THE LAST BLOG

My AP Literature exam experience was like a roller coaster. I set my alarm to wake me up at 7:00 but I accidentally turned it off and went back to sleep. When I woke up again, it was already 7:40! I quickly got ready and ran out my house with a banana in my hand. Needless to say, I sped like crazy to the testing center and arrived around 8:05. It turned out that I had turned into the wrong entrance so it took even more time to get to the testing center. When I finally got there, I told the teachers standing out the center what teacher and what period I had AP Lit. They gave me the room number to go to but when I got there it turned out that was the wrong room. They had told me the wrong room number! So Ms. Iton was there and she had to direct me to the correct room which was literally on the other side of the testing center. Nonetheless, I arrived at my correct room around 8:12 and the class was waiting on me to start the exam. I felt kind of bad. So I wasn’t in the best condition or mood when I took the exam but it turned out to be a lot easier than I had expected it to be. The multiple choice section was what surprised me the most actually. All the practice ones we’ve been doing in class were really hard compared to the kind of questions that were on the actual exam. Even the poems were relatively easy to understand. I actually thought about this after the exam, but maybe it wasn’t that much easier but I was just that much more prepared after taking AP Lit. Either way, I felt really confident about my performance on the multiple choice section. The essay section was next and I was feeling pretty good about that before I got to write. When I saw the essay prompt for the open question, I got a giddy feeling. The prompt fit perfectly with the novel Frankenstein. I talked about how the monster was exiled from its birth and how that sets off the entire storyline of revenge between the creator and creation. The other two essays with the poetry and passage ones were relatively easy too. I really like the Centry Quilt poem as I talked about how the quilt was more than a bedsheet, but a powerful object that the author uses to satisfy her nostalgic desires. The passage one with Henry Clarevence was the hardest essay in my opinion. I got a perfect picture of what kind of person he was and I felt like I did a nice job in relaying how the author accomplished this. Overall, I felt like I got a 4 or 5!

Ros and guil

Ironic—the perfect way to describe Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. It’s interesting to read a novel that I already know the penultimate ending to. The scene where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern discover the contents of the letter they are ordered to deliver to the British King is interesting to say the least. Until that point, both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are mere pawns in the grander scheme of things. However, it’s like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lose their innocence when they find out the content of the letter. The situation reminded me of the loss of innocence in All The Kings Men through the acquirement of knowledge. The idea of free will vs. fate is predominant in this play. After discovering the letter, Guildenstern convinces Rosencrantz not to disclose the content of the letter to anyone, including Hamlet himself. Guildenstern’s reason for doing this is that he believes in fate. He claims that everyone will eventually die so they must not interfere with things. This is highly ironic because it reflects what happens earlier in the scene where Rosencrantz thinks about jumping off the ship to go against fate. Just as he prepares to jump off, Rosencrantz begins to think that it could also be fate for him to jump off this ship. Similarly, Guildenstern believes that he is going with fate, and he is—to his own death. It’s important to note that there is a significant change in mood in the play. In the initial stages of the play, the question of fate and free will were presented in a purely comic way. There was no tension. However, towards the end of the play tension begins to emerge. The audience already knows that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are going to die—the source of the tension. I want to talk about Guildenstern’s death speech. His speech is eerily similar to the To Be or Not to Be speech by Hamlet. Both talk about how miserable life is and that death derives its power not from the nature of death itself, but the uncertainty of the afterlife. I really loved analyzing the to be or not to be speech for a past assignment and I think that really helped me understand this play even more.

I want to talk about the upcoming AP Lit exam which is only a week away! I have my first AP exam tomorrow and it still feels like it’s not real or something. The only AP exams I feel prepared are for the stat, lit, and macro econ. I think that for bio and physics I’m going to fail. Well AP exams this year are so much different than how they were last year because these don’t really count for anything. Nonetheless, I’m going to just take the test to the best of my abilities and see what I get!

rosencrantz and guildenstern

So we are reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in class and it is a very um different kind of literary work than those which I’m accustomed to. In class I learned that this play is classified as an absurdist play. It really needs no explanation of why it’s classified as that. Nothing makes sense in the play!!! Everything seems so random and it takes a great deal of effort to understand what is going on. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to be very similar characters and both are essentially lost. They are often without much direction in the play. Consequently, the two characters appear to be lacking a driving purpose—the central theme in an absurdist work. Even though the play is a bit difficult to understand at times, I still really like the play because it makes me laugh. There is a lot of double entendre use in the play, which is very similar to Hamlet. There are a lot of very subtle references to Hamlet. An example is the use of the line “what is the matter”. Many readers would be unable to pick up on this Hamlet reference but matter is a motif that is repeated countless times in Hamlet. I really like the idea of this play as it reveals what happens when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are off stage in Hamlet. This idea of telling the readers what happens off stage reminded me of Grendel. Just as it gave a different perspective on the story, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern does the exact same thing. I want to compare Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. As of now, Guildenstern seems to be the more philosophically and intelligently superior character. Rosencrantz seems to be kind of slow on things like when they were playing that game of responding question with question.

Now that I talked about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I want to talk about the AP Lit exam. I was pretty surprised at my practice score, considering that I was dozing in and out of the multiple choice section. I felt like I did pretty well on my essay part. I got a 7 and 7 on the prose and poetry passage but only a 5 on the open question one :/ I guess it’s true that everyone does bad on the open question. But, we are doing lots and lots of practice in class so hopefully, I will do well when it’s game time! But other than that, I feel pretty confident going in to the exam. I’m choosing Frankenstein, Invisible Man, and one other work that I haven’t decided yet to be the three works that I’m really familiar with. I think I should use Invisible Man if possible because I think that we did a really close reading of the novel in class with all those seminars and stuff. But yeah I think I will do fine when the AP Lit test date arrives!

