Well, it's been a very long time since our last response to course material, so I'll try to cover as many of the highlights as I can remember. We finished our discussion of Ceremony, and I'd have to say it's probably my favorite work we've read this year (tied with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). I love the way it's written and how Tayo is living the Laguna stories. I also like the message regarding embracing hybridity of cultures, rather than just attacking one culture and promoting another. The matriarchal aspect of it is a nice touch too :). There is so much deep meaning and symbolism in Ceremony, that I wish I could just discuss it for hours. I'm happy with the theme statement first hour came up with, and I'm so proud of us for putting it together in such a short time before spring break. I'm sure there's still a lot about Ceremony I don't understand. I think I'll read it again when I'm older and wiser, with more life experience under my belt. I'm sure I'll get something new out of it.
We've also been doing some more multiple choice and essay practice, and I'm pleased to report that I'm coming along on those. I think the multiple choice will be the hardest part. I still find the wording kind of confusing. I'm also a little worried about the closed prompts, especially the poetry one. I still have a hard time analyzing poetry, because it tends to be more abstract than prose, and I sometimes find myself misinterpreting it completely, which is pretty demoralizing and kind of disturbing. On the bright side, I'm feeling better about the open prompts. I have a better idea on how to structure them, and solid variety of works that we've discussed thoroughly to write about. One day, as a class, we went through a bunch of open prompts, and for each one named a few works that one could use for them and gave a few ideas on how we'd structure it. I liked this a lot and was comforted to see that we had no trouble coming up with works for any of them. Also, I think the prompt we just had on "thoughtful laughter" went better than some of the other ones we've had. So, overall I'm feeling significantly better about the exam than I was a few weeks ago, but still pretty nervous. Even if I don't do well enough on the exam to get credit, this class was more than worth it. I've had a lot of fun growing as a literary analyst and discussing various works with my wonderful first hour class this year :).
Recently, we did a project that involved writing a collaborative essay with people from other hours, and submitting articles we found and creating a website. I personally don't think I'll find all the articles everyone submitted too helpful, because the sheer number of articles is overwhelming, and I honesty don't think I'll do much more than skim some of the ones that stick out. Also, I haven't figured out how to get onto that website, so I should probably do that first. The collaborative essay was a lot of work. Communicating with people from other hours mainly through google docs is inefficient. But, I kept it simple and only had one partner, with whom I communicated pretty well, so from what I've heard I had a smoother experience than some of my peers. Although I was very overwhelmed at first, once we narrowed down our topic our essay came together nicely. I also got a good review of Hamlet out of it, which will be helpful for the exam. Although it was stressful, I think it was a cool project, and I liked how we got to bridge the gap and collaborate with the other hours.
We also are supposed to have been reading Fifth Business over the last few weeks, but I have procrastinated a lot on that, and I'm only about 30 or 40 pages in. I have a lot of reading to do tomorrow. Bring it on. So far I like the writing style. I enjoy hearing the narrator recount his childhood and ten-year-old thought processes using an adult voice. It reminds me of a darker, more witty and intellectual version of A Christmas Story, if that makes any sense. I think I'm going to like this book. It's too bad we won't have too much time to discuss it.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Ceremony Summary and Analysis
The Basics:
Author: Leslie Marmon Silko (written in mid 1970's). Silko has mixed ancestry of Laguna Pueblo, Mexican American, and Anglo American. She spent her early years in the Laguna community and identifies strongly with it. She was educated in a Catholic school.
Setting: Most of the novel takes place on and around the Laguna reservation in New Mexico in the mid 1900s. There are a few scenes that take place in war zones in the Philippines (WWII) and a hospital and train station in California.
Characters:
Tayo- a young man with a Laguna mother and an unknown white father. He essentially is the Sun Father, and he is living the stories told in the poems throughout the story. He is stricken with grief after the war and the death of his Uncle and Brother. At the beginning of the story, he is out of balance with himself his community, and the different cultures he's exposed to. By the end he finds this balance and realizes the importance of being adaptable and open to new ideas.
Rocky- Tayo's full Laguna brother. He has fully embraced the white culture, and plans on leaving the Laguna reservation to go to college. He dies in World War II before he gets the chance. He is nice to Tayo for the most part, but scorns at Tayo's loyalty to Laguna traditions. He can be kind of manipulative (e.g. he gets Tayo to sign up for the war with him). Still, Tayo loves him very much.Bet
Auntie- Rocky's mother. She is quite ashamed of Tayo, and tries to get attention for taking on the "burden" of raising him and taking care of him when he's sick. She's very manipulative, and makes it very clear to Tayo that she likes Rocky better, while putting on an act for everyone else that she treats them the same. She's very concerned with the latest gossip and her appearance to others. She goes to Catholic church and identifies more strongly with white values. Secretly, she's kind of jealous of Tayo
Robert- Auntie's husband, who is more soft spoken. He seems to sympathize with Tayo.
Josiah- Tayo's Uncle, who Tayo is quite close with. He is very loyal to Laguna traditions (contrasting Rocky). He risks a lot to invest in some cattle, and struggles with them a lot, but remains determined. He dies of an unknown cause while Tayo is at war.
Old Grandma- Tayo and Rocky's Grandmother. She is blind and sits by her stove every day. She is a Thought Woman/Spider Woman figure. Thought woman told all of the stories originally, so she knows Tayo's story before it's even finished.
Betonie- a mixed heritage medicine man that Tayo visits to try to cure himself. He blends elements of Laguna as well of white cultures in his methods, demonstrating the power of hybridity. He takes Tayo on a Ceremony that helps cure his grief and stop the drought.
Yellow Woman- A Laguna spirit that shows up in three different Mexican female incarnations (Young- Descheeny's lover, Middle- Tseh, and Older- Night Swan). She sleeps with several men, including Tayo, Josiah, and Descheeny (Betonie's Grandfather). As Tseh, she guides Tayo through his Ceremony and his prevention of the witches' Ceremony. Yellow woman basically is the land/nature. Her last name is Montaño, which means, "Mountain."
Emo- a Laguna who grew up with Tayo and also suffers from PTSD. He is an evil witch, who is obsessed with inverting cultures and creating destruction and suffering. According to the stories, the white people and the negative elements of white culture arrived due to competing displays of Witchcraft gone too far. Emo is Tayo's ultimate nemesis.
Leroy, Harley, and Pinkie- other Laguna war veterans suffering from PTSD. They drink a lot, and are basically Emo's posse of witches (although Harley is probably the most innocent of the group, and ends up becoming the victim of the witches' ceremony).
General Plot:
After a traumatizing experience in WWII, where he witnessed the death his brother Rocky (who pressured him into signing up for the war), and imagined a Japanese soldier in a shooting lineup was his Uncle, Tayo is sent to a hospital in California, and then home to the Laguna reservation. He's still very sick (he throws up a lot), and Auntie begrudgingly takes care of him to help her reputation. He finds out Josiah died while he was gone, and severe drought has set in. He blames himself for the drought, because he cursed the rain away as it poured relentlessly in the Philippines Jungles at the scene of Rocky's death. Suffering from PTSD, he drinks a lot with Harley and some other veterans. On one occasion, Tayo stabs Emo in the belly, partially because of the alcohol in his system, and partially out of fear of Emo's witch-like qualities. After seeing a traditional Laguna medicine man and not getting much better, he visits mixed heritage and cultured Betonie, who starts him on a Ceremony, and sends him off. After briefly slipping back into his old ways with Leroy, Harley, and a Navajo prostitute named Helen-Jean, he gets back on track. He spends a night with Ts'eh after following the stars to her house, and then goes to the mountains. After a risky quest involving help from a Katsina in the form of a mountain lion, he retrieves Josiah's spotted cattle that had been lost when he died, and ends up back at Ts'eh's house. It snows and rains and fertility is restored to the land. Tayo spends an unspecified amount of time (I think a few months) blissfully with Ts'eh, until Robert comes and warns Tayo that Emo is coming after him. Ts'eh gives Tayo some advice, and leaves him. Tayo finds Emo, Leroy, and Pinkie at the site of a mine shaft for uranium, used in atomic bombs. They torture Harley. The scene gets more chaotic as Leroy and Pinkie start fighting, and Tayo gets a strong urge to stab Emo, but he resists, because doing so would cause more destruction and complete the evil ceremony of the Witches. He beats the Witches by refusing to fight violence with violence. Tayo returns home and soon finds out that Leroy, Harley, and Pinkie are dead, and that Emo, the main source of all the evil, has moved away.
The story is not told in linear time, but instead jumps around the timeline effect. This helps relate it to the Laguna story-poems in throughout the novel, giving it a kind of cyclical aspect. The story of the novel is just a retelling of the Laguna stories, which are constantly being told and retold, making the events happen again and again. This is highlighted when Old Grandma (Thought Woman) says "These goings-on around Laguna don't get me excited any more"... ..."It seems like I've already heard these stories before...only thing is, the names sound different"(Silko 260).
Narrative Voice:
The novel for the most part is not narrated by a specific character or person, and is told objectively. The small story-poems inserted throughout the novel are narrated by Thought Woman, a Laguna Spirit. Silko's point of view comes through in Ceremony a lot. Like Tayo, Silko has mixed heritage, and had to face some of the same cultural issues. Silko grew up on a Laguna reservation, but she also went to college at the University of New Mexico, thus embracing aspects of more than one culture. This idea that embracing ideas from different cultures can be helpful and restore balance comes through a lot in Ceremony, and is the main theme that I will discuss later. Tayo cures his grief by completing Betonie's Ceremony, which draws from Laguna and white cultures.
