in certain interpretations can be seen to have an incestuous relationship with her brother. Incest for the win-cest.
Laertes: Son of Polonius, brother of Ophelia. Spends most of the play in France, until Polonius is killed. After his father is slain by Hamlet, Laertes returns to the court where the citizens quickly rally around him to be the next King of Denmark. He seeks vengeance on Hemlet and subsequently enters into a plot with Claudius to poison Hamlet in a duel.
Polonius: Chief counselor to the King. Laertes’ and Ophelia’s father. Likes to work behind the scenes. Has two personalities, one for politics and one for his family. He is seen as a fool and too wordy and pompous, but in truth he is very smart and aware of his surroundings, though not necessarily in touch with his family.
Motifs: (Adapted from the Collaborative Review)
- Ambiguity
- Insularity
- Incest
- Identity
- Providence
- Revenge
- Control
- Religion
- Duality (Natural vs. Unnatural, identity vs. public appearance, father & son, light vs. day, pure vs. impure)
- Death
- Surveillance
- Misogyny
- Ears & hearing
- Synecdoche
- Fortune/luck
- Lack of trust
- Mystery of death- afterlife
- Nation as a poisoned body
- Putting on persons- inner vs. outer self. Acting
- Lies
- Madness
Symbols: (Adapted from the Collaborative Review)
Mirrors (movies only): visual effect used to portray the identity crises present in the play and the role of looking into the reflection of one’s own soul and consequential actions.
Yorick’s Skull- Hamlet’s realization death is part of a natural order; to not fear it, and that his own death is inevitable.
Old Hamlet's Ghost - a physical representation of the usurpation of Old Hamlet, and the unholiness of the quest he asks of Hamlet, as it is not right for spirit to dwell on Earth after it has been killed.
Hamlet/Old Hamlet - Hamlet and Old Hamlet share the same name, thus suggesting that as characters they are in fact, interchangeable.
Hamlet is a play, thus there is no point of view, but Hamlet's struggle largely tells the tale. The style Shakespeare uses is also hard to pin point because A) it's a play and B) we do not actually have any of the stage directions from Shakespeare and even the dialogue is mostly guesswork and the common acceptance of versions. The mirrors in the cinematic adaptions also provide an interesting image to support the imagery of introspection, especially in Hamlet's many soliloquies.
Quotes:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Act III, scene ii) -- This quote highlights the significance of the hypocrisy of the royalty in Denmark, as Gertrude is criticizing someone who is essentially her. It shows the rottenness of the Denmark ruling class.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (Act I, scene iv) -- This line from Marcellus foreshadows what we'll later know to be true. Elsinore is so insular and full of duplicitous, power-hungry elites spying on each other that it's making Denmark rotten to the core.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Responses to Course Material (12/22)
Hamlet. Hamlet. Hamlet.
The month of December has basically been a whole lot of Hamlet. Is it bad that there's not a single character in this play that I like? I can appreciate Hamlet and Claudius as characters and the complexities behind them, but aside from Horatio (who I'm really just indifferent towards) I actually just dislike every character. The only previous reaction that I've had similar to this that I can recall was after reading The Great Gatsby. Nick has no personality and can hardly be considered a character, Jay is too angsty and desperate, Daisy is an insufferable mental case, Tom is a jerk, Jordan's acts above it all when she's just kind of mean and off putting, George is an oblivious sad sack, and Myrtle is...well, that shouldn't require explanation.
That didn't really have a point, I just connected Hamlet to The Great Gatsby and I just had to go and trash all of the characters. Pardon me.
The films to me were great in showing how not to perform Hamlet (no guyliner, no pelvic thrusting into the air, no throwing fencing sabers across ballrooms like they're spears, etc.). My favorite was definitely the 40s one though. It didn't have anything that I really disliked. I'm not entirely sure myself what expectations I had set for these films but the 40s version hit the most of them. I think the biggest praise I'd give it is that it wasn't too over the top and all of the acting was solid.
The most interesting thing that came out of the Hamlet discussions for me was at the very end of the month when we read the Tragic Hamlet article which revealed possible deeper complexities to the character of Hamlet and injected more religious undertones into our class discussion. It completely altered my understanding of Hamlet's motivations, even if the article failed to make me any more sympathetic towards Hamlet. It's like at the end of an episode of Scooby-Doo, the villain is unmasked and you know who is responsible and how they did all that they did, but the most interest part is when the villain ultimately explains why he/she was a villain. We've all known about Hamlet and his actions but the article gave more insight into what actually motivated Hamlet.
The month of December has basically been a whole lot of Hamlet. Is it bad that there's not a single character in this play that I like? I can appreciate Hamlet and Claudius as characters and the complexities behind them, but aside from Horatio (who I'm really just indifferent towards) I actually just dislike every character. The only previous reaction that I've had similar to this that I can recall was after reading The Great Gatsby. Nick has no personality and can hardly be considered a character, Jay is too angsty and desperate, Daisy is an insufferable mental case, Tom is a jerk, Jordan's acts above it all when she's just kind of mean and off putting, George is an oblivious sad sack, and Myrtle is...well, that shouldn't require explanation.
That didn't really have a point, I just connected Hamlet to The Great Gatsby and I just had to go and trash all of the characters. Pardon me.