IM seminar

The Invisible Man seminars are hands down the best assignments we’ve done all year. I really enjoy listening to how others perceived the novel and discussing it. Granted, some of the class mates’ opinions will obviously differ. However, listening to how others interpreted the novel allows me to get a better understanding of the book. Having said that, I want to talk about the section of the novel my group was responsible for leading the class in. I want to talk about Dr. Norton first. As we discussed in the seminar, Dr. Norton is really not a character, but a representation of the historical ideology of the White Man’s Burden. This term refers to the mindset of the affluent white men who believed that they had a “burden” to help the inferior race, the blacks. This kind of ideology is also rooted in the Manifest Destiny ideology that defined America during the 19^th century. Yes it’s true that Dr. Norton donates money to the all black institute which the narrator attends. But, what’s Norton’s true motives for donating the money? Is he really a nice guy that just wants to help some random people out? The answer is a resounding no. He is not genuinely concerned for the well being of others. He helps others out to help himself. The feeling of importance Norton feels when he donates money to the institution is the impetus behind Norton’s desire to help the school out. Oblivious to this fact, the naïve narrator blindly follows and basically worships Norton. To the narrator, Norton represents the Great White Father figure. Norton is not considered a man by the narrator, instead he is considered as a almost God like figure. Thus, the narrator tries his best to impress and look good in front of Norton. However, all of his intentions go down the drain when the narrator accidentally takes him to the bad places of the campus. At the Golden Day tavern, the veteran appears. I personally think that the veteran is one of the most significant characters in the novel. He is the only person in the novel that can see through the façade of Norton. He tells the narrator he is blind because he doesn’t see the real reason why Norton is helping him out. And he continues by saying that it is this ignorance and blindness which will be the narrator’s main tool to advancing in society. This refers to Booker T Washington’s philosophy of accomadationalism. In essence, Washington’s philosophy preaches blindness. As long as there is an equality in economics, social equality should be forsaken. And the blindness the veteran talks about is clearly evident in Washington. He thought that one would follow the other. But, this was clearly not the case. In this sense, the novel can be seen as a social commentary because Ellison was really against Washington’s philosophies. Well our last seminar is tomorrow and I’m excited to attend!

Invisbile Man

For my seminar, I was grouped with Charlie and Kurt to discuss a close reading of the section where the narrator enrolls into the college to his expulsion in the Invisible Man. This section consisted of chapters 2-9. When the narrator first enters the campus, his descriptions had an uncanny resemblance to the picaraseque novel Candide. Starting from the “lushes vines” to the everlasting sun, the college closely resembled the Garden of Eden from the Bible. Since the Garden of Eden represents innocence, the narrator in the state within the college can then also be represented as his innocent stage. Regarding this, I also found a critical article that talked about this. The article basically stated that the narrator has two fundamentally different methods of solidifying his malleable identity. The first part is before his expulsion, and the second part consists of the sections in the novel after the expulsion. Thus, the expulsion of the narrator can be seen as a fall of innocence. In essence, this situation can be equated to the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Another interesting aspect I realized about this book after a close reading, is that Dr. Norton is a representation of the historical concept White Man’s Burden. This is the White Man’s imperialistic desires to help the “inferior race”, predominatly the blacks. However, because the narrator is so innocent and naïve at this point in the novel, he is blind to Dr. Norton’s true intentions. He is basically helping others so that he can help himself—fulfil his desires of helping the inferior race. It’s interesting to note that the only character that sees through Dr. Norton’s façade is the veteran the narrator encounters at the Golden Day Tavern. He claims that the narrator is not even looked as a person by Norton. Instead, he is a “score mark” on Norton’s achievement card. This is also where invisibility comes into play. He lacks identity, the narrator is transformed into whatever Norton sees him as, predominatly his imperialistic desires.

I also want to talk about to Dr. Bledsoe’s representation of Booker T. Washington in the novel. There is a perfect description of Bledsoe as being monumentally important among the white folks and the leader of race relations. In terms of history, Booker T. Washington was a preacher of what is now termed Accomadationalism. This is the ideology which stated that the blacks should give up their social rights and instead on focusing economic equality. This suited the whites as they could now give blacks the jobs that were unwanted. I think that Ellison criticizes Washington when he portrays Bledsoe as a manipulative and power-hungry savage. He even claims to be willing to hang all the blacks in the country to retain his position, which can certainly be constituted as selfish. And this is exactly what some of the black population perceived Washington to be. They considered him to be selfish and even a traitor to their own race as he had given up dignity of his own race. Was it worth it? I don’t think so.