Mood, Imagery, and Tone:
The mood of the story seems dark and even hateful at times because of Tayo's PTSD and grief. During the drought, nature imagery of weak and dying animals and dry, dusty landscapes contributes to the somber mood. A example of this imagery can be found in this dramatic, extensive description of the starving mule: "It's hip bones looked sharp enough to push through the gray hide, the way bones tear through a carcass"(Silko 25). There does seem to be a mood shift when Tayo finds the cows. As he completes the ceremony, fertility comes back to the land, and imagery of ponds and lush grass and clay and strong, healthy animals turns the mood lighter. There is also a shift in Tayo's character, and we see how much he has grown when he is able to resist the temptation to stab Emo, and thus avoid completing his evil witch Ceremony. This shift in mood and characterization helps set the tone, which seems to be optimistic. The shift from dark to light occurs when Tayo completes the Ceremony, embracing both cultures, implying that Silko is optimistic towards the idea of embracing ideas from multiple cultures.
Symbols:
Spotted Cattle- The cattle represent hybridity. The fact that fertility is restored to the land when Tayo gets them back is key to the overall theme, which I will explain later. The cattle also correspond to the clouds that Sun Father must retrieve in the story poems throughout the story (Tayo is living all the stories in his own way).
Bellies- Bellies are considered the holders of stories in the novel. When Tayo vomits a lot, he is symbolically purging his belly of the bad stories and grief. When T'seh sleeps with him, not only is she helping him re-fertilize the Earth, she's also re-fertilizing him, making his belly pregnant with better stories.
Cardinal Directions- I am super confused on this one, because I am hearing so many different ideas for what each direction represents, and I don't know which ones to focus on. If anyone has further insight on this, please let me know.
Colors- The color white is often associated with the Sun Father, and subsequently Tayo. Blue is associated with Corn Mother, who represents fertility, compassion, and abundance. Several female characters in the novel are associated with blue, thus associating them with Corn Mother. Yellow is also used a lot, especially when light is mentioned, which happens more when Tayo is at his prime. Brown seems to be associated with the land, and the different shades portray different conditions of the land.
Mine shaft/atomic bomb/uranium- The uranium symbolizes the witches' destructive, artificial version of pollen, which Tayo uses to help refertilize the land. The atomic bomb gives off artificial, destructive light, contrasting the natural light of Tayo, the Sun Father. The mine shaft symbolizes the Witches' evil version of the emergence place, because it's associated with so much destruction.
Theme:
Leslie Marmon Silko's Ceremony shows that personal and natural balance can only be achieved by being adaptable and open to balancing your own cultural traditions with different ideas.
On the surface, this novel might seem like an attack on white culture and white treatment of the Laguna Pueblo tribe and Native Americans in general. Looking deeper, it becomes apparent that this novel advocates hybrididty and balance among different cultures. This is supported by the fact that the main antagonist is not a white person (or white people in general), but an evil Laguna witch. Also, when Tayo retrieves the spotted cattle (which symbolizes him embracing hybridity because the cows=hybridity), natural balance is restored as the rain and fertility come back to the land, and personal balance is restored in Tayo as he is able to move on from his grief over Josiah and Rocky and resist the urge to kill Emo and let the witches win and complete their evil ceremony. Also, Betonie, the man who gives Tayo the Ceremony that changes his life, has mixed heritage and embraces different cultures (as seen in the description of his house, containing Laguna objects and herb medicines, as well as white objects, such as coke bottles and calendars). He adjusts his Ceremony for Tayo, supporting the theme that it's important to be adaptable and open to new ideas.
Author: Leslie Marmon Silko (written in mid 1970's). Silko has mixed ancestry of Laguna Pueblo, Mexican American, and Anglo American. She spent her early years in the Laguna community and identifies strongly with it. She was educated in a Catholic school.
Setting: Most of the novel takes place on and around the Laguna reservation in New Mexico in the mid 1900s. There are a few scenes that take place in war zones in the Philippines (WWII) and a hospital and train station in California.
Characters:
Tayo- a young man with a Laguna mother and an unknown white father. He essentially is the Sun Father, and he is living the stories told in the poems throughout the story. He is stricken with grief after the war and the death of his Uncle and Brother. At the beginning of the story, he is out of balance with himself his community, and the different cultures he's exposed to. By the end he finds this balance and realizes the importance of being adaptable and open to new ideas.
Rocky- Tayo's full Laguna brother. He has fully embraced the white culture, and plans on leaving the Laguna reservation to go to college. He dies in World War II before he gets the chance. He is nice to Tayo for the most part, but scorns at Tayo's loyalty to Laguna traditions. He can be kind of manipulative (e.g. he gets Tayo to sign up for the war with him). Still, Tayo loves him very much.Bet
Auntie- Rocky's mother. She is quite ashamed of Tayo, and tries to get attention for taking on the "burden" of raising him and taking care of him when he's sick. She's very manipulative, and makes it very clear to Tayo that she likes Rocky better, while putting on an act for everyone else that she treats them the same. She's very concerned with the latest gossip and her appearance to others. She goes to Catholic church and identifies more strongly with white values. Secretly, she's kind of jealous of Tayo
Robert- Auntie's husband, who is more soft spoken. He seems to sympathize with Tayo.
Josiah- Tayo's Uncle, who Tayo is quite close with. He is very loyal to Laguna traditions (contrasting Rocky). He risks a lot to invest in some cattle, and struggles with them a lot, but remains determined. He dies of an unknown cause while Tayo is at war.
Old Grandma- Tayo and Rocky's Grandmother. She is blind and sits by her stove every day. She is a Thought Woman/Spider Woman figure. Thought woman told all of the stories originally, so she knows Tayo's story before it's even finished.
Betonie- a mixed heritage medicine man that Tayo visits to try to cure himself. He blends elements of Laguna as well of white cultures in his methods, demonstrating the power of hybridity. He takes Tayo on a Ceremony that helps cure his grief and stop the drought.
Yellow Woman- A Laguna spirit that shows up in three different Mexican female incarnations (Young- Descheeny's lover, Middle- Tseh, and Older- Night Swan). She sleeps with several men, including Tayo, Josiah, and Descheeny (Betonie's Grandfather). As Tseh, she guides Tayo through his Ceremony and his prevention of the witches' Ceremony. Yellow woman basically is the land/nature. Her last name is Montaño, which means, "Mountain."
Emo- a Laguna who grew up with Tayo and also suffers from PTSD. He is an evil witch, who is obsessed with inverting cultures and creating destruction and suffering. According to the stories, the white people and the negative elements of white culture arrived due to competing displays of Witchcraft gone too far. Emo is Tayo's ultimate nemesis.
Leroy, Harley, and Pinkie- other Laguna war veterans suffering from PTSD. They drink a lot, and are basically Emo's posse of witches (although Harley is probably the most innocent of the group, and ends up becoming the victim of the witches' ceremony).
General Plot:
After a traumatizing experience in WWII, where he witnessed the death his brother Rocky (who pressured him into signing up for the war), and imagined a Japanese soldier in a shooting lineup was his Uncle, Tayo is sent to a hospital in California, and then home to the Laguna reservation. He's still very sick (he throws up a lot), and Auntie begrudgingly takes care of him to help her reputation. He finds out Josiah died while he was gone, and severe drought has set in. He blames himself for the drought, because he cursed the rain away as it poured relentlessly in the Philippines Jungles at the scene of Rocky's death. Suffering from PTSD, he drinks a lot with Harley and some other veterans. On one occasion, Tayo stabs Emo in the belly, partially because of the alcohol in his system, and partially out of fear of Emo's witch-like qualities. After seeing a traditional Laguna medicine man and not getting much better, he visits mixed heritage and cultured Betonie, who starts him on a Ceremony, and sends him off. After briefly slipping back into his old ways with Leroy, Harley, and a Navajo prostitute named Helen-Jean, he gets back on track. He spends a night with Ts'eh after following the stars to her house, and then goes to the mountains. After a risky quest involving help from a Katsina in the form of a mountain lion, he retrieves Josiah's spotted cattle that had been lost when he died, and ends up back at Ts'eh's house. It snows and rains and fertility is restored to the land. Tayo spends an unspecified amount of time (I think a few months) blissfully with Ts'eh, until Robert comes and warns Tayo that Emo is coming after him. Ts'eh gives Tayo some advice, and leaves him. Tayo finds Emo, Leroy, and Pinkie at the site of a mine shaft for uranium, used in atomic bombs. They torture Harley. The scene gets more chaotic as Leroy and Pinkie start fighting, and Tayo gets a strong urge to stab Emo, but he resists, because doing so would cause more destruction and complete the evil ceremony of the Witches. He beats the Witches by refusing to fight violence with violence. Tayo returns home and soon finds out that Leroy, Harley, and Pinkie are dead, and that Emo, the main source of all the evil, has moved away.
The story is not told in linear time, but instead jumps around the timeline effect. This helps relate it to the Laguna story-poems in throughout the novel, giving it a kind of cyclical aspect. The story of the novel is just a retelling of the Laguna stories, which are constantly being told and retold, making the events happen again and again. This is highlighted when Old Grandma (Thought Woman) says "These goings-on around Laguna don't get me excited any more"... ..."It seems like I've already heard these stories before...only thing is, the names sound different"(Silko 260).
Narrative Voice:
The novel for the most part is not narrated by a specific character or person, and is told objectively. The small story-poems inserted throughout the novel are narrated by Thought Woman, a Laguna Spirit. Silko's point of view comes through in Ceremony a lot. Like Tayo, Silko has mixed heritage, and had to face some of the same cultural issues. Silko grew up on a Laguna reservation, but she also went to college at the University of New Mexico, thus embracing aspects of more than one culture. This idea that embracing ideas from different cultures can be helpful and restore balance comes through a lot in Ceremony, and is the main theme that I will discuss later. Tayo cures his grief by completing Betonie's Ceremony, which draws from Laguna and white cultures.
