The past few weeks have been dedicated almost entirely to Hamlet. After our class read through, we watched scenes from several different movie versions, and read part of an essay by Philip Edwards. The essay was fascinating, and it introduced me to several different theories of the work (many of which I disagreed with because they seemed too black and white, but some of which I really liked and agreed with). The article helped me get a better (but still not full) understanding of the religious aspect of the play, and gave me valuable insight on the internal moral conflicts of all the characters. I also found the movie scenes to be really helpful in understanding the play. I could see the emotion behind all of the lines, while during the initial read through I felt a disconnect because I was just seeing the words on paper and was too busy trying to understand them to register all the emotion behind them.This helped a lot in my annotating, because I could feel the intensity of different scenes more easily. As I went on annotating, I grew to like the play more as I understood what it was saying, but I also grew to dislike the character of Hamlet a lot. He's sexist, mean, and so self absorbed he reminds me of Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory (the main difference being that Sheldon simply doesn't understand social protocol and isn't quite as flat out mean as Hamlet, while Hamlet understands social protocol and chooses to ignore it). While he has some interesting and very morbid insight, I got sick of his quickness to judge everyone else and his nonstop pessimism.
I'd have to say that my favorite Hamlet movie is the Laurence Olivier version. I think the way the setting has labyrinth-like qualities to resemble Hamlet's mind is brilliant. Also, I'm glad the age difference between Gertrude and Claudius is true to the book, because it makes their relationship seem more disturbing to modern viewers. I like how they bring out the incestuous overtones between Hamlet and his mother, because it highlights Shakespeare's point that isolating people from the rest of the world can force them to turn inward in an unhealthy way. Ophelia's portrayal as more calm and subdued in her mad scene is another aspect of this version that I enjoy. It makes it seem like there is more to her than an innocent flower caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her words have more weight to them. I also really appreciate how in this version Gertrude seems to know that the cup is poisoned and sacrifices herself for Hamlet. It gives her some redemption and reminds us that Shakespeare's characters are never just black and white.
I have mixed feelings about the other versions. I'm not a huge fan of the Branagh version. I think Hamlet seems too whiny (I know he's supposed to be pretty whiny, but there are other aspects Branagh could have brought out too). I also think the Claudius is too cold and doesn't seem human-like. I think Laertes does a great job in this version and I understand the character better after seeing all the emotion he puts into it. Tenant does a great job as Hamlet, especially when he is "pretending" to be mad. I also think Claudius in the Tenant version seems much more human and conflicted, and I actually sympathize with him a little. He is my favorite Claudius, and l love how as he is dying he reaches for Gertrude. He really does love her, and it's impossible to write his character off as completely evil. I'm not a big fan of this version's Laertes though. He seems kind of one-dimensional, and he doesn't use much emotion. I also don't like how Fortinbras doesn't come in at the end of the Tenant version. It removes a major political aspect of the play, and turns it into more of a family drama. Overall though, my impression of the Tenant version is positive. I can't say the same for the Jacobi or the Hawke. The Jacobi seems to me more like actors reading lines than actual people's lives, and the Hawke, as Holmes said, is just a cheesy rip off of the Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet. Overall, I really liked getting to see all these different interpretations, and they helped me in my annotating and understanding of the play.
While I'm glad we got to see the movie clips, I do wish we had more discussion time, because I still have questions and aspects of the book I'd like to discuss, and we have to somehow come up with a theme statement even though we are still trying to rap our heads around the complex messages Shakespeare is trying to send. There's a lot going on in Hamlet. I feel like the other two works we have read in class are much more focused on trying to say one thing, and the characters seem more like devices to help them say it (especially in The American Dream). Hamlet seems to be saying a lot of things and has a complex plot to figure out as well. I think it will be incredibly difficult to put everything Shakespeare is trying to say into one statement. A major aspect of the play involves morality, especially concerning suicide and killing other people for "just"reasons. But there's also some commentary on social classes, and how the royalty/rich seem to be able to do whatever they want, while the rest of the people are completely brainwashed. Also, Shakespeare makes a point of closing his characters off from the rest of the world to show what kind of an effect this can have on people. There's also a complex religious aspect that I'm still trying to wrap my head around. I just have no idea how we will put all this together into one theme statement, and I wish we had more time to discuss.