Fight Club

The book I’m reading for the literature circle is Fight Club. I was glad that I got to read this book because it was my first choice and I really enjoyed the movie. However, Mrs. Clinch stated that the book is radically different from the movie. Well I read the first 8 chapters, and up to that point, the plot of the book is nearly identical to the plot in the movie. I was up at my friend’s cabin this weekend and was reading the novel when my friend pointed out that the book was almost like a movie screen. And because of the similarity in the book and movie, I assumed that the conclusion of the novel would match that of the movie—tyler durden and the narrator are one person. Under this assumption, I noticed many clues within the text that pointed towards my assumption. For instance, in the first chapter, Tyler and the narrator are always mentioned together in tandem. But, I learned today in class that the ending of the movie is not the same as the ending in the novel. I’m glad I realized this so that I can read without trying to figure contextual clues that pointed to Tyler and the narrator being one person. The novel is definitely raw and gritty. In other words, it’s not meant for the weak of heart. I thought that the narrator’s desire to overturn the norm of society was interesting. The novel is essentially about existential nihilism, which refers to the philosophy that suggests life is without an intrinsic purpose or objective. Because of the narrator’s day-to-day lifestyle, he views it as a static picture without any surprises or excitement. This is where the fight club comes in. Both the narrator and tyler start this club to break out of society. The book mentions self destruction, which is basically fighting. The narrator basically wants to test his limits not only in fighting, but the boundaries of society as well. He is finally fed up with being normal and blending into the background. I found that this idea of reaching bottom before you can be saved is prevalent throughout this novel. Besides fighting, the narrator regularaly attends different support group meetings although he is perfectly healthy. He claims that at these meetings he feel better about himself because he can witness the pains and harshness of life. There, he can see what it means to truly reach bottom and therefore be saved. The book alludes to Jesus Christ and him reaching bottom by being crucified. This idea of reaching bottom is flawed in my opinion. You don’t necessarily have to reach the rock bottom to realize and be thankful for your situation. I also realized that Tyler is the more aggressive and alpha male in the relationship he shares with the narrator. If the novel is not like the movie where they are the same person, I wonder who Tyler Durden really is, is he a real person or just a figment of the narrator’s imagination? Im excited to find out!

Invisible Man

I’m glad that I got the chance to read Invisible Man. If I wasn’t forced to read this book, I don’t think I ever would have. The descriptions through the unnamed narrator really allowed me to get a glimpse of what life was like in the shoes of a black man during the 60s. The novel starts with the narrator claiming that he is invisible. The invisibility is not referring to the ability of the narrator to be literally unseen, but instead to the fact that people refuse to see him for who he is. Everyone else tries to force an identity upon the narrator. The narrator essentially sets out on a quest to find and discover his own identity. The narrator begins his story with the narrator graduating. Being the valedictorian of the class, the narrator is excited to give a speech to the wealthy white folks in the town. Before he can, the narrator is basically sucked into a royal battle free for all. The town’s most accomplished white men gather and take great joy in humiliating the young black men. The accomplished men included lawyers, doctors, and even pastors. These men made the young black men to get into a boxing ring and start fighting blindly. At the same time, the white men shout racial terms at the black men. On top of all this, the black men are humiliated even more when they are tricked into being electrified. After all these humiliating events, the narrator is “awarded” with a scholarship. At this point in the novel, the narrator is extremely naïve and is totally submissive to others. His journey in college comes to a screeching halt one day when he has to drive a white trustee named Mr. Norton around the campus. One thing leads to another and the narrator is unjustly expelled by Dr. Bledsoe. The narrator soon finds out that the letters of recommendations he received from Bledsoe were more like letters of doom. Already in his young life, the narrator has been manipulated a multiple of times. This manipulation continues throughout the entire novel until the narrator realizes that he is invisible. The invisibility theme is very interesting to me. I believe that the invisibility theme and the struggle for identity theme are interrelated. The narrator is blind and therefore unable to make his own identity; instead, he has society impose an identity on him. For example, the Brotherhood forces an identity on the narrator by essentially brainwashing him. They don’t see the narrator for who he is, but rather as a mere tool that can be used to communicate with the people. The narrator finally understands the invisibility theme after pretending to be Rinehart. Realizing that people see him for who they want to see him as, the narrator realizes the fluidity of identity. It is this realization that leads him to conclude that he is invisible. I look forward to doing some seminars on this book as it was really interesting to me.

Sonnet

For the past couple days in class, we have been learning about sonnets. I’m not really into poetry but I think sonnets are very interesting. I really like the sonnet’s purpose—a medium through which skilled poets can dazzle audiences. The main subject of sonnets is love. The poet often is chasing a cruel fair—the gorgeous woman that eludes men in their quest for love. I noticed the hunter vs. hunted analogy is a common theme in sonnets as well. Both Spenser and Wyatt uses this analogy to describe their love situation. Obviously, the poets are the hunters who are hunting for the deer. At the literal level, the hunter is hunting the deer. Figuratively, the deer is the equivalent of the cruel fair. The hunting analogy holds true on so many levels, which renders it popular among sonnet writers. Just as a deer looks innocent and harmless, the cruel fair appears to be pure and innocent. Yet, the cruel fair is a professional when it comes to manipulating the emotions of others. The cruel fair also possesses the uncanny ability to evoke strong emotions in others. For example, the cruel fair often leaves the hunter exhausted and wearied because it eludes the hunter so much. Yet, something about the cruel fair makes the hunter keep on hunting for it. It’s also in the cruel fair’s nature that makes them enjoy being sought after by these hunters. It’s really a game to the deer. On the other hand, the hunter is more serious and genuine in their”love”. In essence, the hunt is more than a game to the hunter. Failure to successfully hunt means not having food that night, at least in the Elizebethan times. This shows that the hunter took hunting very seriously. If we take this analogy a step further, we can see that the deer is the hunter’s food—a source for the hunter’s weariness to be replenished. This is ironic in that the deer is what causes the weariness in the hunter initially. I found the Spenserian version of the hunting sonnet to be a lot more interesting. I personally think that the couplet in that sonnet changes the entire situation. It completely reverts the situation. Until the last two lines, it appears as though that the deer is in control as she leaves the hunter all tired and weary. But at the couplet, Spenser claims that he “won” the deer by “beguiling her goods”. This means that Spenser was pretending this entire time to fall victim to the cruel fair’s desires. In reality, he was the one in control while manipulating the emotions of the deer because the deer ends up “allowing” the hunter to finally catch her. I look forward to reading Shakespeare’s sonnets tomorrow!