Mood, Imagery, and Tone:
The mood of the story seems dark and even hateful at times because of Tayo's PTSD and grief. During the drought, nature imagery of weak and dying animals and dry, dusty landscapes contributes to the somber mood. A example of this imagery can be found in this dramatic, extensive description of the starving mule: "It's hip bones looked sharp enough to push through the gray hide, the way bones tear through a carcass"(Silko 25). There does seem to be a mood shift when Tayo finds the cows. As he completes the ceremony, fertility comes back to the land, and imagery of ponds and lush grass and clay and strong, healthy animals turns the mood lighter. There is also a shift in Tayo's character, and we see how much he has grown when he is able to resist the temptation to stab Emo, and thus avoid completing his evil witch Ceremony. This shift in mood and characterization helps set the tone, which seems to be optimistic. The shift from dark to light occurs when Tayo completes the Ceremony, embracing both cultures, implying that Silko is optimistic towards the idea of embracing ideas from multiple cultures.
Symbols:
Spotted Cattle- The cattle represent hybridity. The fact that fertility is restored to the land when Tayo gets them back is key to the overall theme, which I will explain later. The cattle also correspond to the clouds that Sun Father must retrieve in the story poems throughout the story (Tayo is living all the stories in his own way).
Bellies- Bellies are considered the holders of stories in the novel. When Tayo vomits a lot, he is symbolically purging his belly of the bad stories and grief. When T'seh sleeps with him, not only is she helping him re-fertilize the Earth, she's also re-fertilizing him, making his belly pregnant with better stories.
Cardinal Directions- I am super confused on this one, because I am hearing so many different ideas for what each direction represents, and I don't know which ones to focus on. If anyone has further insight on this, please let me know.
Colors- The color white is often associated with the Sun Father, and subsequently Tayo. Blue is associated with Corn Mother, who represents fertility, compassion, and abundance. Several female characters in the novel are associated with blue, thus associating them with Corn Mother. Yellow is also used a lot, especially when light is mentioned, which happens more when Tayo is at his prime. Brown seems to be associated with the land, and the different shades portray different conditions of the land.
Mine shaft/atomic bomb/uranium- The uranium symbolizes the witches' destructive, artificial version of pollen, which Tayo uses to help refertilize the land. The atomic bomb gives off artificial, destructive light, contrasting the natural light of Tayo, the Sun Father. The mine shaft symbolizes the Witches' evil version of the emergence place, because it's associated with so much destruction.
Theme:
Leslie Marmon Silko's Ceremony shows that personal and natural balance can only be achieved by being adaptable and open to balancing your own cultural traditions with different ideas.
On the surface, this novel might seem like an attack on white culture and white treatment of the Laguna Pueblo tribe and Native Americans in general. Looking deeper, it becomes apparent that this novel advocates hybrididty and balance among different cultures. This is supported by the fact that the main antagonist is not a white person (or white people in general), but an evil Laguna witch. Also, when Tayo retrieves the spotted cattle (which symbolizes him embracing hybridity because the cows=hybridity), natural balance is restored as the rain and fertility come back to the land, and personal balance is restored in Tayo as he is able to move on from his grief over Josiah and Rocky and resist the urge to kill Emo and let the witches win and complete their evil ceremony. Also, Betonie, the man who gives Tayo the Ceremony that changes his life, has mixed heritage and embraces different cultures (as seen in the description of his house, containing Laguna objects and herb medicines, as well as white objects, such as coke bottles and calendars). He adjusts his Ceremony for Tayo, supporting the theme that it's important to be adaptable and open to new ideas.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Response to Course Material # I've lost count
These past few weeks have been pretty busy in A.P. Lit. We finished up our Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead discussions. As I did my close reading and talked with the class, I got a better understanding of the play, and came to really like it a lot. Noticing more of the patterns and witty wordplay as well as deeper meaning was super exciting, and I found myself eager to get to class and discuss more. I'm pretty happy with the theme statement our class came up with, especially considering how a week or to earlier I had no idea if we even could come up with a theme statement. I was interested to see that our theme statement had similar ideas to the post modernism article we annotated. The article had some really cool ideas, but I thought the wording could have been a lot more straight forward. It actually sounded kind of pretentious to me. Overall though, I really liked the way we handled R and G, and I'm so glad it was part of our curriculum.
We have also been doing a lot of A.P. test practice, and I was encouraged to see that I have been improving! We split into groups and did some practice multiple choice, and found ourselves getting a lot more of the questions correct. I still think my biggest issue for the multiple choice will be vocabulary, both in the questions and the answer choices. It's not just terms related to rhetoric that I'm having trouble with; those questions just like to use big words in general. But as a literary analyst I am getting better, and all the practice we've been doing in class has helped a lot. We also wrote a practice essay on Cisneros's "Eleven", and with some advice on centering each body paragraph on an idea/ point rather than on a literary technique, I was able to produce an 8- scoring essay, which makes me feel a lot better about the exam. We also studied a poem called "Defending Walt Whitman," as a class. Going through the analysis process together was a good review, and helped me remember how to structure my analysis.
The next big work we are studying is Silko's Ceremony. We started by viewing a presentation on Laguna culture, and reading a few essays on their philosophy and way of life. I found this extremely helpful when I started reading the actual book, and I was so glad I had that background knowledge. It helped me analyze the characters because I had a better idea of what was and was not acceptable in Laguna culture. I have to say I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get to read this work in class, because I've always found it helpful when Ms. Holmes stops us to clear something up, but it's a long work and I understand that time is limited. I am really enjoying Ceremony so far. I love how it sometimes explains things in abstract ways (this kind of reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and it gives both works a surreal effect, which helps the meaning along), and how it jumps around the timeline. This makes it feel like the story is unfolding in pieces, like a puzzle. There's also some really rich symbolism that I'm excited to discuss with the class. We talked about Auntie a lot in class, and I'm noticing more and more how manipulative and complicated her character is. I'm just really excited to get deeper into this book.
Recently, we've been studying the different critical lenses. I've learned a few new ones, such as post colonialism and literary Darwinism. As a class, we looked at The American Dream through several different lenses, and it was cool to see how different the conclusions we came to with each lens were. When we looked at it psychoanalytically, we noticed how troubled Albee must have been when he was writing it, which I hadn't thought about as much before. I think it's cool to look at a single work in so many different ways, and I disagree with people who stick to one lens and think it's the only "correct" way to look at a work.
We also looked at Northop Frye's "Mythoi". When I first looked at the circle printed on the handout Ms. Holmes gave us, I was didn't fully understand it and was pretty skeptical. But when she drew it on the board and explained it more, I understood it better and thought it was pretty fascinating. I found myself thinking about the works we've read, and seeing where they fall on the circle. Death of a Salesman, often considered a tragedy, seems fall more into the "irony" category. I thought it was a really interesting way of studying literature, and I'm excited to get more in depth into some of the other lenses.
We have also been doing a lot of A.P. test practice, and I was encouraged to see that I have been improving! We split into groups and did some practice multiple choice, and found ourselves getting a lot more of the questions correct. I still think my biggest issue for the multiple choice will be vocabulary, both in the questions and the answer choices. It's not just terms related to rhetoric that I'm having trouble with; those questions just like to use big words in general. But as a literary analyst I am getting better, and all the practice we've been doing in class has helped a lot. We also wrote a practice essay on Cisneros's "Eleven", and with some advice on centering each body paragraph on an idea/ point rather than on a literary technique, I was able to produce an 8- scoring essay, which makes me feel a lot better about the exam. We also studied a poem called "Defending Walt Whitman," as a class. Going through the analysis process together was a good review, and helped me remember how to structure my analysis.
The next big work we are studying is Silko's Ceremony. We started by viewing a presentation on Laguna culture, and reading a few essays on their philosophy and way of life. I found this extremely helpful when I started reading the actual book, and I was so glad I had that background knowledge. It helped me analyze the characters because I had a better idea of what was and was not acceptable in Laguna culture. I have to say I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get to read this work in class, because I've always found it helpful when Ms. Holmes stops us to clear something up, but it's a long work and I understand that time is limited. I am really enjoying Ceremony so far. I love how it sometimes explains things in abstract ways (this kind of reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and it gives both works a surreal effect, which helps the meaning along), and how it jumps around the timeline. This makes it feel like the story is unfolding in pieces, like a puzzle. There's also some really rich symbolism that I'm excited to discuss with the class. We talked about Auntie a lot in class, and I'm noticing more and more how manipulative and complicated her character is. I'm just really excited to get deeper into this book.
Recently, we've been studying the different critical lenses. I've learned a few new ones, such as post colonialism and literary Darwinism. As a class, we looked at The American Dream through several different lenses, and it was cool to see how different the conclusions we came to with each lens were. When we looked at it psychoanalytically, we noticed how troubled Albee must have been when he was writing it, which I hadn't thought about as much before. I think it's cool to look at a single work in so many different ways, and I disagree with people who stick to one lens and think it's the only "correct" way to look at a work.
We also looked at Northop Frye's "Mythoi". When I first looked at the circle printed on the handout Ms. Holmes gave us, I was didn't fully understand it and was pretty skeptical. But when she drew it on the board and explained it more, I understood it better and thought it was pretty fascinating. I found myself thinking about the works we've read, and seeing where they fall on the circle. Death of a Salesman, often considered a tragedy, seems fall more into the "irony" category. I thought it was a really interesting way of studying literature, and I'm excited to get more in depth into some of the other lenses.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
2009. A symbol is an object, action, or event that represents something or that creates a range
of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning,
or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay
analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
In Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the coins act as a symbol of chance. By always landing on heads, they actually demonstrate the lack of chance in Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' world. This lack of chance in the stage world contrast with the real world, clarifying Stoppard's meaning that life is not like a work of art, and people are not bound by the same rules of chance and fate as characters, so they can exercise free will.