Another part to our Hamlet studies was a three part forum. I donn't think the forum did much for my understanding of the play, but I really got a lot out of it- especially the NPR story about the prisoners. That made me happy and showed me how powerful literature can be. The "Shakespeare in the Bush" forum annoyed me a little, because I think the speaker could have gotten the "intended" meaning across to the Tiv much more effectively by focusing less on the specifics of the plot and more on the emotion. However, the article made me realize that the Tiv did get meaning out of the story and enjoyed it, so does it really matter that they didn't get the "intended" meaning? As for the Ophelia poem, I didn't get much out of it. I flat out disagreed with it and it didn't really alter my understanding of the play or make me think deeply about literature like the other two did. So I would have been fine if we were only assigned the NPR story and the Shakespeare in the Bush.
Overall, I liked the way our class tackled Hamlet. We were given lots of time and were exposed to lots of different interpretations. I wish we had even more time though, especially for discussion.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Open Prompt Response #4
Prompt (2004 essays): Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the
author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid
mere plot summary.
Student N:
I think this is a nice essay that shows a solid understanding of the novel. It has strong textual evidence, and even works in a quote or two. It gets a little caught up in summary, but it's all relevant to the main point. My one major issue with this essay is that it seems to be addressing multiple questions that the book asks, and it's a little unclear which one is the main point. In the intro, the student mentions the question "Is this the best of all possible worlds"(Student N)? It then proceeds to ask why it wouldn't be. These are two separate questions, and the thesis simply says "the age old question," which can mean a lot of things and isn't specific to either one. Later on in the essay, it asks even more questions, which adds to the confusion. Overall, however, I don't think it detracts too much from the essay, because it seems to focus on the "why" aspect, and still ties in the other questions when talking about how the book answers the main question. I just think it should be a little more clear which is the main question the essay is addressing. One more piece of criticism would be that the reference to "The Prophet" doesn't fit super well and is a little distracting. The essay is strong enough that it doesn't need fluff like that. I agree with the score of an 8 that this essay received.
Student J:
This essay also shows a pretty clear understanding of the book, and it has a clear thesis. It does, however, get a little distracted with summary, and doesn't address its thesis and the prompt as directly and thoroughly as it should. Also, near the end, it switches focus to a completely different question. It starts out addressing the question of "What does it mean to be free"(Student J)? Later, it switches gears to the question of whether or not Huck and Jim's journey is a success. Although these questions are related, the essay should just focus on one question. In general, the essay could be a little more sophisticated and neat, but that's just a minor detail. I agree with a score of a 6, because the essay shows a strong understanding of the book and prompt, but it lacks thorough support and organization.
Student U:
This student starts right off the bat with lots of summary, and continues to summarize throughout the essay. It doesn't clearly address the prompt; it states a question and the book's supposed answer, but it doesn't really get into how book addresses the question. It talks about the novel on almost purely a surface level. Also, there are a lot of syntax and spelling errors, which become quite distracting to the main point. The essay lacks sophistication in diction and tone, and overall it's hard to follow. I agree that it deserves a 3.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Close Reading # 4
You can find this article at http://www.slate.com/articles/life/holidays/2011/12/stephen_tobolowsky_on_discovering_that_santa_isn_t_real_.3.html
I must say, I'm a little skeptical of the profundity of the thoughts the speaker in Stephen Tobolowsky's article, "The Santa Conspiracy," claims to have had as a five year old. He does, however, send a strong, valid message and does a nice job of using DIDLS to get this message across. This article uses diction, syntax, and details to emphasize the importance of the ability to believe.
A lot of the syntax comes into play by helping readers connect with the story more and understand the emotions the speaker is going through, which in turn helps us see the overall point more clearly. For example, when the speaker describes his childhood "monster," he says, "Then I heard his voice behind me. I turned. Nothing. Then Eye spoke."(Toboloswky). He uses short, choppy sentences to create a feeling of suspense. This helps us get into the character of the speaker more. Also, a lot of the sentences start with the word "I". This keeps the focus on the speaker and his experiences, so readers can empathize with him. At one point, the speaker uses repetition of the word "different." This makes the word stick in the readers' brains, and helps them see the roots of the speaker's first "crisis of belief," and again better connect with his emotions. These uses of syntax make the story seem more real and help readers understand the emotions better, so that at the end when the speaker is talking about how the ability to believe is a beautiful thing and how it can help us dig deeper, we can see where he's coming from and why he thinks this. Another strategy the author uses, although I'm not sure if this falls under syntax or not, would be the passing of time. The story starts out by describing events the speaker experienced at age 5, and ends with the speaker's experiences as an adult. This passing of time shows that although the author has had several crisis of beliefs during that time, the ability to believe is always there to guide him and give him hope.
