Hamlet Ending

All throughout watching the film in class, I couldn't stop laughing. I know that it is difficult to act out the play with the long dialogue that makes the risen emotions deflate as soon as they are formed. However, the thing that really made me laugh was the ''awkwardness' of everyone's surprised reactions and death. Although the memory is becoming a bit murky, I thought the over-dramatization of Brannagh's  version made the ending very hard to respect. Hamlet starts of the conversation with Laertes very sincerely with a respect for his family. However, that whole speech seems to be a facade through the movie portrayal when he drops the sincerity emotion. Truthfully, I don't really know what to make of the ending because I just became tired of Hamlet in general due to Hamlet's frustrating characteristic. The domino effect of killing of Gertrude, Laertes, Claudius, and Hamlet (sorry to say) is so pathetic. It just proves the pointlessness of everything in all directions. What was the point of Hamlet becoming a fool, intellectual, artist, etc. if he was just going to end up dying. But in a way, I guess everyone got what they deserved. Claudius died because he committed a premeditated murder, treason, incest, and for scheming to kill Hamlet. Gertrude ended up unknowingly 'sacrificing' herself for her son because she wasn't able to do that ever since she decided to marry Claudius (if we take the side that she is innocent, that is). For Laertes, I don't think he would have fared well if he didn't die because his whole family was dead due to Hamlet, so he needed to rest in peace after poisoning Hamlet. Lastly, Hamlet 'tragically'  dies because he killed Polonius, unintentionally drove Ophelia to death, and for judging everyone so critically because the Bible does say not to judge others. I am just glad to be done with this play because as interesting as it was in the beginning, the feeling of the play dragging on and on and on really becoming an unnecessarily tiresome play. I guess, to apply to economic terms, it's like the diminishing marginal utility, how obtaining a good decreases the satisfaction one good after another. Oh, one thing I want to add is that the concept of poison is so big in this play and an interesting thing I noticed was that in Invisible Man, the narrator talks about poison many times after the first half of the book. In the book it says, "You will. There's lots of poison around" (393), This is after when Brother Tarp tells the narrator about his 19 years in prison. Brother Wrestrum pops in out of no where and starts warning the narrator, and I thought the inclusion of this quote was interesting. There a lot of weird things with the Brotherhood and his comment about the poison foreshadowed what he did to the narrator, accusing him of disloyalty.

Hamlet: Coward

I guess by picking Hamlet as the coward, I am choosing convenience because it is so obvious in multiple places in Hamlet where Hamlet can be depicted as a coward. Even though after Act 1, I was ready to read about the dashing things Hamlet was going to do in order to get this revenge, all we got instead was a tiresome, inactive, and thinking Hamlet. Because he spent so much time dwelling on the revenge concept, he couldn't take action even in Act 4! The first instance where I would like to point Hamlet out as a coward is in Act 2 Scene 1. Why? You may be wondering why I would think of this particular scene instead of a different one. The reason is because the very fact that Hamlet does not start of Act 2 signifies that he will not take action. If he were to have the passion and fervor to seek out revenge, as the ghost promised him to, he should have appeared in the beginning of Act 2. However, all we get is how Hamlet is 'acting' and 'seeming' mad. Of course, we can attribute this seemingness as a clever and witty plot of Hamlet's. But because we have read until Act 4, we know how Hamlet goes in circles with his witty words. Therefore, Polonius and Ophelia starting out Act 2 foreshadowed Hamlet's cowardliness.The long soliloquy he gives in Act 2 Scene 2, is full of him pointing out his flaws of unmanliness. He is very blunt about it saying, ""Am I a coward?" and then "Who... Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face?" The rest of the soliloquy is full of his inactivity and how he is trapped under his own flaw. Of course, we take pity on Hamlet for suffering under this great pressure given by a ghost where he has to kill Claudius (although a different hero may have killed Claudius just because of the fact that he married Gertrude and stole the hero's right to throne). However, the frustration within me is not covered by the pity for Hamlet. If Hamlet is so clever and intellectual enough to come up with such mindblowing comebacks to Polonius, shouldn't he also have the brains for a better plot for revenge? Just because he puts on a play to confirm of Claudius, he should have known that he couldn't just go up to Claudius and be like 'I saw your face expression change. You are guilty of murdering my father!' and kill him. I mean come on! Hamlet should have either just killed him or framed the king of a heinous crime of some sort. Therefore, not only is Hamlet a coward, he is a very frustrating coward to me and to himself!

