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.