Weekend Blogs

P 833 #7

When Claudius became the de facto king, he birthed Hamlet’s jealousy and dubious attitude. Even after witnessing the ghost with Horatio, Hamlet is wary of the Ghost’s advice. Though he desires Claudius dead, he investigates the truth in order to follow the command of the ghost to avenge his father’s death, but only to murder him for his nefarious deed, rather than myopia. Therefore, Hamlet used his madness as a defense, a necessity in order to “fight two fronts”. Unfortunately, the entire plot thrives on Hamlet’s conflict with his conscience and his outwardly expressed hatred with Claudius. Furthermore, he struggles with his feelings because he desperately wants to appear manly, but reality reveals his inability to restrict the outpour of emotion, even when the king and queen tell him to stop crying.

P 833 #3

The theme of Appearance vs. reality is most readily displayed through the characters of Claudius, Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern.

Claudius represents the epitome of appearance versus reality throughout the play. Initially, he lies about his illegitimate usurpation of the throne, pretending to sympathize with King Hamlet Sr. However, it is incongruous to say that he expresses so much woe, yet he murders his brother in his selfish pursuit. Later, Hamlet expresses sadness when he doesn’t want Hamlet to attend school in Denmark and even says that it is a “most retrograde desire”. Later, we know that he sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy.

Polonius appears as a trusted advisor to the king and a caring father, yet once Laertes has left, Polonius sends Reynaldo to spy on him. He also intends to break Hamlet and Ophelia apart, claiming that he worries about the prince’s intentions, but reality proves that this separation only yields to a better alliance to King Claudius. Though he seems to be concerned with his daughter’s romance and son’s seclusion, Claudius is a manipulative and hardly noble buffoon.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Hamlet’s childhood friends that have been sent to obtain information about Hamlet for the King and Queen. Clearly, they are not concerned about his wellbeing in Denmark, rather they are the liaison of information for Claudius.

I played Hamlet in Act II Scene II.

Line 173-Hamlet is humored by Polonius’ nonsense and thus attacks him with sarcasm. By calling Polonius a “fishmonger” he insults Polonius by saying all he does is sell fish. Alternatively, a fishmonger is also slang for a “pimp”. His comic and playful tone is essential to create the role emphasis, where Hamlet subordinates Polonius, even thoguh he is supposed to be a “king’s advisor”, but then again, Hamlet thinks Claudius usurpation is ridiculous. Therefore, I think Hamlet’s frustration can only be conveyed though his humorous, confidant, and quick response, rejecting a declarative or even “ditsy” tone.

Pg. 832 #9

At the end of Act II in his soliloquy “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I”, Hamlet expresses his shame for stalling to act impulsively against his father’s death. In order to express such intense self-hatred and disgust, Hamlet compares his inaction to a fictional character’s dramatic grief for his dead father. “What would he do, / Had he the motive and cue for passion/ That I have” (2.2. 484-486). The actors amaze Hamlet by making their death scene, which seems so realistic. Stupefied by their skills to emotionally connect with a “fake scenario”, Hamlet condemns himself for taking a passive stance on patricide. Hamlet then calls himself a coward for his inability to say anything in defense of his father: “Am I a coward” (2.2.497). Though he has the intentions of soothing his grief and becoming more aggressive, Hamlet continues to comment on the actors, a rather passive action. His inaction, therefore, reveals his lack of self-esteem: “Yet I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal” (2.2. 493). Full of indecision and criticism, Hamlet eventually plans to invite actors to perform a play that will mimic his father’s murder, thereby yielding insight into Claudius’ guilt-ridden conscience or lack thereof.

From Hamlet’s emotional diction (“Bloody, bawdy villain!” (2.2.507)) and his doubtful questions about his identity, the reader is able to infer his unstable emotions through his rampant tonal shifts. His instability may also be a result of his ignorance about how to proceed after his father’s death, thoughts that are both rational and semi-psychotic. Despite his intent to avenge Hamlet’s death, Hamlet is insecure about himself and unsure about his future, thus legitimizing his procrastination.