Because the outcome of a coin toss is random, it is completely based on chance whether or not the coin will land on heads or tails. This makes the coins that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern toss in the play a symbol of chance. The fact that they always land on heads defies the laws of randomness, showing that there actually is no chance in their world. The outcome of each coin toss is not random, it's predetermined by Stoppard. This idea applies to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's situation as a whole, because none of the events they experience are due to chance. They are determined by what Stoppard wrote.
The lack of chance demonstrated by the coins bring out the differences between the stage and real life. In real life, the laws of randomness apply, and a coin toss's outcome is based on chance. The fact that the coin toss's outcome in the play is not based on chance, shows that characters on the stage are bound by different rules regarding chance and fate.
Stoppard uses an unconventional method of getting meaning across. He's trying to get readers to think about what he's NOT saying about the characters who are bound by the fate that's written for them, and apply that as actual meaning to real people, who have free will. To do so, he needs to make it very clear that his characters and their world are very different from real people. The fact that the coins represent chance contributes to this contrast and subsequently clarifies the meaning, because they demonstrate that the characters' world defies the laws of randomness, showing that their world goes by different logic than the real world. The differences the coins express in the logic of chance and fate on stage vs the real world help readers look at what the story is not saying about characters (especially involving their lack of free will), and apply it to real people.
of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning,
or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay
analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
In Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the coins act as a symbol of chance. By always landing on heads, they actually demonstrate the lack of chance in Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' world. This lack of chance in the stage world contrast with the real world, clarifying Stoppard's meaning that life is not like a work of art, and people are not bound by the same rules of chance and fate as characters, so they can exercise free will.
Because the outcome of a coin toss is random, it is completely based on chance whether or not the coin will land on heads or tails. This makes the coins that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern toss in the play a symbol of chance. The fact that they always land on heads defies the laws of randomness, showing that there actually is no chance in their world. The outcome of each coin toss is not random, it's predetermined by Stoppard. This idea applies to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's situation as a whole, because none of the events they experience are due to chance. They are determined by what Stoppard wrote.
The lack of chance demonstrated by the coins bring out the differences between the stage and real life. In real life, the laws of randomness apply, and a coin toss's outcome is based on chance. The fact that the coin toss's outcome in the play is not based on chance, shows that characters on the stage are bound by different rules regarding chance and fate.
Stoppard uses an unconventional method of getting meaning across. He's trying to get readers to think about what he's NOT saying about the characters who are bound by the fate that's written for them, and apply that as actual meaning to real people, who have free will. To do so, he needs to make it very clear that his characters and their world are very different from real people. The fact that the coins represent chance contributes to this contrast and subsequently clarifies the meaning, because they demonstrate that the characters' world defies the laws of randomness, showing that their world goes by different logic than the real world. The differences the coins express in the logic of chance and fate on stage vs the real world help readers look at what the story is not saying about characters (especially involving their lack of free will), and apply it to real people.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Summary and Analysis
The Basics:
Author: Tom Stoppard (written mid 1960's). This was Stoppard's first really successful play.
Setting: Technically, the setting is the stage, because the characters make several references to the fact that they are on a stage. Within the story, it starts out in a sort of weird nothingness (in the movie it's a forest), until Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are summoned for their lines, and the setting changes to the setting of Hamlet (the castle in Elsinore, Medieval times). The last act takes place on a boat headed for England, still within the time frame of the story of Hamlet.
Characters:
Guildenstern: A man around Hamlet's age, who comes into existence as an adult solely for the purpose of being a plot device in Hamlet. He knows his Hamlet lines but he doesn't know why, and he has little understanding of his situation and the confusing world he's been placed in. In the beginning, he futilely tries to use logic and scientific reasoning to figure things out (often misquoting scientific theories, as well as the Lord's Prayer). He doesn't really have an identity and is often angered by his lack of free will (as a character with his fate written out for him).
Rosencrantz: Guildenstern's companion, who is in the exact same situation as Guildenstern. He is much more emotional than Guildenstern, and somewhat less intelligent. He often just repeats Guildenstern's lines, and rarely comes up with anything original. He also seems less disturbed by the confusion of their situation, and their lack of free will, and doesn't give it as much thought as Guildenstern (although some of his later lines about being in a box and about death reveal show that he is capable of deeper thought as well).
Player King: Also a plot-device character in Hamlet, he is in a similar situation to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, although he has a much greater understanding of what's going on. He even knows the story of Hamlet, including Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' deaths, before it has played out (in th current cycle of the book). He toys with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and gives them some hints and even advice on their situation. He is witty and mysterious, and he leads a troupe of actors/prostitutes who specialize in "Blood, love, and rhetoric"(Stoppard). He often angers Guildenstern, who criticizes him and his players for acting out insincere, over dramatic deaths when they have no experience with actual death and its absoluteness.
The other Hamlet characters: Stoppard's play is intertwined with the story of Hamlet. However, we only see the characters (besides Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and the players) when they are doing and saying exactly what is written in Hamlet (except for one scene on the boat, which still doesn't reveal much about Hamlet's knowledge of his situation). Therefore, the audience has no insight on any of these characters outside their scenes in Hamlet. Because of this, their level of awareness that they are only characters is unknown to the audience.
Plot:
Act I: The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern flipping coins idly, with no apparent goal or purpose. When every single coin ends up being heads, Guildenstern is suspicious and tries to figure it out with logic and reasoning, while Rosencrantz doesn't think much of it. Eventually, the Player king shows up, delighted to have an audience. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not impressed by his group of prostitutes, and make a bet with the player over a coin toss, where if the player wins, he has to put on a show. The player pretends he lost and gets ready to put on a show, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are transported to the Hamlet castle, just in time for the scene when Claudius asks them to talk to Hamlet. They are quite confused by this, and they pass the time by playing pointless games of word tennis, and practicing their anticipated interaction with Hamlet (rehearsing their lines?).
Act II: After their unsuccessful interaction with Hamlet (strictly from the scene in Hamlet), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are more confused than ever, and have more absurd, pointless conversations to pass the time. at one point, we see Rosencrantz's deeper side as he tries to talk about death, but he keeps interrupting himself with more absurdity. They watch the player rehearse his play (which is Hamlet, including the ending, which technically hasn't happened yet), and argue with him about death. He gives them some hints about their situation, but it seems more like he's just poking fun at them rather than trying to help them. As the events of Hamlet play out, Claudius informs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that they will be escorting Hamlet to England on a boat.
Act III: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern randomly appear on the boats. They contemplate the significance of being on a boat, where they have some free will as long as they stay on the boat. They practice their interactions with the English King, opening the letter in the process and seeing that it condemns Hamlet to death. As they contemplate this and the boat some more, the Player and the Tragedians come out of the barrels. Rosencratz and Guildenstern argue some more with the players, trying to make some sense out of everything, when suddenly, pirates invade the ship and chaos ensues. When everything clears up, Hamlet is gone and their note to the King has been replaced with one ordering their own deaths. Guildenstern, in a desperate and angry attempt to grasp some sort of meaning, stabs the player king, thinking he's killing him for real. It ends up being a fake knife, and the player put on yet another fake death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lament their sealed fates and ask themselves if there was ever a point where they could have said "no". The scene changes to the last scene of Hamlet, when everyone is dead, and the ambassador announces that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead as well.
Narrative Voice:
This is a play, so it doesn't really have a narrative voice, but the author's point of view comes through clearly. Tom Stoppard is Existentialist, and this shows through a lot in his work when he uses the characters' lack of free will to emphasize the fact that actual people do have free will (I will expand on that when I discuss my theme statement). Also, Stoppard's point of view comes out in the commentary on plays and how they are perceived. Through the portrayal of the Player and his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard criticizes how audiences come into theaters with preconceived notions of what to expect, closing their minds to accepting anything different. For example, the player at one point says "Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to believe in"(Stoppard 84). I really like this quote, and although it addresses one of Stoppard's less major points, it's very well worded, concise, and interesting. We also see Stoppard's criticism through Guildenstern when he scolds the players for putting on over dramatic deaths to please the audiences, without grasping the absoluteness of an actual death.
Tone:
The tone of this play is mostly witty and nonsensical. It's full of word play, and often comical as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's attempts to break from the story of Hamlet fail in humorous ways (e.g. when they try to trap Hamlet using their belts). This cleverness and silliness makes the deeper lines of the play stand out and seem more jarring. For example, near the end, Rosencrantz desperately cries out, "We've done nothing wrong!"(Stoppard 125). This powerful quote reminds readers that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really are innocent and had no choice in any of the events they've gone through, invoking sympathy for them. The fact that readers had just been laughing at their misfortune makes it seem even more sad, and possible brings a feeling of guilt to the readers.
Imagery:
There is lots of imagery in this play involving light and color. Stoppard discusses lighting extensively in the stage directions, which brings out the fact that pre-written things such as the lights coming on and off move the play forward and determine when the characters come on and act, rather than the characters themselves, highlighting their lack of control. I have yet to fully understand all of the color imagery, so if anyone has ideas about that, I would love to hear them.
Symbols:
Coins- The coins represent chance. The fact they keep landing on heads defies the laws of randomness. They always land on heads, because Stoppard wrote them too, so there is actually no "chance" in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's world. It's all written out already...nothing is random. This is yet another way Stoppard contrasts the stage with the real world.
Boat- The boat represents life. When boat's journey inevitably will end somewhere, as will life. People have free will within the boat (life), but they can't control the fact that they eventually will die (that the boat will eventually stop).
England- England might represent an afterlife, as it is the boat's final destination. Rosencrantz at one point questions England's existence, bringing an interesting religious aspect to the work.
Theme: Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and 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.
Stoppard uses many techniques to set the "stage world" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, a lot of which I discussed above. The emphasis on the lighting (discussed in the imagery section) as well as the coins show that characters in a play are completely subject to what is written and planned for them. They have no free will. The general confusion and absurdism of the play also sets it apart from the real world. The breaking of the fourth wall and acknowledgement of the audience defines their differences as well. By emphasizing how different real life and the stage are, Stoppard brings out the point that people, unlike characters, are not bound by the same rules of fate and can exercise free will.