Invisible Man

I wish I could make up a name for the narrator but afraid to do so because it may be against the literary ethics...? Well anyway, what really bugs me about the narrator is that his immaturity and lack of respect for others. What he wants is recognition and success in a worldly sense. He only tries to suck up to people and doesn't ever put blame on himself when it's actually his fault. With Mr. Norton, I thought it was so stupid for the narrator to take the high class, rich, and powerful white man to a slum part of town where the narrator knew the conditions Mr. Norton would encounter. Dr. Bledsoe had every right to be angry at him and to want the narrator to get out of the school. Because Dr. Bledsoe put in so much effort and time into raising the quality of the black community, the narrator's actions deserved a consequence like that. Also, I really dislike how the narrator disdains everyone who he thinks is not worthy, which he judges by looking at their education background. He thinks if a person did not get an education, he should be treated like trash. His point of view goes against everything the equality activists were trying to accomplish. The lack of maturity and respect on his part makes him undergo through hardship in his life. However, if we link this to the hero's journey, the expulsion from school is the call to adventure, him resisting the temptation of reading the letter is the refusal to call, and the people he meets in his journey are his mentors. I am only on chapter 12, so I do not really know what to make of the accident that happened in the paint factory or how to link that episode with the hero's journey. However, everything seems to be going wrong for the narrator, and I feel like the most important enlightenment or realization he will face will be that he realizes what a jerk he's been behaving towards everyone. His scope of the world is still so limited and has not been exposed to much things. However, due to the factory accident, I feel like his life will encounter some unavoidable calamity that will make him into the person we saw at the prologue. Although the pace of the book is very slow and there are many times where I feel like there are too many words and description, I really want to see how the pieces fit together to make this the world renowned literature. I hope we have a class discussion on this book soon because I only know what is going on externally through the events but cannot seem to pick up on the motifs, themes, or importance of imageries.

Getting Out

Getting Out

That year we hardly slept, walking like inmates
who beat the walls. Every night
another refusal, the silent work
of tightening the heart.
Exhausted, we gave up; escaped
to the apartment pool, swimming those laps
until the first light relieved us.

Days were different: FM and full-blast
blues, hours of guitar "you gonna miss me
when I'm gone." Think how you tried
to pack up and go, for weeks stumbling
over piles of clothing, the unstrung tennis rackets.
Finally locked into blame, we paced
that short hall, heaving words like furniture.

I have the last unshredded pictures
of our matching eyes and hair. We've kept
to separate sides of the map,
still I'm startled by men who look like you.
And in the yearly letter, you're sure to say
you're happy now. Yet I think of the lawyer's bewilderment
when we cried, the last day. Taking hands
we walked apart, until our arms stretched
between us. We held on tight, and let go.

By Cleopatra Mathis

The poem is very sincere. Every line shows a sense of regret and frustration over how the speaker cannot seem to find peace in her marriage, both during and after. Because marriage is a holy alliance between a man and a woman and binds them for eternity, the speaker describes it as being in a prison. She says that they "hardly slept, walking like inmates/ who beat the walls" (1-2). The couple is stuck in a prison where every night, they try to struggle to escape the marriage. For the poem, the way the speaker ends the first line is significant because it emphasizes the comparison between themselves and prisoners. The process of the decline of marriage is described in the stanzas, and for the first stanza, the speaker illustrates the many attempts of how "every night", the couple fail in giving up their pride to please the other and in the end, seek comfort at the pool to relieve stress. The latter half of the second stanza speaks of how the marriage is "stumbling/ over piles of clothing, the unstrung tennis rackets" (11-12). The causal items of clothes, tennis rackets, and furniture show how the fights and frustration has been built upon minuscule topics. It was not an affair, money problem, or faulty behavior that deteriorated their marriage. However, maybe because the problems did not arise from such heavy matters, the speaker realizes how difficult it is to rectify their marriage. Even after their separation, the speaker still cannot forget about her husband and is constantly reminded of his presence, "still I'm startled by men who look like you" (19). I think the speaker is doubtful of herself and him in trying act as if they were "happy now". She remembers the day that they had to seek the lawyer to put an end to their marriage. The fact that the speaker says the lawyer was bewildered due to their erupted sadness. The last three lines are very ironic and emphasizes both their willingness and unwillingness to let go of each other. Even though they did feel like prisoners, the marriage has not been just a hundred percent full of imperfections. Therefore, there has to be some lingering feelings, where they "taking hands/ we walked apart, until our arms stretched between us. We held on tight, and let go" (21-23). The image provoked by these lines show how the tightly linked hands let go or gave up for them to go their separate ways.