Hamlet's Madness

7. Why do you think Hamlet tells his companions he is likely to put on an "antic disposition" (1.v.172)? Is his behavior a deliberate strategy or a natural reaction to his anger and grief? Explain

By writing few stage directions, Shakespeare encourages his audience to interpret the motives for Hamlet’s madness, feigned or true. Though evidence seems less than sufficient, I inferred that Hamlet's "Antic disposition" is merely a mask for his hatred. Wanting to avenge his father’s death in a rather inconspicuous manner, Hamlet recognizes the necessity to set up a scenario that would startle people.  Furthermore, it seems logical that this public outcry would be an excuse that should legitimize future irrational behavioral sequences. After analyzing Hamlet’s words about his "Antic disposition", I think that Hamlet uses his madness to create a nonissue in order to detract the attention from his revenge plan and instead focus on his sanity or lack thereof.

14. In Act 2 Scene 2, lines 236-37, Hamlet says "Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." What assumptions underline Hamlet's response? What does he mean? Do you agree with what he says? he then says to his old friends, "I am but mad north-north west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" (II.ii.330-31). What does this remark suggest about Hamlet's madness, about his antic disposition? is he mad, or is he acting? Explain

Evidently, Hamlet has been studying philosophy. Hamlet explains that actions are not inherently good or bad. Humans are the judges to assign descriptions to ideas, events, and people. Hamlet then goes on to talk about how is problem is his bad dreams because he knows that a clear mind leaves to emotional and mental freedom. Therefore, if we are unable to think nothing can be good or bad. Why is it that Al Qaeda is viewed as a group of  “bad people”. It has nothing to do with their biological makeup, but rather their speech patterns, actions, and previous experiences that have instilled terror and fear into other global citizens. Therefore, Hamlet’s opinion is very wise and defendable.  

Interestingly, when Hamlet comments on his “semi-insanity”, he simultaneously announces that he is “acting”. By admitting that he is only sometimes crazy, Hamlet reveals that he recognizes his times of sanity vs. insanity. It seems that these are his “Words, words, words” that he uses to persuade people into thinking that he is mad. The proof is that he remains completely sane in his soliloquies, a perfect opportunity to look deeper into his private character. If Hamlet were truly mad, his thoughts and plans would not be calculated.

Laertes and Polonius

Hamlet, Laertes, and Polonius all express valid concern and affection for Ophelia. For her protection, Laertes justifies his warnings to Ophelia about Hamlet’s true intentions after arriving in Denmark for the tainted royal ceremony. In Act 1 Scene 3, Laertes cautions her that Hamlet’s decisions about dating are based on the sole benefits for his country, if not arranged. His royal duty is foremost and for this reason, Laertes tells his sister to guard her virtue, knowing that Hamlet can be rash and persuasive. Reminding Ophelia of her non-royal ancestry, Laertes predicts that Hamlet’s proposal to Ophelia would be halted by public judgment, as their union would be unacceptable given that the prospective queen is not of “Royal blood”. He therefore predicts a sudden end to there relationship, which he tells his sister isn’t worthy. After all, who wants to just flirt if their romance is doomed to terminate?

Polonius offers similar advice that he hopes Ophelia will understand. As a father, he is worried that Ophelia will be “used”. Apprehensive that Hamlet’s youth has magnetized him to Ophelia for her physical attractiveness, rather than her character, Polonius advises Ophelia to stray from Hamlet’s flirtation and instead search to redefine herself. Polonius therefore urges his daughter to refrain from seeing Hamlet by presenting Hamlet’s vacillating lust and vacuity as unworthy to her.