Make Up Blog

The grand finale of Hamlet was chaotic and destructive, to say the least. All of the major characters had died by the end of the play, except Horatio. And even then, I’m not sure if Horatio can be considered to be a major character. Hamlet perhaps answers the question surrounding life and death posed in his “To Be or Not to Be” at the end of the play. When confronted about the challenge from Laertes, Hamlet calmly rejects Horatio’s advice of not dueling with Laretes by saying “let be”. What’s interesting about this is the fact that disaster and utter distruction would not have ensued had Hamlet listened to Laertes. However, Hamlet at this point in the play, has come to realize that life is fate and destiny. He belives that he has no control over what happens and that death takes everyone’s lives, some earlier than others. Hamlet is the underdog in the duel but somehow manages to fairly beat Laertes. Enraged by his father’s death, Laertes unfairly attacks Hamlet with the poisoned sword after he has already lost. Hamlet is doomed to die the moment the poison tipped sword slices him. Unknowing to this fact, Hamlet begins dueling with Laertes. In perhaps what might be considered to be a poetic justice moment, Hamlet switches his sword with Laertes mid way through their battle. Hamlet cuts Laertes, not knowing that he would kill him. Laertes reveals what happens to Hamlet because at this same time Gertrude has died from poison, which came from Claudius. It’s interesting to note that Claudius has killed a total of two people with poison. This is significant because Claudius’ preferred method of killing people is through the use of poison. This reveals that Claudius is a manipulative and sly kind of character, which we witness throughout the play. Also, the fact that Claudius “allows” Gertrude to drink the cup of poison is significant. Perhaps their true relationship is revealed because I don’t think Claudius could have let Gertrude drink the cup of poison had he really loved her. Although there is no indication in the play how much Cluaidus rejected he was against Gertrude drinking the cup of poison, the fact is Claudius doesn’t stop her. Combined with Claudius’ preferred way of killing people, this evidence indicates that Claudius manipulated Gertrude into marrying him. I don’t think Claudius ever loved Gertrude. Also, I think it’s highly ironic that Hamlet kills Claudius by forcing him to congest his own poison. All the hatred Hamlet felt for Claudius, is finally transformed into action as Hamlet violently forces Claudius to drink the poison. Although Hamlet and almost everyone dies, a sense of order is restored. Fortinbras should have been the successor had King Hamlet not taken the throne. In essence, order is restored as Fortinbras takes over Denmark.

Invisible Man

So the reading assignment for Invisible Man is coming up and I have only read about a quarter of the novel. I just finished with chapter 6 so I will write about my first impressions. First and foremost, I noticed it’s a relatively slow moving novel. I usually like to read intense and fast-paced books so this isn’t my cup of tea really. But at the same time, I can see this novel being really powerful because it is in a sense, a documentary on black life in the early 1900s. The first thing I noticed about the main character and narrator is his public speaking skills. It was mentioned, I think in the 1st chapter, that he gave his high school graduation speech. As he recalled the speech, I noted that the speech contained a lot of Booker Washington’s ideas. It largely talked about being submissive to the white people so that they may advance. Dubois similarly advocated submission to whites and giving up their political rights so that they may economically advance. Understandably so, Dubois received a lot of criticism from his own black community. This kind of “submission” was described by the narrator later when he talks about the embarrassing competition the white people set up for the black teens. The competition almost seemed like the white people were treating the blacks as animals because it was essentially a survival of the fittest for the black teens. The humiliation and embarrassment the young black competitors faced must have been harsh. But nonetheless, the narrator is handed a scholarship to a black college. As the narrator continues to recount his experiences, he talks about Norton and the incident at the black saloon at college. I thought it was significant when the doctor veteran helps Norton regain consciousness and then criticizes the narrator for regarding Norton as some type of God. I think that up until this point, the narrator didn’t really think there was anything wrong with submitting to white people. But I think that veteran in a sense, opened up the narrator’s eyes a bit. According to the veteran, the narrator is blind because he can’t see anything wrong with being submissive. Ironically, that same veteran cures his “blindness” by telling him that he’s wrong.