Author: Tom Stoppard (written mid 1960's). This was Stoppard's first really successful play.
Setting: Technically, the setting is the stage, because the characters make several references to the fact that they are on a stage. Within the story, it starts out in a sort of weird nothingness (in the movie it's a forest), until Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are summoned for their lines, and the setting changes to the setting of Hamlet (the castle in Elsinore, Medieval times). The last act takes place on a boat headed for England, still within the time frame of the story of Hamlet.
Characters:
Guildenstern: A man around Hamlet's age, who comes into existence as an adult solely for the purpose of being a plot device in Hamlet. He knows his Hamlet lines but he doesn't know why, and he has little understanding of his situation and the confusing world he's been placed in. In the beginning, he futilely tries to use logic and scientific reasoning to figure things out (often misquoting scientific theories, as well as the Lord's Prayer). He doesn't really have an identity and is often angered by his lack of free will (as a character with his fate written out for him).
Rosencrantz: Guildenstern's companion, who is in the exact same situation as Guildenstern. He is much more emotional than Guildenstern, and somewhat less intelligent. He often just repeats Guildenstern's lines, and rarely comes up with anything original. He also seems less disturbed by the confusion of their situation, and their lack of free will, and doesn't give it as much thought as Guildenstern (although some of his later lines about being in a box and about death reveal show that he is capable of deeper thought as well).
Player King: Also a plot-device character in Hamlet, he is in a similar situation to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, although he has a much greater understanding of what's going on. He even knows the story of Hamlet, including Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' deaths, before it has played out (in th current cycle of the book). He toys with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and gives them some hints and even advice on their situation. He is witty and mysterious, and he leads a troupe of actors/prostitutes who specialize in "Blood, love, and rhetoric"(Stoppard). He often angers Guildenstern, who criticizes him and his players for acting out insincere, over dramatic deaths when they have no experience with actual death and its absoluteness.
The other Hamlet characters: Stoppard's play is intertwined with the story of Hamlet. However, we only see the characters (besides Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and the players) when they are doing and saying exactly what is written in Hamlet (except for one scene on the boat, which still doesn't reveal much about Hamlet's knowledge of his situation). Therefore, the audience has no insight on any of these characters outside their scenes in Hamlet. Because of this, their level of awareness that they are only characters is unknown to the audience.
Plot:
Act I: The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern flipping coins idly, with no apparent goal or purpose. When every single coin ends up being heads, Guildenstern is suspicious and tries to figure it out with logic and reasoning, while Rosencrantz doesn't think much of it. Eventually, the Player king shows up, delighted to have an audience. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not impressed by his group of prostitutes, and make a bet with the player over a coin toss, where if the player wins, he has to put on a show. The player pretends he lost and gets ready to put on a show, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are transported to the Hamlet castle, just in time for the scene when Claudius asks them to talk to Hamlet. They are quite confused by this, and they pass the time by playing pointless games of word tennis, and practicing their anticipated interaction with Hamlet (rehearsing their lines?).
Act II: After their unsuccessful interaction with Hamlet (strictly from the scene in Hamlet), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are more confused than ever, and have more absurd, pointless conversations to pass the time. at one point, we see Rosencrantz's deeper side as he tries to talk about death, but he keeps interrupting himself with more absurdity. They watch the player rehearse his play (which is Hamlet, including the ending, which technically hasn't happened yet), and argue with him about death. He gives them some hints about their situation, but it seems more like he's just poking fun at them rather than trying to help them. As the events of Hamlet play out, Claudius informs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that they will be escorting Hamlet to England on a boat.
Act III: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern randomly appear on the boats. They contemplate the significance of being on a boat, where they have some free will as long as they stay on the boat. They practice their interactions with the English King, opening the letter in the process and seeing that it condemns Hamlet to death. As they contemplate this and the boat some more, the Player and the Tragedians come out of the barrels. Rosencratz and Guildenstern argue some more with the players, trying to make some sense out of everything, when suddenly, pirates invade the ship and chaos ensues. When everything clears up, Hamlet is gone and their note to the King has been replaced with one ordering their own deaths. Guildenstern, in a desperate and angry attempt to grasp some sort of meaning, stabs the player king, thinking he's killing him for real. It ends up being a fake knife, and the player put on yet another fake death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lament their sealed fates and ask themselves if there was ever a point where they could have said "no". The scene changes to the last scene of Hamlet, when everyone is dead, and the ambassador announces that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead as well.
Narrative Voice:
This is a play, so it doesn't really have a narrative voice, but the author's point of view comes through clearly. Tom Stoppard is Existentialist, and this shows through a lot in his work when he uses the characters' lack of free will to emphasize the fact that actual people do have free will (I will expand on that when I discuss my theme statement). Also, Stoppard's point of view comes out in the commentary on plays and how they are perceived. Through the portrayal of the Player and his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard criticizes how audiences come into theaters with preconceived notions of what to expect, closing their minds to accepting anything different. For example, the player at one point says "Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to believe in"(Stoppard 84). I really like this quote, and although it addresses one of Stoppard's less major points, it's very well worded, concise, and interesting. We also see Stoppard's criticism through Guildenstern when he scolds the players for putting on over dramatic deaths to please the audiences, without grasping the absoluteness of an actual death.
Tone:
The tone of this play is mostly witty and nonsensical. It's full of word play, and often comical as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's attempts to break from the story of Hamlet fail in humorous ways (e.g. when they try to trap Hamlet using their belts). This cleverness and silliness makes the deeper lines of the play stand out and seem more jarring. For example, near the end, Rosencrantz desperately cries out, "We've done nothing wrong!"(Stoppard 125). This powerful quote reminds readers that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really are innocent and had no choice in any of the events they've gone through, invoking sympathy for them. The fact that readers had just been laughing at their misfortune makes it seem even more sad, and possible brings a feeling of guilt to the readers.
Imagery:
There is lots of imagery in this play involving light and color. Stoppard discusses lighting extensively in the stage directions, which brings out the fact that pre-written things such as the lights coming on and off move the play forward and determine when the characters come on and act, rather than the characters themselves, highlighting their lack of control. I have yet to fully understand all of the color imagery, so if anyone has ideas about that, I would love to hear them.
Symbols:
Coins- The coins represent chance. The fact they keep landing on heads defies the laws of randomness. They always land on heads, because Stoppard wrote them too, so there is actually no "chance" in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's world. It's all written out already...nothing is random. This is yet another way Stoppard contrasts the stage with the real world.
Boat- The boat represents life. When boat's journey inevitably will end somewhere, as will life. People have free will within the boat (life), but they can't control the fact that they eventually will die (that the boat will eventually stop).
England- England might represent an afterlife, as it is the boat's final destination. Rosencrantz at one point questions England's existence, bringing an interesting religious aspect to the work.
Theme: Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and 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.
Stoppard uses many techniques to set the "stage world" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, a lot of which I discussed above. The emphasis on the lighting (discussed in the imagery section) as well as the coins show that characters in a play are completely subject to what is written and planned for them. They have no free will. The general confusion and absurdism of the play also sets it apart from the real world. The breaking of the fourth wall and acknowledgement of the audience defines their differences as well. By emphasizing how different real life and the stage are, Stoppard brings out the point that people, unlike characters, are not bound by the same rules of fate and can exercise free will.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Response to Course Material # I've lost count
These past few weeks have been a not-so-gentle reminder of how much work I need to do before the A.P. exam. I realized when we discussed introduction paragraphs that I had no idea how to write a good one. I have a lot of editing to do on my open prompt responses. Luckily, the exercise we did involving writing our own open prompts and responding to others with a stressful time limit helped. It made me more aware of each element of the prompt and how it should all fit in to the opening paragraph. It was a little scary to realize that I had such a big hole in my essay-writing abilities, but I still have most of the semester to figure it out, and I'm really glad Ms. Holmes noticed that we were struggling with opening paragraphs and cleared things up for us.
Along with intro paragraph work, we have been studying Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. As this course goes on, I feel like the works are getting harder and harder to draw meaning from and write a theme statement for. This play is no exception. Like The American Dream, it has elements of the theater of the absurd, but still (in my opinion) has a meaning unique to the work. However, The American Dream is an allegory, making its meaning more blatant and understandable. With Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I can not even begin to articulate an overall meaning or any form of theme statement yet.
To help us with this play, we watched a movie version directed by Stoppard himself. This was cool, because it represented Stoppard's interpretations in every way, and he even made some adjustments from the book after he had grown as a writer. The most obvious change was the ending, which I personally liked a lot. Making it end with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hanging themselves and then cutting to the wagon riding in the woods where the play began made the cyclical aspect of the play more clear. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are simply characters who exist solely for the purpose of being plot devices in Hamlet, and they are dead until are summoned for their lines whenever someone reads Hamlet (Or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). Having them actually die at the end of the movie I think highlights this. This whole idea is really interesting to think about. It reminds me of when I listen to Les Miserables songs. I always feel really sad at the songs near the end and feel the need to go back to the earlier songs when everyone was alive. The characters are all reborn for me when I go back to the opening song, but for other people who are not listening to Les Miserables or are listening to the ending songs, they are dead. I toyed with this idea a little before reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, but the play really takes it to the next level and shows and articulates it in a way that I could not and still am struggling to.
There's a lot of meaning in the play that I'm still trying to comprehend, and I am hoping more class discussion will help. Our class discussed whether or not the other characters in Hamlet are just as confused as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or they are like the players. My initial thought was "They must be confused too, because what makes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern special so that they would be the only ones who are confused?" But someone pointed out that other characters could be players, and they need Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be their audience. That made me doubt myself, and it raised questions like "How do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern know their lines?" and "Why would the players want Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be their audience, if they can't even really watch the play? The players know they are in a play, so isn't the audience in the seats enough?" All of that is super confusing to me, along with what exactly Stoppard is trying to say about fate and free will. I know I say this about every play we read, but I seriously have no idea how we are going to put all this together into a theme statement.