Polonius’ concern that his daughter will be “used” by a lewd young man is still a topic prominent in today’s society. Therefore, his argument seems fair in that from a “birds eye view” he worries about his daughter. Laertes’ evidence is simply not as strong as Polonius’ evidence. Though he presents a valid point that Ophelia would be more likely to agree on, his evidence of the consequences is absent. He doesn’t seem to address the alternative if they DO marry, whereas Polonius suggests that should they continue to date, she will feel manipulated. In Act 1 Scene 3, Polonius and Laertes instruct Ophelia to “ignore Hamlet’s vows” and think twice about his projected affection. In this way, they have manipulated her and thus reduced her to their subject, as evidenced by her response, “I shall obey, my Lord” (I.III. 136).  Their treatment of Ophelia suggests that they are misogynistic, even though they are seemingly concerned with her wellbeing. However, Ophelia feeds into their misogyny, having been indoctrinated with the image of her being subordinate as “less than royal”. Therefore, she legitimizes her inferiority by looking to Hamlet as the epitome of perfection and realizes that she clearly does not descend from nor belong to royalty.

Assumed Deceit; Accepted Dysfunction

In Hamlet, Shakespeare emphasizes the beginning of social stratification in England, which would soon give way to a rigid, yet tainted hierarchy of inheritance. Because a new ruling class was emerging, it was imminent that the sons of the wealthy citizens would inherit their fathers’ assets. Money was the single ingredient, poured onto the family unit that created higher rates of dysfunction. King Claudius and Queen Gertrude’s dishonest conduct was the foundation for the current dysfunction. Their relationship defines the setting for the play, sets the tone, and presents the context of the vengeful plot.  King Claudius’s aggressive speech through imperative diction, contrasted with Gertrude’s sympathy and support, through the use of metaphors and aphorisms, aids the actors in expressing their parts, enables the audience to suspend it’s disbelief, and bolsters the themes of self- identity and family by demarcating boundaries. Therefore, the “royal mischief” and 17^th century hierarchal society, referenced to by Claudius and Gertrude, give way to escalating dysfunction. 

“Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?"

T.S. Eliot's The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock reveals the shortcomings of a self- conscious man, who fearfully succumbs to the power of love at the expense of his self-identity. Prufrock initially is hopeful, determined, and strong willed, but this hope splatters in the vortex of silence.  Evidently, self-awareness even in seemingly insignificant situations has become paramount for the emotionally disillusioned man: “Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?” (line 122). The man’s mind has become obsessed with impressing others .The questions expose his insecurities and mania about his appearance even though parting his hair and eating a peach are two ridiculously insignificant tasks. Still, he worries about the way others perceive him. This “emic” perspective emphasizes other opinions as superior the objective truth. Confused about the way he wants to depict himself, the man is confused. With his channels being blocked by the anxiety of judgment, he is paralyzed. The interrogative sentences reveal his self-consciousness, unable to confirm what he should do with his life. Therefore, his blurry identity is compared to the London fog because he is romantically confused and disillusioned. This frustration is even reflected in the cacophony of the diction chosen. 

“Through the Iron Gates of Life"

Line 44 capitalizes on sexual invective. Simply the speaker wants to burst the iron gates of his mistress’ coyness (enticing modesty). This references his attempt to rob her of her virginity. The iron connotes captivity, much like that of a prison. Note that they are the iron gates of life rather than the iron gates to life. The diction that Marvell employs confirms that life confines individuality and expression. The metaphor for confinement extends throughout the line and even the poem. The female is the prisoner locked up for a crime (being a virgin) and sex is the bail. Therefore this emphasizes patriarchal dominance as he further fears that his lust will become dust should they not have sex. The nameless speaker expresses slight hubris through his affirmation that he can demolish the iron, a metal known for its durability, strength, and resistance. He inflates his ego to pursue his power, fearing his ultimate demise- death as a virgin. Thus, the man needs a verbal affirmation that he will not die a virgin. Their sex and physical reaction to his need will bolster his necessary confidence. However, it is not only his need, but hers as well or else decomposition is imminent. In lines 27 and 28, the speaker says that if they do not have sex her body will become infested with worms inside her coffin, gnawing at the raw flesh of a dead virgin. The realization of the double impact without penetration is even referenced in the rhyme scheme. Though some readers conclude the rhyme scheme to follow the pattern AA BB, I refute this claim. I see the rhyme scheme as AB AB, and the coupled lines represent the man and woman functioning as a couple, even heard in the relationship of the rhyme’s sound. The fluctuation between the inflexions prompts the reader to hear the consistent change of movement during intercourse.