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.