The films to me were great in showing how not to perform Hamlet (no guyliner, no pelvic thrusting into the air, no throwing fencing sabers across ballrooms like they're spears, etc.). My favorite was definitely the 40s one though. It didn't have anything that I really disliked. I'm not entirely sure myself what expectations I had set for these films but the 40s version hit the most of them. I think the biggest praise I'd give it is that it wasn't too over the top and all of the acting was solid.
The most interesting thing that came out of the Hamlet discussions for me was at the very end of the month when we read the Tragic Hamlet article which revealed possible deeper complexities to the character of Hamlet and injected more religious undertones into our class discussion. It completely altered my understanding of Hamlet's motivations, even if the article failed to make me any more sympathetic towards Hamlet. It's like at the end of an episode of Scooby-Doo, the villain is unmasked and you know who is responsible and how they did all that they did, but the most interest part is when the villain ultimately explains why he/she was a villain. We've all known about Hamlet and his actions but the article gave more insight into what actually motivated Hamlet.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Open Prompt 4
2005 Student Responses
Essay 3A:
I do not understand how the AP readers can decipher the scribbles that some of these kids pen to paper. This individual essay isn't even that bad (I've seen worse) but I'm having to stop every couple of sentences to figure out what certain words are. Poor handwriting aside, the essay is strong, and the only time the handwriting takes away from the content is in a few grammatical errors (though I could just not be seeing the punctuation marks). The AP reader gives this essay an eight, and I'd give the essay that score as well. There's good claims and evidence to support them, but minor problems with the organization and occasionally poor transitions hold the essay back.
Essay 3B:
The handwriting for this essay is much better. I'm rather surprised at the score for this essay, since it's as analytical as the first essay. This essay only received a six, but on first read I probably would have scored it a seven. The AP reader points out that the writing in this essay was not as sophisticated as higher scoring essay would be, but I thought that the essay was well-written and I wasn't distracted by anything (though I did notice that a lot of the author's sentences began with the word "She"). The biggest problem I had with the essay, one that the AP reader also noted, was the unnecessarily long concluding paragraph. A more focused and concise ending would've done this essay good.
Essay 3C:
The pattern with these open prompts tends to be great-good-bad. This holds true here but this essay actually exceeded my expectations for it. As far as last essays go it is not as bad as many of its peers. The biggest problem with this essay is that the analysis doesn't go very deep. Often times, the author will just summarize plot, which is never good. It gets off to a rocky start. The first sentence of the first body paragraph reads: "As a young girl, Janie resided with her grandmother". Okay, not too bad. This statement could ultimately lead to a claim. Maybe the next sentence will lead us somewhe--..."As soon as she was old enough, her grandmother arranged a marriage with a somewhat successful young man." Okay. That's another statement pulled directly from the plot of the book. But maybe..."Jane did not love the man and desperately wanted to find true love, but her grandmother forced her to marry for security". Well what do you know, three in a row! Want to take a guess as to what every other sentence in the first body paragraph (and most of the essay) was like? The AP reader gave this a four, and I suppose that's fair. At the very least it's well written. But I probably would have given it a three, given just the general lack of analysis.
Essay 3A:
I do not understand how the AP readers can decipher the scribbles that some of these kids pen to paper. This individual essay isn't even that bad (I've seen worse) but I'm having to stop every couple of sentences to figure out what certain words are. Poor handwriting aside, the essay is strong, and the only time the handwriting takes away from the content is in a few grammatical errors (though I could just not be seeing the punctuation marks). The AP reader gives this essay an eight, and I'd give the essay that score as well. There's good claims and evidence to support them, but minor problems with the organization and occasionally poor transitions hold the essay back.
Essay 3B:
The handwriting for this essay is much better. I'm rather surprised at the score for this essay, since it's as analytical as the first essay. This essay only received a six, but on first read I probably would have scored it a seven. The AP reader points out that the writing in this essay was not as sophisticated as higher scoring essay would be, but I thought that the essay was well-written and I wasn't distracted by anything (though I did notice that a lot of the author's sentences began with the word "She"). The biggest problem I had with the essay, one that the AP reader also noted, was the unnecessarily long concluding paragraph. A more focused and concise ending would've done this essay good.
Essay 3C:
The pattern with these open prompts tends to be great-good-bad. This holds true here but this essay actually exceeded my expectations for it. As far as last essays go it is not as bad as many of its peers. The biggest problem with this essay is that the analysis doesn't go very deep. Often times, the author will just summarize plot, which is never good. It gets off to a rocky start. The first sentence of the first body paragraph reads: "As a young girl, Janie resided with her grandmother". Okay, not too bad. This statement could ultimately lead to a claim. Maybe the next sentence will lead us somewhe--..."As soon as she was old enough, her grandmother arranged a marriage with a somewhat successful young man." Okay. That's another statement pulled directly from the plot of the book. But maybe..."Jane did not love the man and desperately wanted to find true love, but her grandmother forced her to marry for security". Well what do you know, three in a row! Want to take a guess as to what every other sentence in the first body paragraph (and most of the essay) was like? The AP reader gave this a four, and I suppose that's fair. At the very least it's well written. But I probably would have given it a three, given just the general lack of analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)