DRJ #4: Hamlet, Act IV & V

My initial reaction to these final acts is that Hamlet is finally getting some clarity of the confusion that surrounds him.  He knows who he can trust and the people he can’t.  He also seems to know his character foils as he talks about Fortibinas and his convictions to capture the land and also Laertes who has done well for himself.  He still echoes his insecurities with these great men but he has come to his terms.  I think we can all relate to the fact that we all have insecurities and know there are people that are always better.  It is with true self assessment that we can accept our flaws and move forward in being an individual.

Laertes is the character foil to Hamlet as he also comes home and faces his father’s death and readily goes into conviction to avenge his father’s death so his father can be honored.  He does not wait as he wanted to go into action especially when he also hears the news of his sister’s death.  That made it clear to him that he only has one direction to take.  Laertes also speaks directly of his intentions even from the beginning when he tells Ophelia to watch out for Hamlet’s intentions.  Unlike Hamlet, he is true to his words and does not need to use tricks like the play, play mad, or use witty words to confuse people like Hamlet.

In this final Act, the overall theme is revenge and forgiveness.  Hamlet got his revenge when he sent Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their execution for betraying his friendship by switching the order for his own execution.  Laertes also wants revenge for Hamlet killing his father and causing Ophelia to be mad and suicidal.  The King wants revenge on Hamlet for knowing what happened.  The Queen figured it out finally when she told everyone aloud that she has been poisoned as well as Laertes confirmed it is the King that did all of it.  Fortibinas also wants revenge as he plans so take over Denmark for his father’s death.  However, there is also forgiveness in this final acts when Hamlet asks to be pardon and Laertes tells Hamlet “I do receive your offer’d love like love, and will not wrong it”.  Therefore, in this tragic drama the revenge circled through as the King, Queen, Laertes, and Hamlet all died with the exception of Fortibinas.  

DRJ #3: Hamlet, Act III

My initial reaction is that it is odd that a prince has to make up a play to catch a lie since he could not trust the ghost either.  It seems to me that Hamlet’s actions convey that he is a cowardly prince.  It maybe the life that he was brought up makes him vague and can’t be direct but only to one person that he can actually trust.  It is also strange that he has shared his intimate moments with Ophelia but can’t trust her either.  I think playing a trick to catch a love one in a lie is more common.  I hear the war of the roses on radio all the time trying to catch someone in a lie and it never seems to end up well as the person’s hunch is usually true, or if not it reveals some insecurity on the trickster’s part.

Hamlet is a complex main character as he has a vast knowledge that you would expect from a future king, but insecurities from lack of trust in his surroundings.  Therefore, his character flaw is his insecurities but makes up for his weakness with strength of wit, knowledge, skills.  Hamlet can be considered a classic tragic hero as he avenges his father’s murder and is conflicted by what he must do as he faces decisions about murder, his throne, and his actions.

 

In this act, Hamlet’s labile mood is very apparent as he is in a state of confusion about what action he should do which is apparent in his line of “to be or not to be”.  The theme that runs throughout this Act is madness as it is noticeable that Hamlet has gone mad to the people that surround him even though he only plays the part.  He has convinced Ophelia that he has gone mad when he rejected to take back the letter he wrote causing her to be confused then aloof at the play.  He also convinced the king that he is truly mad as he plans to send him away for England.  The King mentioned this on Act III Scene I when he stated “madness in great ones must not unwatch’d go”.  However, Hamlet reveals to his mom that he is not crazy and just wants his mom to repent her sins.

DRJ #2: Hamlet, Act II

DRJ #1: Hamlet, Act II

My initial reaction is that Polonius is not a very bright counsel but uses his position to his advantage.  I always wonder how people get to the top, but do not seem to have what it takes mentally to be at the position.  It is usually they know someone, and have some sort of charismatic personality or arrogance to them.  I have known a few people like this in my previous career, and I usually try to stay out of their way and just watch from afar.

Polonius probably gained his position either by default or through his conniving ways.  He has Reynaldo spy and spread lies on his own son and why, is he afraid of losing his position to his younger generation?  He also uses his own daughter to find a resolution for the King and Queen to prove himself worthy of his position.  Therefore, I think Polonius is a character foil to Hamlet as Hamlet seeks the truth if his uncle really killed his father, and seems to be worthy of the throne.  On the other hand, Polonius goes further from the truth to distract Hamlet using his daughter.  However, there are some similarities as they both use their position to use other people such as Hamlet using the play to find out the truth and Polonius using Reynaldo to spread lies about his son with both using indirect methods to find what they need to.

In this Act, Shakespeare uses irony to feed Polonius and Hamlet’s ambitions gains.  It is ironic that both men have some position of power but yet that power can be misleading as they are aware that people can lie to them for their ambitious gain.  As an example, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are childhood friends of Hamlet but due to their higher allegiance or ambition to the new King they allow the King to use their friendship to find out what’s going on with Hamlet.  This is illustrated in line 230 when Hamlet saw through them, asked how they are doing and told his friends “Let me question more in particular: what have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune…”  Hamlet knows his friends were sent for a purpose and wanted to find out why.  It is also ironic that Hamlet, being a prince, finds it even harder to express his emotions than that of the players.  The players, who is of lower class, is able to say what he wants to say with feelings, but he a prince can’t even use his power to find out the truth as stated on line 500.  Out of his own self pity came a revelation for his ambition which is to use the play when Hamlet says “the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.”  