I really liked this poem because it describes the reality in many marriages. Even though people marry for love and believe that they will always be their for each other, the love dies down. The more you love a person, it is difficult to continue that relationship and the love becomes an unimportant element in one's life. Because there are temptations and people tire of old things, many marriages disintegrate when not given the care it needs. I just hope that my friends and myself, when we find a time in our lives to marry, we will not have to suffer the hardship of a divorce.

Heaven-Haven

Heaven-Haven A nun takes the veil  I have desired to go      Where springs not fail,  To fields where flies no sharp and sided hail     And a few lilies blow.     And I have asked to be       Where no storms come,  Where the green swell is in the havens dumb,     And out of the swing of the sea.

                                      Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-1889)

The main interesting thing I noticed was that the poet is a man, but the heading of the poem is "A nun takes a veil". Why would a man choose to write about a poem that speaks of eternity in heaven, yet the heading refers to a nun. I do not know whether or not to refer back to the heading when I make my analysis. Because if the heading is taken into account, then I would say that the speaker is a female. But looking at the heading by itself, it describes the moment when a woman decides to give up her life in society and become married and bound to the church. She is giving up the life of having a husband, children, and family in order to serve God. Oh! I will say that the speaker is a woman and that the heading carries a heavy weight for the poem. The title "Heaven-Haven" is similar is spelling and connotation. Heaven is the eternal Christian 'haven' like refuge where believers of Jesus Christ will ascend to after death. Haven can be both worldly and spiritual. It is a safe harbor and a refuge for people in danger, and it can also be the whole heaven becoming one's safe haven from the world. Therefore, a nun will seek the haven in church as she serves God and will ascend to heaven after death. Consequently, once she takes the veil, she will forever be in the presence of God, which is comforting. Moving on to the first stanza, the speaker wishes to go "Where springs not fail". Spring is when everything in nature comes back to life after the harshness of winter, which means that the speaker wishes to experience rebirth continuously. For Christians, the concept of rebirth is important not just in baptism, but in everyday life because you are supposed to allow Jesus to live through you, so you have to kill the 'old Adam' and let the 'new Adam' (Jesus) live everyday. In this sense, it is clear that the speaker wishes to be cleansed everyday and never deter from the Christian life. The whole poem describes what the speaker wished and asked for in the past. The illustrated picture is where life is calm, peaceful, and perfect. Therefore, the speaker is describing a place where heaven and haven co-exists. Through taking the veil, the speaker's prayer will be answered because of the life she will lead after detaching herself from society. After she leaves her haven, church, she will enter heaven where all the things she hopes and wishes for will be in full scope of her reach. Heaven will be a place "where no storms come" and where only perfection resides. The poem is hopeful because to the speaker, there is such a place of eternal life, and she will one day be taken to live there.

Speaking

Speaking

I take him outside
under the tree,
have him stand on the ground.
We listen to the crickets,
cicadas, million years old sound.
Ants come by us.
I tell them,
“This is he, my son.
This boy is looking at you.
I am speaking for him.”

The crickets, cicadas,
the ants, the million of years
are watching us,
hearing us
My son murmurs infant words,
speaking, small laughter
bubbles from him.
Tree leaves tremble.
They listen to this boy
speaking for me.