Hamlet

Ophelia, as a character, is extremely difficult to one dimensionally analyze. In other words, her character is not fully revealed. In fact, no character in Hamlet is fully revealed. But, the character Ophelia is one of the least revealed characters. Her true feelings for Hamlet are never clearly stated or implied. The audience is under the assumption that she truly loves Hamlet. It is interesting to note that Ophelia and Gertrude are the main two female characters in the play as well as the two most ambivalent characters. Mrs. Clinch noted in class today that this was unusual in that female characters are generally strong in other Shakespearean plays. For Gertrude, it’s hard to determine if she was involved in a conspiracy to kill her husband. For Ophelia, it’s hard to determine the reasons for her insanity. In the Brennah version we saw today in class, it made it seem like it was Hamlet that made her mad. But there could be other valid interpretations of that scene. For example, Ophelia could’ve gone mad because her father died. In the scene with Ophelia acting all crazy in front of Gertrude and Claudius, she mentions that her father is lying in the cold. That could be a sign that what really drove her mad was the death and cruel treatment of her father. Nonetheless, Ophelia and Gertrude are parallels in that they are hard to analyze. Another parallel in the play is that of King Claudius and Polonius. They both spied on others. Polonius spied on both his son and daughter while Claudius kept a close eye on Hamlet. Another one is Hamlet and Laertes. Both had their father murdered and are out for revenge. Ironically enough, Laertes is after Hamlet (which Claudius takes advantage of). However, the two characters are striking different in their approach to achieving revenge. They both start out with the same reaction—despair and outrage. But, the ensuing emotions are different. Hamlet decides to contemplate for awhile. He begins to second question the validity of the revelation which involved the ghost of his dead father’s soul telling him that Claudius had poisoned him in his sleep. In an effort to determine the validity of the revelation, he sets up a clever scheme of watching Claudius’s reaction when watching a play that largely resembled what Claudius did to King Hamlet. On the other hand, Laertes is more of an action man. He does it, then thinks later about it. Instead of trying to understand the situation concerning the death of his father, he blindly swears revenge on Hamlet when he finds out it was him that killed Polonius. So in this sense, they really are foils as well as parallels. I really am anticipating the grand finale of this play. Mrs. Clinch hinted in class that it’s all going to be total destruction. Excited to see how it turns out!

Hamlet and Ophelia

The scene where Hamlet is being a jerk to Ophelia is significant because Shakespeare never really stated the whereabouts of Polonius and King Claudius. Thus, there are several interpretations of the scene. One interpretation has it so that Hamlet is aware of the presence of Polonius and Claudius. If this were the case, Hamlet’s harsh words toward Ophelia can be taken out of context. Those words could be a façade that is intended to deceive Claudius. Knowing Hamlet’s wit, I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. The heated exchange between Hamlet and Ophelia brings me to my next point. I want to talk about Hamlet’s feelings for her. Once again, Shakespeare never directly states the exact relationship between the two. They obviously are more than strangers, probably lovers. But, the readers don’t know if the two of them have had sex or not. Or perhaps, they just have feelings for each other. Therefore, the readers must examine the play to determine their relationship. After the ghost reveals the true nature of King Hamlet’s death, he is obviously distraught. He even shows signs of madness that leads many of his acquaintances to worry. After this revelation, he visits Ophelia and has a strange encounter with her. He walks up to her and grabs her almost violently. There is contextual evidence that Ophelia had this sense of fear when Hamlet was shaking her. But at the same time, I feel like Hamlet wanted some companion. All this time, he had been alone. He had been isolated because of the revelation. He couldn’t disclose the true nature of his father’s death to anyone. He even had to lie to his childhood friends. In this time of isolation and loneliness, he found comfort in Ophelia. It’s human nature to start developing feelings for someone who is there in times of loneliness. I really think that Hamlet wasn’t just messing around with Ophelia. Instead, I believe that Hamlet really did have feelings for her because he was so isolated. Another interesting point to note in this scene is the spying theme. Polonius spies on his daughter and Hamlet once again. This theme is recurring as Polonius and King Claudius are the best representatives of this theme. Even in the scene with several interpretations, the two of them are spying on Hamlet. Polonius even tries to spy on his own son when he is out of Denmark. Like we discussed in class, Hamlet is beginning to doubt the ghost’s revelation. It is true that in Elizabethan times, ghosts were affiliated with damnation. Nonetheless, Hamlet believes the ghost at first sight. However, as time wears on, he begins to second question the ghost and its purpose. He now is going to see the King’s reaction to a play that has a plot involving the murder of a king. I’m excited to see what happens next.

Hamlet Part 2

Today in class, we had a discussion about the ghost’s intentions. Is the ghost noble or selfish? One could make an argument about either side. The ghost’s revelations obviously had a profound impact on Hamlet. After Hamlet learned what really happened from the ghost, he becomes consummated by these revelations. His mental stability is also in question after seeing the ghost. In Elizabethan times, a ghost was a bad omen. Many thought that ghosts were the spirits that reached neither hell nor heaven. They sought eternal salvation by “working off” their sins in purgatory. In that sense, maybe the ghost was trying to restore order. Thus, the ghost’s intentions would be pure and noble. The counter argument to that would be the fact that the appearance of the ghost itself disrupts order. Also, some would say that the ghost’s intentions are not noble because it planted seeds of revenge in Hamlet. Regardless of the ghost’s intention, the ghost greatly affects Hamlet. Hamlet becomes all disheveled and approaches Ophelia. There is irony in the scene with Ophelia and Hamlet because Ophelia believes that Hamlet looks all depressed because she listened to her father’s advice of not seeing him anymore. The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia isn’t lucid at all. Shakespeare never directly states their relationship. The audience knows that they both have some feelings towards each other. But, the audience doesn’t know the extent of their relationship. In some of the renditions of the play, Ophelia and Hamlet are portrayed as a real couple. In other renditions, they are portrayed as people who have feelings for each other but haven’t had the chance to express their love for each other. Their relationship also led some people into thinking that Hamlet was just “playing” without Ophelia since he is a prince and she’s not worthy enough. However, I think that act 2 disproved that view of Hamlet. The fact that Hamlet visited Ophelia is significant. It shows that in times of despair and unrest, he comes to Ophelia. In other words, Hamlet has opened up to Ophelia. That scene is also interesting because Polonius was in it as well. In the video we saw today, Polonius was secretly observing the pair. Polonius as well as Ophelia doesn’t know why Hamlet is really acting the way he is. As a result, they both begin to think that Hamlet looks so depressed because he is separated from Ophelia. An interesting point to note here is Polonius’s character. From spying on his son to his daughter, Polonius seems like a very conniving kind of character. Also, in the court with the king, he manipulates the ambassadors in an attempt to try to impress everyone. That brings me to King Claudius. He is definitely worried about Hamlet and “hires” Hamlet’s childhood friends to spy on him. In that sense, King Claudius and Polonius are alike. I look forward to reading rest of the play as I want to see Hamlet revenge his father’s death.