DRJ #1: Hamlet, Act I

My initial reaction to Act I is that I feel bad for Hamlet as he has several emotions coursing through him between the death of his father and the betrayal he felt with the mother’s relationship to the new King. Although this situation is unusual, I know a man that dated his dead wife’s sister.  Both side of the family found it odd even though he’s been widowed for 20 years so they only lasted for one year.   

In Act I, the ghost causes Hamlet to go from feeling grief stricken to feeling the need to avenge his father’s death.  The ghost relays this message intentionally as he has been murdered by his own brother.  This character is no better than its murderer as revenge is the only thing on its mind.  It doesn’t think about the repercussion if the new King is murdered by his own nephew/son and how it will look upon Denmark and its people, Hamlet, and the Queen.  In this Act, the ghost gives Hamlet a sense of direction and inner conflict as stated in line 100.

In “Hamlet’s” Act I, Shakespeare’s use of characters to convey family relations and friendship reinforces the author’s idea that conflicts can arise when loyalty are tested between family issues.  In this Act there are conflicts between Hamlet and his family as well as Ophelia and her family status against Hamlet.  As in Scene III, Laertes tells Ophelia to be careful of Hamlet and his position in Denmark as well as Polonius tells her the same thing and to protect her honor as she is a woman.  That is illustrated when Laertes tells her “Then if he says he loves you, it fits your wisdom so far to believe it as he is in his particular place may give his saying deed which is no further than the main voice of Denmark goes withal then weigh what loss your honour may sustain”.  Ophelia took the brother’s advice but also tells him to” recs not his own rede” as he needs to take his own advice.  Hamlet also has loyalties to his mother as he obeys her when she says to stay in Denmark even though he did not approve of the situation.  He also is loyal to his father as even as a ghost Hamlet says “and thy commandment all alone shall live within the book and volume of my brain” as he trys to make sense of it all.  Other characters that prove their loyalties includes Horatio and Marcellus who swore upon Hamlet’s sword to not speak a word that they saw the ghost.  They swore in fear as the ghost kept on telling them to swear so their allegiance is to Hamlet instead of to the King.   

I Am the Grass Extra Credit

1. Since Dinh’s thumb did not take I am sure he feels a sense of loss as he lost another part of his body, but he wanted to risk it as he trusted the physician.  If I was to rewrite the ending from Dinh’s point of view I would have Dinh meet with the narrator at the flight to see if another procedure can be arranged in the states.  I would have the narrator promise Dinh that they keep in touch and get the surgery going with more resource.  I believe this ending will have meaning of closure for both past soldiers of war.

Roselily extra credit

1. Creative response paragraph: He looks at his bride and sees the distant look in her face as though she was not hearing the words being said to them.  At this time he thought about the responsibilities that he has to face with three kids, and how his life will change from responsibilities of a job to a full time provider for four additional people.  He thought about doing the right thing, and keeping his promise to her and changing her life for the better.

Chopin

By contrasting images of life with those of death throughout “The Story of an Hour”, Kate Chopin highlights the struggle of a person imprisoned by societal pressures and thereby kept from fully being alive.  The author made us aware of life and death as Mrs. Mallard sat in the room alone after hearing her husband’s death alive in her senses “seeing the open square”, “new spring life”, hearing distant song notes reaching her faintly, “patches of blue sky” creeping out of the sky.  Then the author highlighted the struggle of transforming from Mrs. Mallard to Louise when she said she is “free” with the “look of terror followed it” but her “pulses beat fast, and the coursing blood warmed and relaxed every inch of her body” allowing herself to make peace with her conflict and live her life.  Furthermore, Chopin also referred to the marriage as “bitter moment”, and there “would be no powerful will bending hers” referring to the imprisonment of marriage due to societal pressure that kept her from fully being alive.           

SSRJ #2 Colette

Initial personal reaction:

I initially thought that the young woman married a man that may have murdered his wife.  The hand was physically described as big as her face, squeezed the sheet like a strangler, plus the fact that he was recently widowed, and the reference to the knife and slicing the bread at the end.  Then thought my imagination was running too wild since it’s really late at night when I read this story.

Literary Element/Thematic Analysis:

Colette’s use of symbols of realization of time and change in “The Hand” reminds us to not rush into the unknown without fully assessing the situation.  The “hand” represented the hands of time with its changing features that the wife did not notice what she got herself into until she really gave it a closer look as reality setting in.  The story started with the “hand emerging” “far away” meant to me that the young bride could not wait to grow up like most young people do.  It has only been a month since the young blond man was widowed then went off to marry an adolescent girl solidifies the fact that young people do not allow themselves time to think before rushing into another situation.  The young woman lavished the newness of her situation in the “half-lit room” until she “looked at the hand lying there next to her” meaning she has this moment to think since time has finally crept up with her.  She also wanted to turn the “light” off as she may not have been ready to really look into her situation but had to.  The closer look with the light on allowed her to see details that was symbolized by the nail “whose ridges the nail buffer hand not smoothed out, gleamed, coated with pink varnish” since we do not see the real situation when emotions clouds our thinking.  Reality sets in when the “sound of a passing car pierced the silence with a shrillness that seemed luminous” with the hand in its full ugly description.  At this time, there was no turning back the hands of time as reality had finally set it.

Questions:

Since reality/consequences eventually sets in, should parents go overboard in sheltering teens from what they know will be a potential bad situation or allow them to make mistakes to learn from?

      

SSRJ #1 Faulkner

Initial Personal Reaction

My initial reaction to Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” is that I also felt the same as the narrator of the story.  I felt like saying poor Emily as she is from this rich family with a controlling father that Emily did what she had to as a coping mechanism for the void she had in her life.  She experienced nothing and felt nothing, and with her status did not feel any remorse for unlawful things that she has done.  It was sad  that the town let her get away with things such as not paying taxes, sprinkling lime to get rid of the smell, and even letting her buy the arsenic even though they knew better.  It makes me think about how some parents allow their children get away with things or even lie to another family member to save face.   

 

Literary Element/Thematic Analysis  

Faulkner’s use of motifs to convey Emily’s status resulting in her isolation, loneliness, and the town’s excuses in the story of “A Rose for Emily” reinforces the author’s ideas about how it is the human nature to yearn for love and affection in Emily’s unlawful way of attaining it.   The story’s first paragraph used Emily’s full name showing her importance with the entire town attending her funeral to pay their respect to “a fallen monument”.   He also described her house as being decorated with cupolas and spires with scrolled balconies and that the house had once been in the most “select street”.  The author described Miss Emily as tradition and a “hereditary obligation” to the town that her family was excused from taxes.  This proved to me that the town held her family so highly that they let them be above the law.  This perception of being above the law, and high in society allowed Miss Emily to do whatever she pleased with no concern for the law.  The town people just reacts to Miss Emily as “poor Emily” as their excuse to allow her to do what she wanted to do.  The town has also seen what Emily has gone through with her father oppressing her from finding love as their family was too good for commoners or Yankees.  Miss Emily likely learned to suppress her feelings then from any man due to her father.  When her father passed she had a difficult time coping with reality as the only thing she had left was the house and no social skills of her own.  It is tragic that the only man that she was allowed to love was her father, and when he passed she could not let go of him until she was forced to. 

When the town saw her again, they described her looking like an “angel” in colored church windows that depicted both tragedy and serenity while still holding her in high standards.  The author used angel as a sign of status or above the law or godly while saying it is tragic as Miss Emily life does seem tragic especially when the author used “Poor Emily” throughout the story allowing the reader to feel sorry for her.  She finally met a man different than her father when she was in her thirties.  The author described him as a “Yankee” foreman, who the town saw as the man changing the town with construction and his image as being loud, cracking jokes, and the little boys following him along cussing. With the town holding on to tradition of Miss Emily’s status they did not allow the Yankee, as they learned he was not a “marrying man” involvement with Miss Emily, go any further.  Miss Emily was then further suppressed due to her status in her quest for yearning for love.  I believe Miss Emily snapped and used what she know, which is her own status to finally get what she wanted.  What she wanted was the Yankee, even though he was not a marrying man and not traditional, so she poisoned him to be with her for as long as she lived without the town questioning her.  With all these suppression to maintain status quo, Miss Emily found a way to use her status as a way to get back to the town with the town continuing to make excuses for her until she died.  The town’s judge even protected Miss Emily from the town’s complaint of the smell of her house by sprinkling limes at night to get rid of the smell.  I believe the town knew what happened to the Yankee since at the end of the story the townspeople knew of the room.  The town had waited until Miss Emily was in the ground before it was opened out of respect to her status.  It was there in the room they saw what Miss Emily lived for was the affection of the man she wanted in the status they all wanted.  She had dressed the poisoned Yankee in the nightshirt she bought, with the monogrammed toiletry showing symbol of the status they wanted him to have as well as the suit.  She got the love the only way she could figure out how.  In the end, Miss Emily got away with murder as the town that symbolized her status always protected and made excuses for her actions.

To conclude, I believe the author used Miss Emily’s status to show her isolation from the real world (the town) while allowing her to be above the law (not paying taxes and murder).  At the same time, he wanted us to feel some empathy throughout as he mentioned “poor Emily” several times as well as allow us to see what she really yearned for which was her way of getting her “love” that she isolated herself for.

 

So my question is, does society drive those people who we regard high and mighty (i.e politicians, religious leaders, doctors, stars..) to do unlawful things since society makes excuses?