Another tool we were given to help with Stoppard's play was a lecture on the work by a college professor. This lecture helped clear up some parts of the play and made me think about things like the friendship between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I did not, however, like the last few paragraphs of the lecture that basically say that the whole play is just Stoppard messing around, and this is an absurd work with no unique meaning. I think there is a meaning behind the play, although I am struggling to articulate it. The main thing that bothers me though, is that the first part of the lecture seems to talk about and imply a deeper meaning to the work. Even the bit about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being friends has meaning in it (although maybe not the main meaning). The end of the lecture seems to refute a lot of what it says in the beginning and body. Although I appreciated most of this lecture (whether I agreed or disagreed with each argument), I was not happy with the end.
Along with intro paragraph work, we have been studying Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. As this course goes on, I feel like the works are getting harder and harder to draw meaning from and write a theme statement for. This play is no exception. Like The American Dream, it has elements of the theater of the absurd, but still (in my opinion) has a meaning unique to the work. However, The American Dream is an allegory, making its meaning more blatant and understandable. With Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I can not even begin to articulate an overall meaning or any form of theme statement yet.
To help us with this play, we watched a movie version directed by Stoppard himself. This was cool, because it represented Stoppard's interpretations in every way, and he even made some adjustments from the book after he had grown as a writer. The most obvious change was the ending, which I personally liked a lot. Making it end with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hanging themselves and then cutting to the wagon riding in the woods where the play began made the cyclical aspect of the play more clear. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are simply characters who exist solely for the purpose of being plot devices in Hamlet, and they are dead until are summoned for their lines whenever someone reads Hamlet (Or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). Having them actually die at the end of the movie I think highlights this. This whole idea is really interesting to think about. It reminds me of when I listen to Les Miserables songs. I always feel really sad at the songs near the end and feel the need to go back to the earlier songs when everyone was alive. The characters are all reborn for me when I go back to the opening song, but for other people who are not listening to Les Miserables or are listening to the ending songs, they are dead. I toyed with this idea a little before reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, but the play really takes it to the next level and shows and articulates it in a way that I could not and still am struggling to.
There's a lot of meaning in the play that I'm still trying to comprehend, and I am hoping more class discussion will help. Our class discussed whether or not the other characters in Hamlet are just as confused as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or they are like the players. My initial thought was "They must be confused too, because what makes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern special so that they would be the only ones who are confused?" But someone pointed out that other characters could be players, and they need Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be their audience. That made me doubt myself, and it raised questions like "How do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern know their lines?" and "Why would the players want Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be their audience, if they can't even really watch the play? The players know they are in a play, so isn't the audience in the seats enough?" All of that is super confusing to me, along with what exactly Stoppard is trying to say about fate and free will. I know I say this about every play we read, but I seriously have no idea how we are going to put all this together into a theme statement.
Another tool we were given to help with Stoppard's play was a lecture on the work by a college professor. This lecture helped clear up some parts of the play and made me think about things like the friendship between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I did not, however, like the last few paragraphs of the lecture that basically say that the whole play is just Stoppard messing around, and this is an absurd work with no unique meaning. I think there is a meaning behind the play, although I am struggling to articulate it. The main thing that bothers me though, is that the first part of the lecture seems to talk about and imply a deeper meaning to the work. Even the bit about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being friends has meaning in it (although maybe not the main meaning). The end of the lecture seems to refute a lot of what it says in the beginning and body. Although I appreciated most of this lecture (whether I agreed or disagreed with each argument), I was not happy with the end.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Open Prompt Response Part 2 #2
2003 prompt:
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.
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.
Many works that center around a tragic hero have a broader tragic vision that goes beyond the hero and involves the suffering of other characters in the play. William Shakespeare's Hamlet demonstrates this when the suffering of the tragic hero, Hamlet, has a ripple effect on the other characters, leading to a tragic, bloody ending with almost none of the main characters left alive and certainly none left unaffected.
Hamlet is not in a good situation from the beginning of the play, when he has to deal with his cold uncle who killed his father and soon after married mother. This, coupled with the pressure to avenge his father's death cause him to turn inward and become very depressed. Because of his status as a member of the royal family isolated in a castle in Elsinore, he lacks an identity. This lack of identity impairs his abilities to make moral decisions, which leads him to more internal suffering, thoughts of suicide, and eventually his tragic death. In his wake he leaves a pile of dead bodies and tortured minds, all afflicted in some way by his suffering.
Hamlet's suffering causes not only the deaths of most of the other characters, but also lots of moral pain, to the point of almost insanity for some. Claudius's guilt over killing his brother is intensified by Hamlet's desperate attempt to figure out what path he should take by putting on the play. The audience sees how upset he is over his actions and even might sympathize with him to some degree, making his death at the end (caused by Hamlet) and subsequently the work as a whole more tragic, because he is not a completely evil person. Laertes and Ophelia are hurt by their father's death (also a result of Hamlet's inner torture), which, along with Hamlet's rejection and the possibility that she's carrying his baby, causes Ophelia so much pain that she goes insane and commits suicide. Laertes, crippled by the death of his father and sister, resorts to immoral behavior and kills Hamlet and inadvertently. His admission and sorrow for his wrongdoing as he is dying gives him some degree of redemption and makes his death add to the tragic image of the work as a whole. Gertrude also gets caught up in the slaughter and ends up giving up her life for her son. Her devotion to her son despite his behavior ends in her death and also adds to the tragic vision as a whole because her very death is in a way redemption, making the audience sympathize with her more.
Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, although they don't suffer morally that much from Hamlet, add to the body count, and increase the wake of suffering Hamlet leaves behind him. The deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, ordered by Hamlet, seem especially senseless and magnify the extent of the impact Hamlet's tragic circumstances on himself on those around him.
Hamlet's tragic circumstances due to his difficult past and lack of identity have a ripple effect, wiping out most of the other characters mentally and physically. The only main character still alive at the end of the story is Horatio, and he has to live the rest of his life replaying the memory of the death of his best friend and others whom he knew well.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Hamlet Summary and Analysis
Author: William Shakespeare (written 1599-1602). Shakespeare wrote Hamlet after his son, Hamnet died, which is thought to have had influence on the story.
Setting: Elsinore, Denmark, in the castle for the most part. Medieval times (more specifically the 1300's)
Characters:
Hamlet- Son of Gertrude and Old Hamlet. He is about 30 years old, and intelligent. He's also quite angsty and depressed. He contemplates suicide constantly throughout the play, and struggles over whether or not he should kill Claudius as to avenge his father's murder. Hamlet is also very self centered, and is prone to making snap decisions about people if they do something he doesn't approve of. He is killed in a sword fight with Laertes when he is pierced with a poisoned sword.
Claudius- Uncle of Hamlet and husband of Gertrude. He is an older man in his 50's or 60's. He killed Old Hamlet for the throne and then married his newly widowed wife, Gertrude. He's not nice to Hamlet, and even plots to kill him. He's not completely evil though. He cares a lot about Gertrude and he feels really terrible about killing the old king. Hamlet kills him in the end by wounding him with the poisoned sword and making him drink poison.
Gertrude- Wife of Old Hamlet, mother of Hamlet. She quickly remarries Claudius after Old Hamlet's death, causing Hamlet to resent her. She has kind of an Oedipal relationship with Hamlet, and cares about him deeply. She dies drinking a poisoned cup of wine that was meant for Hamlet. In some interpretations, she knew it was poisoned and drank it to save Hamlet.
Polonius- Claudius's right hand man, and father of Laertes and Ophelia. He puts on an act to make himself appear incompetent, but he's actually quite strategic and has more power than meets the eye. He seems to be obsessed with spying on other people. Hamlet kills him (thinking he's Claudius) while he's spying on him and Gertrude.
Laertes- Son of Polonius, brother of Ophelia. He cares deeply about his sister (in a way that's a little unnatural). He is rash and he plots to kill Hamlet to avenge the deaths of his father and sister, but his plan ends up backfiring and his ends up getting pierced by his own poisoned blade.
Ophelia- Daughter of Polonius. She and Hamlet have a romance, but she quickly agrees to stop seeing Hamlet when her father asks her to. Hamlet "goes crazy" and rejects her. She later goes crazy and drowns herself (after possibly getting pregnant) , causing Hamlet to feel remorse.
Old Hamlet- Father of Hamlet and deceased ruler of Denmark. He makes a few appearances as a ghost to pressure Hamlet into killing Claudius to avenge his death.
Horatio- Hamlet's best friend, the only person he trusts fully and likes. Hamlet tells him all of his secrets, even regarding his plan to possibly kill Claudius.
Plot-
The plot mostly follows Hamlet as he's "trapped" in Elsinore, mourning the death of his father and resenting his mother for quickly remarrying his cold uncle, Claudius. He is visited by a the ghost of his father, who gives him the startling news that he was murdered by Claudius, and asks him to avenge his murder by killing Claudius. Shaken up, Hamlet strategically acts crazy (to get people to write him up and provide an excuse for future suspicious actions (possibly murder)). His crazy act startles his girlfriend, Ophelia, who goes to her Dad, Polonius about it. He tells her to stop seeing Hamlet, and she goes along without protestation. Claudius becomes suspicious of Hamlet's craziness and wants to find the source. He sends two of Hamlet's childhood friends, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern to talk to him and try to figure it out, but Hamlet sees right through it. Polonius is convinced it' Hamlet's love for Ophelia that's making him crazy, so he and Claudius hide to spy on Hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet gives the famous "To be, or not to be," speech, where he contemplates suicide. He then meets Ophelia and declares that he never loving her, crossing his love for Ophelia off the list of possibilities for why Hamlet's crazy.