hamlet

Now that winter break is over, it’s time to blog again! I want to talk about hamlet. Although we’ve only read the beginning parts of the play, it’s clear that the character Hamlet has his way with words. His very first line was very witty and was a fitting opening line for him. Even knowing that Hamlet was clever with his words, I didn’t catch all of the puns in his opening line. I then realized that I had to really pay attention and look up words in the dictionary to fully appreciate Hamlet’s mastery of words. In reality, Hamlet’s play on words reveals Shakespeare’s genius nature. It really is unbelievable how he can think of all these “punny” lines (unintentional pun). But then again, it’s Shakespeare. He’s not the greatest playwright ever for no reason.

From what I’ve read, it seems that Hamlet is extremely upset and angry. He is lonely in the sense that everyone else has moved on after his father’s death—including his confusing mother. On top of all this, hamlet has to put up with the patronizing Claudius who became king instead of hamlet. If you put yourself in his situation, you can’t help but feel he has every right to be mad and rebellious. However, hamlet controls his raw emotions and hides it in public. What he doesn’t hide is his grief for his passed away father. It’s strange how everyone else seems to have already moved on, especially his mother. In less than a month after his father’s death, Hamlet’s mother married his brother. This really baffled me as I couldn’t understand why or how his mother could do this. Shakespeare doesn’t leave the readers with any clues as to why she did this. Perhaps she had an affair with Claudius before the death of hamlet’s father. If this were true, the death of Hamlet’s father would be very fishy. Also, I still don’t get why Claudius became king when Hamlet was old and capable of taking the reins himself. It all seems so fishy. Nonetheless, hamlet hides his resentment very well. But at the same time, he expresses this resentment subtly. For example, hamlet talks to his mother and plays with the word “common”. His mother has no idea that hamlet is subtly criticizing her. His mother is a very confusing character. Once again, Shakespeare doesn’t leave many definitive clues as to if she is a mere pawn of Claudius or the mastermind behind the death of hamlet’s father. Whatever the case, Hamlet is absolutely disgusted with his mother. And understandably so. In the early stages of the play, hamlet doesn’t really translate his feelings into action but I have a feeling that he will in the later parts of the play

The monster

I wanted to talk about the monster in Frankenstein. There are several themes on Frankenstein—one of them is the victim and victimizer theme. I’m going to examine the role of the monster. Is he good or bad? Is he the victim or victimizer? First, I want to examine his creation. Another theme in the novel, the unnatural creation applies to the monster. He was not made by God nor woman—making him a monster. He was made by Victor, a scientist who was obsessed with the creation of life. After Victor saw the results of his creation, he was so terrified that he abandoned the monster. An interesting question to pose here is: If Victor knew that the monster he created was sympathetic and human-like except for his outer appearances; would he still have abandoned him? Nevertheless, Victor did abandon him and this traumatized the monster. At this point in the story line, the monster is definitely the victim of Victor’s obsession with the creation of life. Through the monster’s recounts, the readers become aware of the human-like nature of the monster. As the monster recounts his observations about the Delaceys, it becomes clear that the monster has emotions and sympathy, whether that be feeling guilty of stealing their food because they suffer from poverty or actually helping them out by fetching firewood every night. Like a creature without a father, the monster becomes very closely attached to the Delaceys. He sees how close the Delaceys are and begins to understand what a family is. The Delaceys are the antithesis of the monster’s existence. They are a family—they care for each other like a genuine caring community. On the other hand, the monster is alone. He is the epitome of isolation, much like Grendel was. Desperately needing companion, Victor decides to approach the Delaceys even though he has seen his horrible image. Assuming that the Delaceys will accept him for who he is and provide him with the companionship he yearns for, he approaches the blind man. Things go wrong and the Delaceys drive him off with violence. This is the turning point for the monster. Before this point, the monster was an innocent victim. But now, he has transformed into a true monster—one with a desire for revenge and blood. But now we have to ask ourselves: whose fault is it? The monster eventually ends up killing two people, both indirectly and directly. There are far and few instances where killing is justified, and this case is no different. The monster’s murders are in no way justified, despite the fact that he was constantly abandoned by society. However, his actions can all be traced back to his creation. It was Victor, not the monster, that decided to partake in the act of unnatural creation. Furthermore, Victor abandoned the monster that was lost and helpless in our judgemental and cruel society. So in this respect, I believe that Victor is the victimizer and the monster is the victim. Although the monster becomes more “monsterly” as the novel progresses.