This article's diction is mostly colloquial. This makes it so that a wide audience can understand it, and makes the speaker seem more real and relatable. Also, specific diction is sprinkled throughout, to make the descriptions of the memories seem more real and to pull readers into those memories. Saying things like "Dwayne," instead of "The little boy," or "Daugherty's Drugstore," instead of "the drugstore," puts readers inside the story. This diction, like the syntax, helps make the story more real and easier to empathize with, which makes the point about belief at the end resonate more.
The author didn't have to tell this story of a five year old boy questioning his beliefs in Santa to make his point. He could have spent the whole essay getting deep into the philosophical aspect of believing, and taken the point further. But, if he had done that, the paper would be very interesting, but probably less relatable. By taking all this time to tell this story and including lots of smaller details, the author is showing rather than telling. He is giving readers a real example of how the ability to believe, as well as a crisis of belief has impacted the speaker's life and brought him to the realization he makes as an adult. The author also uses details to connect the story from the speaker's past to the point he's trying to make in the present. For example, he mentions a "night noise" at the end, a reference to one of his childhood fears, which brings the work in a full circle and makes readers think about how that whole story ties into the thoughts on the power of belief the author has in the present.
The author of this story makes extensive use of syntax to tell a story that drives his point that the power to believe is incredibly important, and that it gives people hope.
I must say, I'm a little skeptical of the profundity of the thoughts the speaker in Stephen Tobolowsky's article, "The Santa Conspiracy," claims to have had as a five year old. He does, however, send a strong, valid message and does a nice job of using DIDLS to get this message across. This article uses diction, syntax, and details to emphasize the importance of the ability to believe.
A lot of the syntax comes into play by helping readers connect with the story more and understand the emotions the speaker is going through, which in turn helps us see the overall point more clearly. For example, when the speaker describes his childhood "monster," he says, "Then I heard his voice behind me. I turned. Nothing. Then Eye spoke."(Toboloswky). He uses short, choppy sentences to create a feeling of suspense. This helps us get into the character of the speaker more. Also, a lot of the sentences start with the word "I". This keeps the focus on the speaker and his experiences, so readers can empathize with him. At one point, the speaker uses repetition of the word "different." This makes the word stick in the readers' brains, and helps them see the roots of the speaker's first "crisis of belief," and again better connect with his emotions. These uses of syntax make the story seem more real and help readers understand the emotions better, so that at the end when the speaker is talking about how the ability to believe is a beautiful thing and how it can help us dig deeper, we can see where he's coming from and why he thinks this. Another strategy the author uses, although I'm not sure if this falls under syntax or not, would be the passing of time. The story starts out by describing events the speaker experienced at age 5, and ends with the speaker's experiences as an adult. This passing of time shows that although the author has had several crisis of beliefs during that time, the ability to believe is always there to guide him and give him hope.
This article's diction is mostly colloquial. This makes it so that a wide audience can understand it, and makes the speaker seem more real and relatable. Also, specific diction is sprinkled throughout, to make the descriptions of the memories seem more real and to pull readers into those memories. Saying things like "Dwayne," instead of "The little boy," or "Daugherty's Drugstore," instead of "the drugstore," puts readers inside the story. This diction, like the syntax, helps make the story more real and easier to empathize with, which makes the point about belief at the end resonate more.
The author didn't have to tell this story of a five year old boy questioning his beliefs in Santa to make his point. He could have spent the whole essay getting deep into the philosophical aspect of believing, and taken the point further. But, if he had done that, the paper would be very interesting, but probably less relatable. By taking all this time to tell this story and including lots of smaller details, the author is showing rather than telling. He is giving readers a real example of how the ability to believe, as well as a crisis of belief has impacted the speaker's life and brought him to the realization he makes as an adult. The author also uses details to connect the story from the speaker's past to the point he's trying to make in the present. For example, he mentions a "night noise" at the end, a reference to one of his childhood fears, which brings the work in a full circle and makes readers think about how that whole story ties into the thoughts on the power of belief the author has in the present.
The author of this story makes extensive use of syntax to tell a story that drives his point that the power to believe is incredibly important, and that it gives people hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)