Hamlet proves to himself that Claudius really killed Old Hamlet by seeing his disturbed reaction at a play Hamlet had put on about a king getting poisoned by his brother. Hamlet then is called to his mother's chamber, where Polonius is spying. Hamlet gets aggressively mad at Gertrude, and Polonius yells in alarm. Hamlet kills Polonius, thinking he's Claudius. Hamlet reveals to Gertrude that Claudius killed Old Hamlet, and tells her to abstain from sleeping with Claudius. The ghost appears again, reminding Hamlet of his task. Gertrude cannot see the ghost.
Hearing of Polonius's murder, Claudius sends Hamlet to England, planning to have him killed there. Meanwhile, Ophelia goes crazy (the reasons why are debatable, but her father's death and Hamlet's rejection and possibly pregnancy are most likely factors) and drowns herself in the river. Hamlet's ship is attacked by pirates and he returns to Elsinore in time to see Ophelia's funeral and grieve for her. Laertes, angry at Hamlet for his father's and sister's death, challenges him to a duel. Claudius gets Laertes all revved up, and they form a plot to kill Hamlet by making Laertes' sword in the duel unbated and poisoned. As a back up Claudius prepares a poisoned cup.
After having seen Fortinbras' army of men ready to die for a tiny piece of land for their country, Hamlet delivers the fall of the sparrow speech to Horatio, finally becoming decisive, choosing to follow through with the duel and accept whatever fate God has in store for him.
Laertes and Hamlet duel. Gertrude drinks from the poisoned cup (it's unclear whether she knows it's poisoned or not). She dies. Meanwhile, Hamlet and Laertes are both stabbed by the poisoned sword (they switch swords in the chaos). Laertes apologizes and reveals that Claudius is responsible for the poison before dying. Hamlet kills Claudius in anger and gives his consent for Fortinbras to take over. He stops Horatio from committing suicide, because someone has to live to tells his story. Hamlet dies. Fortinbras comes in and takes over.
Narrative Voice, etc:
This is a play, so it doesn't really have a narrative voice. The author's point of view comes through in the work, especially with all of the social commentary. Shakespeare definitely expresses some resentment towards the government and upper classes in the play. All of the royalty act quite often out of selfishness, and everyone else is pretty much brain washed into letting them get away with almost anything they want (Claudius kills Old Hamlet and no one is even suspicious of him until the ghost scene; Ophelia, close to several members of the Royal family, gets to have a proper funeral even though she committed suicide; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don't even have an identity, and they immediately give up their friendship with Hamlet upon the king's request). Shakespeare's past and point of view also come through in the tone and imagery of the work. He wrote Hamlet not long after his father and young son died. Lots of the imagery involves death and decay. Hamlet is holding the skull of Poor Yorick in one of his speeches. Also, a lot of Hamlet's word play and criticism of others has metaphors involving decay (maggots, dead dog, etc.) and death. The deaths of loved ones Shakespeare experienced before writing this play likely influenced the focus on death in the imagery. They probably also influenced the tone to some degree, which is quite dark and morbid. There is lots of contemplation of death and suicide and fate (specifically in the "To be or not to be," and "Fall of the Sparrow," speeches).
Symbols:
Yorick's skull- the inevitability of death
Poison- lies and the breaking of familial bonds
Flowers- Ophelia's sorrow and the message she is trying to send to each person in her crazy state
"Rank garden"- Garden of Eden (going off of that, Old Hamlet and Gertrude resemble Adam and Eve, while Claudius represents the Serpent)
Theme: In Hamlet, Shakespeare warns that when you don’t know who you are you are unable to effectively exercise moral judgement.
Due in large part to the insularity of his environment, Hamlet lacks an identity. His isolation in Elsinore prevents him from venturing out and trying new things to discover who he is. Because of this, he struggles to choose a path when he is faced with a moral dilemma regarding whether he should kill Claudius or not. He spends most of the play debating with himself, and even contemplating suicide. He doesn't know who he is and even what his opinions are, because he hasn't had much experience in the world outside Elsinore. This makes it hard for him to make up his mind and he ends up becoming a destructive force to those around him. He kills Polonius, and Ophelia dies because of him. Gertrude, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern get caught up in everything, and get killed as well. Hamlet's indecisiveness made the final outcome a lot bloodier than it needed to be. If Hamlet had decided right away to kill Claudius or not to, then only a maximum of one person would die. He really doesn't end up choosing a path until the "Fall of the Sparrow" speech, but that's kind of because he was forced to. His lack of identity hinder his ability to exercise moral judgement, leading to tragic outcomes.
Quotes:
"You cannot, sir, take from me any thing that I will more willingly part withal—except my life, except my life, except my life."
This quote really shows how troubled Hamlet is. He's basically saying that his own life means nothing to him and even that he wants to die. It reminds readers of how extreme Hamlet's depression and distress are, and how he's put significant thought into death and suicide.
" There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all."
This quote is a big moment for Hamlet. He finally chooses a path. He decides that his fate is inevitable and he accepts that. It made me think about how much Hamlet has been through, and how much of a moral struggle he had been going through up to this point before just deciding that whatever happens happens and that his death is inevitable.
Setting: Elsinore, Denmark, in the castle for the most part. Medieval times (more specifically the 1300's)
Characters:
Hamlet- Son of Gertrude and Old Hamlet. He is about 30 years old, and intelligent. He's also quite angsty and depressed. He contemplates suicide constantly throughout the play, and struggles over whether or not he should kill Claudius as to avenge his father's murder. Hamlet is also very self centered, and is prone to making snap decisions about people if they do something he doesn't approve of. He is killed in a sword fight with Laertes when he is pierced with a poisoned sword.
Claudius- Uncle of Hamlet and husband of Gertrude. He is an older man in his 50's or 60's. He killed Old Hamlet for the throne and then married his newly widowed wife, Gertrude. He's not nice to Hamlet, and even plots to kill him. He's not completely evil though. He cares a lot about Gertrude and he feels really terrible about killing the old king. Hamlet kills him in the end by wounding him with the poisoned sword and making him drink poison.
Gertrude- Wife of Old Hamlet, mother of Hamlet. She quickly remarries Claudius after Old Hamlet's death, causing Hamlet to resent her. She has kind of an Oedipal relationship with Hamlet, and cares about him deeply. She dies drinking a poisoned cup of wine that was meant for Hamlet. In some interpretations, she knew it was poisoned and drank it to save Hamlet.
Polonius- Claudius's right hand man, and father of Laertes and Ophelia. He puts on an act to make himself appear incompetent, but he's actually quite strategic and has more power than meets the eye. He seems to be obsessed with spying on other people. Hamlet kills him (thinking he's Claudius) while he's spying on him and Gertrude.
Laertes- Son of Polonius, brother of Ophelia. He cares deeply about his sister (in a way that's a little unnatural). He is rash and he plots to kill Hamlet to avenge the deaths of his father and sister, but his plan ends up backfiring and his ends up getting pierced by his own poisoned blade.
Ophelia- Daughter of Polonius. She and Hamlet have a romance, but she quickly agrees to stop seeing Hamlet when her father asks her to. Hamlet "goes crazy" and rejects her. She later goes crazy and drowns herself (after possibly getting pregnant) , causing Hamlet to feel remorse.
Old Hamlet- Father of Hamlet and deceased ruler of Denmark. He makes a few appearances as a ghost to pressure Hamlet into killing Claudius to avenge his death.
Horatio- Hamlet's best friend, the only person he trusts fully and likes. Hamlet tells him all of his secrets, even regarding his plan to possibly kill Claudius.
Plot-
The plot mostly follows Hamlet as he's "trapped" in Elsinore, mourning the death of his father and resenting his mother for quickly remarrying his cold uncle, Claudius. He is visited by a the ghost of his father, who gives him the startling news that he was murdered by Claudius, and asks him to avenge his murder by killing Claudius. Shaken up, Hamlet strategically acts crazy (to get people to write him up and provide an excuse for future suspicious actions (possibly murder)). His crazy act startles his girlfriend, Ophelia, who goes to her Dad, Polonius about it. He tells her to stop seeing Hamlet, and she goes along without protestation. Claudius becomes suspicious of Hamlet's craziness and wants to find the source. He sends two of Hamlet's childhood friends, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern to talk to him and try to figure it out, but Hamlet sees right through it. Polonius is convinced it' Hamlet's love for Ophelia that's making him crazy, so he and Claudius hide to spy on Hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet gives the famous "To be, or not to be," speech, where he contemplates suicide. He then meets Ophelia and declares that he never loving her, crossing his love for Ophelia off the list of possibilities for why Hamlet's crazy.
Hamlet proves to himself that Claudius really killed Old Hamlet by seeing his disturbed reaction at a play Hamlet had put on about a king getting poisoned by his brother. Hamlet then is called to his mother's chamber, where Polonius is spying. Hamlet gets aggressively mad at Gertrude, and Polonius yells in alarm. Hamlet kills Polonius, thinking he's Claudius. Hamlet reveals to Gertrude that Claudius killed Old Hamlet, and tells her to abstain from sleeping with Claudius. The ghost appears again, reminding Hamlet of his task. Gertrude cannot see the ghost.
Hearing of Polonius's murder, Claudius sends Hamlet to England, planning to have him killed there. Meanwhile, Ophelia goes crazy (the reasons why are debatable, but her father's death and Hamlet's rejection and possibly pregnancy are most likely factors) and drowns herself in the river. Hamlet's ship is attacked by pirates and he returns to Elsinore in time to see Ophelia's funeral and grieve for her. Laertes, angry at Hamlet for his father's and sister's death, challenges him to a duel. Claudius gets Laertes all revved up, and they form a plot to kill Hamlet by making Laertes' sword in the duel unbated and poisoned. As a back up Claudius prepares a poisoned cup.