Beowulf and Grendel

In the last two chapters of Grendel, Beowulf and the Geats arrive to save the Danes. Beowulf is strikingly different from how he was described and portrayed in the original epic poem. Although the Beowulf in the novel Grendel has the same physical attributes and strength as Beowulf did in the original epic poem, the similarities end right there. In the epic poem, Beowulf is portrayed as a great man who possesses all the heroic qualities an archetypal hero should have. He represented the values and morals of the wergild society that dominated back then. Honor, generosity, and loyalty all perfectly characterized Beowulf. There was no question in the epic poem that Beowulf was the good guy. However, John Gardiner changes this in Grendel. He makes Beowulf look so different from the original Beowulf in the epic poem that I was unsure of the character Beowulf after I had finished reading the very confusing novel Grendel. To me, Beowulf seemed really creepy. During the fight between him and Grendel, Beowulf starts to menacingly whisper very weird things in Grendel’s ears. Perhaps it’s because the readers, including myself, were so used to Grendel that we felt sympathetic towards him. It’s almost like the roles of Grendel and Beowulf completely switched in the novel Grendel. Grendel in the original epic poem is a complete heartless monster who does not think and just kills as many people as he can. I think that I got perhaps attached to the character Grendel. In the novel, Grendel is portrayed as a monster who was abandoned and very lonely. He also doesn’t know who he really is himself. The novel centers around Grendel setting out on a quest to really discover himself. Also, Grendel thinks a lot. I would have never expected Grendel to be a thoughtful monster from the original epic poem, but he is in the novel. He constantly thinks about not only events, but the world in general. The opening chapter in the novel took me by surprise. He appears to have a very sinister view of the world but at the same time seems very knowledgeable. He completely understands the mechanical nature of the ram. It is revealed in the next chapter that he began to understand that the world was a mechanical place from the bull he encounters. When Grendel accidentally entraps himself between the tree trunks, a bull appears. Grendel is at first frightened by the bull as he looks as if he is ready to attack. When the bull begins to run at Grendel to pierce him with his horns, Grendel is frightened. However, when the bull tries to attack the same spot every single time he attacks, grendel starts to laugh as he realizes the harmlessness of the bull because he is a mechanical animal who can not think. It is things like this that portrays Grendel as a monster who constantly thinks about his surroundings. In the end when Grendel dies, I honestly felt kind of sad.

Shaper and Dragon

The character Shaper in Grendel fascinates me. On the outer surface, he seems like a mere old man who entertains the Danes. But he has such a greater role. To begin to understand his character, we need to know some historical context of when the events of Beowulf actually occurred. During that time, writing had not really been developed. As a result, stories were passed orally and essentially, this preserved the culture of the Danes. Thus, these story tellers were just as important and respected as the warriors because the story tellers were protecting the identity of their culture. I could only imagine the royal treatment and respect these shapers received from the people. The shapers were the only people who knew the history of the people.

The shapers also dramatically rewrote much of their history. They had all the power to do so and purposely exaggerated man’s glory in all their songs. For example, if the Danes fought a war with the Geats and won by a narrow margin, the shapers would definitely claim that they had trampled over the Geats. Therein lies one of the major sources of the Shapers power. They made history. They wrote it. They altered it. That earned the deep respect of Grendel. Strangely, a monster even like Grendel understands the power the Shaper possess. The poetry the Shaper sings tears apart Grendel. He also knows that most of the lyrics the shaper is singing is false and untrue. However, the power of poetry makes Grendel want to believe whatever the Shaper is saying.

The Shaper is probably an accurate representation of the powerful story tellers before writing was widely used. All shapers probably twisted and changed the stories to over glorify man. It is interesting to note that the Shaper and dragon are like opposites. Even though they are opposites, they both are similar in that they have a significant influence on Grendel. The Shaper’s poetry makes Grendel want to believe him about everything. At the same time, the dragon hates the Shaper and refuses to listen to what Grendel has to say about him. In class we briefly discussed whether the shaper and dragon was good or evil. The general consensus was that people thought neither the dragon nor shaper was necessarily evil or good. However, I think that Shaper is evil and that the dragon is good. A main characteristic of the devil is twisting the truth so that it appears to be true but in reality isn’t. The shaper fits this description perfectly. On the other hand, the dragon seemed to be almost like a God figure to me. His deep voice and large body as well as his ability to see the future, past, and present make him seem omnipotent. It is ironic to note that the dragon is in a body shaped like a serpent. A serpent in literature usually represents a devil but I think in this case it doesn’t necessarily imply that the dragon is evil. I don’t know. Grendel makes my head hurt.

Everything

The third and final volume of Pride and Prejudice served as a dénouement of the novel. Both the couples involving Jane, Elizabeth, Mr. Darcy, and Mr. Bingley became married. The happy ending really shocked me. Up until this novel, the novels that we have been covering in AP Lit like All the Kings Men and Tess of the d’Urbervilles all had tragic endings. Thus, I always thought that an important trait of a true work of literature is a depressing or tragic ending. Pride and Prejudice has made me realize that a true work of literature may or may not have a depressing ending.
I found that Jane Austen left the majority of development part of Elizabeth and Darcy’s relationship until this last volume. In fact, Austen really didn’t develop Mr. Darcy until this last volume either. Throughout the first two volumes, the readers were under the false impression that Mr. Darcy was an arrogant and cold person. However, the Mr. Darcy in the last volume was shockingly different. He was warm and compassionate. He shed his arrogant image and became someone that seemed like a “true” gentleman. And it is with Elizabeth’s realization of Mr. Darcy’s true nature that makes her fall in love with him. The scene with both of them in the park is really memorable. When Mr. Darcy finally confronts Elizabeth of her feelings towards him, she is relieved that he has asked her this. With relief and joy, she states that her once animosity-feelings have all evaporated and that they have turned into love and affection. I believe that Jane Austen used both the couples to criticize society. During the time this book was written, people married not based on love but rather based on financial status. She is criticizing this practice by intentionally making the rather modest Bennett girls to marry into the upper social level hierarchy.
This week in AP Lit, we started to read the novel Grendel. Based on the epic poem Beowulf, Grendel is a novel that is cleverly written from Grendel’s point of view. There are many references of places in Beowulf throughout Grendel. For example, the tree in the middle of the lake where Grendel resides in Beowulf appears in Grendel as well. I believe that because we recently read Beowulf, we can understand and appreciate Grendel a lot more. These little references and intertextuality ties in with what Foster said in his novel How to Read Literature like a Professor. In other words, the reading of Beowulf enhances the text of Grendel.
My initial impression of Grendel was a bit peculiar. From Beowulf alone, I thought that Grendel was this demon like monster who was out to kill as many innocent human beings as possible. However, the initial description of Grendel in Grendel altered my view towards him. From the novel Grendel, it appeared that Grendel was a helpless monster who was rejected by society. And therefore had no choice but to kill the human beings. He realizes that this ideology is flawed, and he even calls his war with the humans “idiotic”. I’m excited to understand more about his character.