Simon J. Ortiz                                                                                             

I am not going to research the poet this time and just see what I can come up with without any background information. The title of the poem "Speaking" is a present tense verb that signifies an action being taken place, which suggests that the poem is a sort of ever-lasting 'experience' or happening. The poem is told in first person where the narrator is definitely older than the person he takes outside. This hypothesis is made based on the line "have him stand on the ground". The speaker takes a small child who is not fully capable of walking out by himself and helps him make contact with the ground. The pronounce "I" changes into a "we", suggesting that since the child and the narrator are both standing on the ground, they are one and together. The fact that they are outside but are able to listen to the cicadas, whose sounds are million years old, depicts a scene that is within nature. In that setting, the speaker talks to ants, a very unusual thing, and uses the word 'speaking', which highlights the quote as it holds a larger meaning. Changing to the second stanza, the roles reverse and it is the crickets, cicadas, and ants that watches and listens to the people. This isn't really a personification because animals and insects can hear and watch, but the context gives the insects a greater role in the poem as they are in the position of being observers. However, it is interesting to note that the insects actually listen to the small child who doesn't actually know how to speak and are engrossed in what he is saying. Even the trees show a response by trembling. The role reversal is, therefore, not only with the insects and humans but also with the speaker and the child. The child who cannot or does not know how to speak the language is able to communicate with nature through his innocent and pure laughter. He is transmitting the pureness of society, something that his father cannot convey. Although I am not confident in the message of the poem, I think the main essence involves nature and innocence. The speaker also gives importance to insects, something that people don't give a second thought to. The stressing of the 'million of years' heighten that importance of insects because long existence connects with accumulation of wisdom. The speaker, I think, values insects a lot and the fact that he takes his child out to see the insects and talk to them shows how he wants the child to grow up having value for insects. Therefore, the poem incites the message of a connection between the human world and insects, a connection that needs to be valued and kept. The father-son generation illustration also shows the continual cycle of the meeting between nature and humans. Also, as an additional note, the reason why nature is listening to the speaker through the son may be because the child has not be influenced by society yet and can communicate the purest form of message to nature. 

Hamlet

Mrs. Clinch warned us that Hamlet is going to be a smart ass and be the over dramatic prince, but I did not expect him to really be all that and beyond. I supposed if one loved his father as much as Hamlet and has not been given the right to throne, I guess one could be as depressed and mad as Hamlet. However, if King Hamlet was so great of a king that he is described as a 'Hyperion', why is the young Hamlet not on the throne of Denmark? Hamlet, as noted by his verbal wit, is very intellectual and far out ranks Claudius in that category. He fits the mold for a king as well as and even better than Claudius. Therefore, a question is prompted to question the authenticity of Claudius's rise to the throne. How did Claudius become so well liked and respected by the servants of Denmark that he was able to ascent to the throne without much opposition? Because this play is a tragedy and has a ghost of King Hamlet, who is not able to rest in peace, I don't think it is a stretch to assume that Claudius had something to do with the king's death. During King Hamlet's reign, Claudius probably started recruiting people on his side because as many people know, you need to have a fair number of servants backing you up for an up rise. If Claudius did kill the king but did it secretly, it would have been easy for him to take the throne through deception. Also, his 'act', as I see it, towards Hamlet is kind and gentle in order to cover up the massive fear and threat he feels from his nephew. However, in order to renegade that, he marries the former queen, which in a way can strengthen his legitimacy to the throne. I thought the marrying part wasn't as scandalous as it seemed because I know that in some cultures, the same situation often occurred in history. However, after reading Hamlet's soliloquy, it became clear that even this time period does not look favorably of such action. Which is weird because Claudius was able to do those things and consolidate his power. How did the people in court  or people of Denmark view the situation? We  only know about Hamlet's point of view but if it is incestuous, then wouldn't other people  view it in the same light as Hamlet? If Claudius has been able to cloak the situation in a natural and undeceiving way and have the people at court accept this ascension to throne, he must be very persuasive and charming. I sort of detracted from what I thought I was going to talk about, Hamlet, and instead  gravitated more towards Claudius. However, it will be interesting to see what Claudius does to Hamlet or vice versa and if Claudius will ever be overridden with guilt due to the way he took over the throne.