After having seen Fortinbras' army of men ready to die for a tiny piece of land for their country, Hamlet delivers the fall of the sparrow speech to Horatio, finally becoming decisive, choosing to follow through with the duel and accept whatever fate God has in store for him.
Laertes and Hamlet duel. Gertrude drinks from the poisoned cup (it's unclear whether she knows it's poisoned or not). She dies. Meanwhile, Hamlet and Laertes are both stabbed by the poisoned sword (they switch swords in the chaos). Laertes apologizes and reveals that Claudius is responsible for the poison before dying. Hamlet kills Claudius in anger and gives his consent for Fortinbras to take over. He stops Horatio from committing suicide, because someone has to live to tells his story. Hamlet dies. Fortinbras comes in and takes over.
Narrative Voice, etc:
This is a play, so it doesn't really have a narrative voice. The author's point of view comes through in the work, especially with all of the social commentary. Shakespeare definitely expresses some resentment towards the government and upper classes in the play. All of the royalty act quite often out of selfishness, and everyone else is pretty much brain washed into letting them get away with almost anything they want (Claudius kills Old Hamlet and no one is even suspicious of him until the ghost scene; Ophelia, close to several members of the Royal family, gets to have a proper funeral even though she committed suicide; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don't even have an identity, and they immediately give up their friendship with Hamlet upon the king's request). Shakespeare's past and point of view also come through in the tone and imagery of the work. He wrote Hamlet not long after his father and young son died. Lots of the imagery involves death and decay. Hamlet is holding the skull of Poor Yorick in one of his speeches. Also, a lot of Hamlet's word play and criticism of others has metaphors involving decay (maggots, dead dog, etc.) and death. The deaths of loved ones Shakespeare experienced before writing this play likely influenced the focus on death in the imagery. They probably also influenced the tone to some degree, which is quite dark and morbid. There is lots of contemplation of death and suicide and fate (specifically in the "To be or not to be," and "Fall of the Sparrow," speeches).
Symbols:
Yorick's skull- the inevitability of death
Poison- lies and the breaking of familial bonds
Flowers- Ophelia's sorrow and the message she is trying to send to each person in her crazy state
"Rank garden"- Garden of Eden (going off of that, Old Hamlet and Gertrude resemble Adam and Eve, while Claudius represents the Serpent)
Theme: In Hamlet, Shakespeare warns that when you don’t know who you are you are unable to effectively exercise moral judgement.
Due in large part to the insularity of his environment, Hamlet lacks an identity. His isolation in Elsinore prevents him from venturing out and trying new things to discover who he is. Because of this, he struggles to choose a path when he is faced with a moral dilemma regarding whether he should kill Claudius or not. He spends most of the play debating with himself, and even contemplating suicide. He doesn't know who he is and even what his opinions are, because he hasn't had much experience in the world outside Elsinore. This makes it hard for him to make up his mind and he ends up becoming a destructive force to those around him. He kills Polonius, and Ophelia dies because of him. Gertrude, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern get caught up in everything, and get killed as well. Hamlet's indecisiveness made the final outcome a lot bloodier than it needed to be. If Hamlet had decided right away to kill Claudius or not to, then only a maximum of one person would die. He really doesn't end up choosing a path until the "Fall of the Sparrow" speech, but that's kind of because he was forced to. His lack of identity hinder his ability to exercise moral judgement, leading to tragic outcomes.
Quotes:
"You cannot, sir, take from me any thing that I will more willingly part withal—except my life, except my life, except my life."
This quote really shows how troubled Hamlet is. He's basically saying that his own life means nothing to him and even that he wants to die. It reminds readers of how extreme Hamlet's depression and distress are, and how he's put significant thought into death and suicide.
" There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all."
This quote is a big moment for Hamlet. He finally chooses a path. He decides that his fate is inevitable and he accepts that. It made me think about how much Hamlet has been through, and how much of a moral struggle he had been going through up to this point before just deciding that whatever happens happens and that his death is inevitable.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Response to Course Material # 5
The past week and two days have been focused on wrapping up our Hamlet discussions and reviewing for the exam. I was so glad we got more time to talk about Hamlet, because I had been puzzling over it during break and getting nowhere. Getting to bounce ideas off of my classmates was very helpful. I did, however, feel a little annoyed during our theme making process, because it seemed like a lot of my ideas got shot down, and I thought we were getting caught up on one idea and smaller details within that idea too much. In the end though, I was pretty happy with our final theme statement and felt I had a better grasp of the work as a whole. I really like how we are able to come to conclusions as a class, without teachers feeding everything to us. This is the first class I've experienced this in, and I think it gives a lot of room to grow. It also helps me be more confident in my own ideas, because even if some are shot down, others are validated and it reminds me that all opinions are valid and a lot is open to your own interpretation. This helps me a lot in my voice lessons. When I get a new piece, I pay a lot more attention to the lyrics and am able to put more meaning into my performance because I am more confident in my interpretation.
The last few days of class have been devoted to a collaborative exam review. I have found it extremely helpful to have a page with all the material we need to know for the exam on it. It makes my studying a lot more productive, because I don't have to spend as much time sorting through everything and figuring out what to focus on. I do think our review could be more concise, but I can't really complain when I have pretty much everything I need to know all organized into one document.
The last few days of class have been devoted to a collaborative exam review. I have found it extremely helpful to have a page with all the material we need to know for the exam on it. It makes my studying a lot more productive, because I don't have to spend as much time sorting through everything and figuring out what to focus on. I do think our review could be more concise, but I can't really complain when I have pretty much everything I need to know all organized into one document.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Open Prompt Response Part 2 #1
2008. In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that
emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main
character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight
the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor
character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how
the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of
the work.
Foils can be very powerful tools in a work of literature. Not only can they bring out the characteristics of the main character, but they can also amplify the general meaning the work as a whole. This can be seen in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when the minor character of Macduff acts as a foil to Macbeth, highlighting the major idea of the play that power corrupts.
Macbeth and Macduff are pretty similar in the beginning of the play. Both are fairly well off men with good morals and strong consciences. They both live in Scotland and are devoted to their good king. The main thing that sets them apart is that Macbeth is suddenly given/ realizes he has the opportunity to become king and get more power. Macduff is just a nobleman, and he's not really in position to become king. This one difference sends the two men on very different paths, and shows what a negative effect power can have on the conscience.
We see that Macbeth starts out with pretty strong morals, because he agonizes over killing King Duncan. He even hallucinates that he sees a bloody dagger before the murder because he's so nervous. Still, the need for power overcomes his qualms, and he commits the murder. After that, he becomes ruthless and will do anything to get the throne. He even kills his best friend, Banquo. The murders get more and more senseless as he orders Macduff's completely innocent wife and son to be killed. All of Macbeth's actions after he hears the prophecy are for his own gain. They are completely motivated by greed.
Macduff's does commit murder as well (he kills Macbeth), but he does it to save the lives of many more and to avenge his family's death. He has no personal gain from his actions. He doesn't have any chance of getting the throne; he just wants Malcolm, the wise, just , rightful heir to the throne to be king. He acts for the good of his country, not himself. He maintains his morals and commits none of the senseless slaughter of innocents that Macbeth gets into.
Macduff plays a key role in bringing out the idea that power corrupts. He represents Macbeth without the opportunity for more power. As described above, he is extremely devoted to his king and country, and only commits violence necessary to stop further violence and help his country. Seeing him contrast so sharply with Macbeth, who starts out similar to him but by the end is so messed up he has little trouble killing a harmless child, shows readers what an impact even the possibility of gaining more power can have on a person. Macduff's character acts as a foil to Macbeth to show that power is the driving force behind Macbeth's downfall, as it can act as a force of corruption on any normal, moral human being.
emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main
character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight
the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor
character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how
the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of
the work.
Foils can be very powerful tools in a work of literature. Not only can they bring out the characteristics of the main character, but they can also amplify the general meaning the work as a whole. This can be seen in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when the minor character of Macduff acts as a foil to Macbeth, highlighting the major idea of the play that power corrupts.
Macbeth and Macduff are pretty similar in the beginning of the play. Both are fairly well off men with good morals and strong consciences. They both live in Scotland and are devoted to their good king. The main thing that sets them apart is that Macbeth is suddenly given/ realizes he has the opportunity to become king and get more power. Macduff is just a nobleman, and he's not really in position to become king. This one difference sends the two men on very different paths, and shows what a negative effect power can have on the conscience.
We see that Macbeth starts out with pretty strong morals, because he agonizes over killing King Duncan. He even hallucinates that he sees a bloody dagger before the murder because he's so nervous. Still, the need for power overcomes his qualms, and he commits the murder. After that, he becomes ruthless and will do anything to get the throne. He even kills his best friend, Banquo. The murders get more and more senseless as he orders Macduff's completely innocent wife and son to be killed. All of Macbeth's actions after he hears the prophecy are for his own gain. They are completely motivated by greed.
Macduff's does commit murder as well (he kills Macbeth), but he does it to save the lives of many more and to avenge his family's death. He has no personal gain from his actions. He doesn't have any chance of getting the throne; he just wants Malcolm, the wise, just , rightful heir to the throne to be king. He acts for the good of his country, not himself. He maintains his morals and commits none of the senseless slaughter of innocents that Macbeth gets into.
Macduff plays a key role in bringing out the idea that power corrupts. He represents Macbeth without the opportunity for more power. As described above, he is extremely devoted to his king and country, and only commits violence necessary to stop further violence and help his country. Seeing him contrast so sharply with Macbeth, who starts out similar to him but by the end is so messed up he has little trouble killing a harmless child, shows readers what an impact even the possibility of gaining more power can have on a person. Macduff's character acts as a foil to Macbeth to show that power is the driving force behind Macbeth's downfall, as it can act as a force of corruption on any normal, moral human being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)