Beowulf

The hero Beowulf is a paradigm of archetypal heroes. He embodies all the warrior-hero like qualities: honor, bravery, physical prowess, etc. Like most other heroes, Beowulf has extraordinary strength and courage. These two qualities serve him well as he becomes renowned throughout all the lands of the Geats and Danes. The readers first witness his awesome strength and fighting prowess when he easily crushes Grendel. The amazing thing is, Grendel has successfully terrorized the Danes for twelve long years without facing any effective resistance. Because Grendel is described as an outcast by God, he represents Lucifer the fallen angel. It is also stated that Grendel is a descendent of Cain. In the wergild society, killing a kinsman is the worst possible sin. Death in this society is very objectively considered. A death is something that can be repaid with a man price or the opposing side’s blood. In essence, the satan is wreaking havoc on God’s people and they are helpless to do anything. This is where Beowulf steps in. He travels a long ways from Geatland and has come to seek fortune and fame by killing Beowulf. Beowulf’s military prowess is first shown as he easily crushes Grendel. He uses no weapons to fight this evil and strong monster. This act of bravery indicates that he has honor and self confidence. From the very beginning, Beowulf was not scared to fight Grendel. Instead, he was excited to prove his worth. Just as things to be restored to order, Grendel’s mother ravages the peaceful Herot. Herot is an interesting mead-hall. It is described as being marvelous and the greatest in the world. Herot represents God’s glory and can be seen as heaven. Thus, the attacks on Herot can be seen as attacks on heaven by devils. Beowulf then represents God’s angel that protects the house of the lord. In essence, God sends his angel (Beowulf) down to Grendel’s lair. Grendel’s layer is a hellish place that is deep underwaters. The surrounding atmosphere is very evil and dark. Being the hero that he is, Beowulf decides to go into her lair to kill her. This required massive courage as Beowulf would now be fighting an unfair battle because it is underground and there is no oxygen. Beowulf still finds a way to win. The manner in which he wins convinced me that Beowulf is favored by God. Beowulf almost gets lucky and finds a magical sword that severs the head of Grendel’s mother. He somehow defeats a powerful monster underwater with a magical sword that was conveninently found. It seems to me that Chuck Norris can be seen as the modern form of Beowulf. Beowulf’s heroic characteristics can be seen as the moral standards for the ancient wergild societies. In this sense, Beowulf is an epic poem by all means as the epic poem teaches the readers about the values of the wergild culture. Beowulf has achieved what he wanted dearly, fame.

pride and prejudice

As I was reading Pride and Prejudice, I began to think that Jane Austen is a social critic like Ibsen. I’m not sure if she can be classified as a social critic but I think there’s enough evidence in the book to support my claim. The concepts of entailment and marrying based on financial situations are criticized by Jane Austen. Jane Austen clearly ridicules the concept of entailment by highlighting Mr. Collin’s ridiculous nature. Due to the law of entailment during the time which the novel was written, the Bennett fortune and estate would not have been able to pass directly to the Bennett girls because of their gender. Mr. Collins suggest that he be the one who inherit the property and Mr. Bennett reluctantly agrees. It is clear as the novel progresses how outrageous Mr. Collins is. Although his male status should make him more “fit” than the Bennett girls to inherit the fortune, it is clear that any of the Bennett girls should inherit the fortune. Mr. Collins is portrayed in the book as such a ridiculous character so that the readers can realize that the concept of entailment is flawed. It should be the Bennet girls, not Mr. Collins who is more qualified to inherit the property. However, the concept of entailment prevents that from happening.
The idea that marriage should be based on financial situations was prevalent during the era in which this book was written. I believe that Jane Austen is against this idea as she uses Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. Their relationship starts as a bitter one. Mr. Darcy is pompous and arrogant in the beginning of the novel. His good looks and height are shadowed by his negative personality. At first, Mr. Darcy tries to pry away Mr. Bingley from Jane as he considers the Bennett household too poor to be a suitable match for his friend. However, as the novel progresses, Mr. Darcy starts to develop feelings for a common girl like Elizabeth. He starts to linger around her a lot and there are many instances where there is awkward silence between the two. Mr. Darcy eventually confesses his love to Elizabeth in a condescending way and Elizabeth becomes indignant. However, through his letter he wrote for Elizabeth, she forgives him. The readers then reazlize even an aristocrat like Mr. Darcy can change in the face of look and over come the financial barrier that seperates the two love birds. It is through the relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth that Austen criticizes the concept of marrying based no financial situation instead of love. She is trying to create a model couple that marries based on love. In essence, the relationship between Mr. Collins and Charlotte is the foil to the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy