Hamlet and the Ghost.....A Father-Son Moment

Typically when one thinks of the first interaction between Hamlet and his dead father, one tends to believe that the scene is governed by the surreal and supernatural. The fact that Hamlet is talking to a "ghost" is more prominent than the fact that this "ghost" is indeed his father. Therefore Ryan and I attempted to, essentially, reclaim the father-son moment that Act 1-Scene 5 truly is. The caring father witnesses the sorrow, pain, and anger in his beloved son, and attempts to assuage his need for vengeance. While Hamlet, betrayed and hurt by all others, looks nostalgically towards the "ghost" of his father, weeping from both sorrow and anger as he hears the injustice that he has suffered at the hands of King Claudius.  Ryan and I believe that in this sense, Scene 5 becomes a much more powerful and pivotal moment in the characterization of both Hamlet and his father.

Question #7- Passion v. Chaos

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, both passion and chaos are presented as one in the same. The plot of the play seems to have been created from these two ideas. A jealous member of the royal elite kills his brother, the king, by poison and now he has stolen the title of King. All the while Hamlet slowly uncovers the clues to his fathers death amidst his grief and woe. And Hamlet uses this revelation to spur his anger and from this anger comes the need to acquire his revenge. This more or less is the essence of the 1st act. Moreover, in this act, passion is always juxtaposed to chaos. The chaos of a father's death and the quick re-marrying of the Queen is put against the passion of Hamlet and King Hamlet's ghost as they mourn over the recent happenings. Additionally, the chaos of Hamlet himself, as he feigns his craziness and ill-disposition is juxtaposed to his own passion to get revenge on King Claudius.

Question #9- 1.ii.129-59 Analysis of Diction, Figurative Language & Imagery

Hamlet's first soliloquy is packed with tons of information about not only the story line but also important information on Hamlet himself. After submitting to the will of King Claudius, Hamlet gives a speech which essentially stems from his contempt for the current situation and hatred of his mother for having re-married so soon. Firstly, Hamlet's diction is one that is characterized by choppy outbursts of emotion followed by the occasional philosophical line that essentially makes sense of what would otherwise be insanity. Secondly, Hamlet's figurative language serves to emphatically illustrate his volatile emotions. From his liberal use of "O!" and "Fie!" it is clear that Hamlet is indeed experiencing scenes of very raw emotion. Specifically, in this speech Hamlet uses "O!" at least 4 times and ends a sentence with an exclamation about 7 times. These statistics are by no means an aberration. For these same patterns will be seen time and time again in Hamlet's soliloquies. From this figurative language stems the vivid imagery that further conveys Hamlet's emotions. For example, Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden. This phrase brilliantly illustrates both his figurative language and his imagery. The unweeded garden, preceded by exclamations, creates a picture of true evil, sorrow and contempt all within the same line.

Question #14

          If anything the quote,"Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so", directly affirm the belief that Hamlet is indeed acting. For the ability to bestow upon his friends such philosphical truths can not be done in a state of complete grief and sorrow. Hamlet is an intellectual and at this point he is using his acting abilities to conceal his true intentions. Which are to achieve as much information from everyone as he can and to get his revenge on King Claudius. Hamlet believes that everything in the world is relative. Every deed and every act can be taken in numerous ways by different people. He believes that nothing is universally good or bad. He believes the people of society cast upon life these false ideas of moralit. Therefore, he believes that there is no true wrong and there is no true good. Everything is relative
            Personally, I do not agree with Hamlet's statement. For I believe a society must hold unviersal wrongs and unviersal "goods". Amongst other things, we must all believe that killing with malicious intent just for the sake of killing is wrong. Likewise we must believe that helping those who are less forutnate is indeed a universal good. Therefore, I disagree with Hamlet.

Question #7

             Hamlet is an educated individual who knows the many nuances of life. Not only has he studied philosophy abroad but from his speech and thought process one can tell that Hamlet is indeed part of the educated elite. With that said. Hamlet has experienced a very surreal experience. Seeing the ghost of his dead father has truly rattled him. He was initially wrought with confusion and fear. But the intellectual side of Hamlet quickly overcame these intial feelings and he immeidately devised a plan to gain his revenge against King Claudius. Amongst other things this elaborate plan consisted of his "acting" in a certain way in order to get people to think that he is in fact "feeling" a certain way and to gain the information he may need from others. For if everyboy thinks that he is going crazy then he truly has the leverage. For he can sway people, like the spies King Claudius sent, to reveal themsleves. Additionally the fact that he specifically and directly refers to his "antic disposition" in his speech reveals that he is fully aware of what he is doing and has planned it ever since he decided to get revenge against King Claudius. If one were to say that Hamlet is acting solely of off his anger and grief. I would agree that he is indeed acting of his anger and grief. But to what purpose? Hamlet uses his anger and grief to plan his revenge. From his volatile emotions stems the need to use his intellectuallsim to gain his revenge against Claudius.

Question 4 -Laertes and Polonius' view of Ophelia&Hamlet

             Both Laertes and Polonius express rational concerns. Laertes cautions Ophelia by using Hamlet's status in society against him. He states that Hamlet, being the prince that he is, would not so easily fall in love with any woman, and that his present love is most likely ephemeral. On the other hand, Polonius believes that Ophelia's rejection of Hamlet has driven him mad and blames himself for not letting Ophelia reply to his letters. He also believes that Hamlet's disposition is partly due to the natural frenzies of love which he also claims to have experienced at a younger age. Of the two concerns, Laertes' is the most realistic. For the reader does not know Hamlet's tendencies toward women and his fling with Ophelia could easily be one of numerous harlots he has been with. Laertes argument could also be taken in a softer tone. For one would expect a man of royalty to be committed to family and state. Thus one would expect Hamlet to marry her, or fully commit himself to her in some way. However, though Laertes argument is legitimate, the reasons for it go beyond mere brotherly concern. Laertes has a hidden jealousy towards Hamlet. His position, wealth, status and Ophelia's love for him are all substantial reasons for Laertes jealously. Moreover, the fact that Laertes' father reported to Hamlet's father, King Hamlet, for so long may have resulted in some bitterness. Polonius' concerns, though rational, have no basis in reality for the reader knows that Hamlet is not acting out due to some resentment or overly passionate desire towards Ophelia. His lack of connection to reality is part of his character. For as an old and decrepit man his views are outdated and based in the past.
         From Laertes' position one can deduce that he does not think highly of women. He believes they can be easily duped and seduced into loving anyone without reason or purpose. Therefore, he must try to control his sister, who to him seems to be fulfilling this misogynistic stereotype. However, Polonius believes women are the source of strife and pain among men due to the incessant passion and lust they instill in their male counterparts. He sees Hamlet as a perfect example of how unbridled lust can lead to insanity.

King Hamlet and Hamlet : Like Father, Like Son

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the relationship between a dead father and his living son is explored in a most intriguing fashion. For unlike in other father-son relationships that are present in the play, i.e Polonius-Laertes, the reader is never introduced to King Hamlet as a living entity and therefore the reader does not get to witness a "natural" encounter between the two. Instead King Hamlet and his son are presented in a most "unnatural" manner as a son is forced to witness the image of his dead father. However, from this unusual encounter Hamlet and King Hamlet are revealed as one in the same. For in their first encounter careful analysis of their speech patterns, nuanced phrases, and overall syntax reveals a common thread between the father and son. A thread of deeply rooted emotional pain. Now one could simply attribute this emotional pain to the circumstances of the play. A son will obviously mourn for his dead father, and a father would justly display some discontent having been murdered. But one could argue, that this is in fact a result of the personality of Hamlet and his father, in that, they are naturally emotionally flamboyant and therefore express their views and concerns in such a manner. Moreover, it is this need to wear their emotions on their sleeves and express their feelings through exaggerated language and tone that defines the Hamlets.

Dying with a Dying Fall....

"I know the voices dying with a dying fall / Beneath the music from a farther room".  These two lines seem to have an almost musical quality to them. If one were to read these two lines aloud, one might be able to pick up a rising and falling rhythm. Along with this musical rhythm the word "music" is actually referred to thus solidifying a reference to something beyond the mere words on the page, to something more artistically abstract. Emotionally, these two lines are quite somber and downcast. He repeats dying and follows it with "fall" and "beneath" which coincides with the rising and falling rhythm I referred to previously. It is as if the music is the ideal place put the general "voices" cannot rise into this place and instead fall with a "dying fall" beneath the place of music.  Additionally, music could also be taken as a direct reference to an emotion of some sort.
He states that he "knows" the voices who are falling beneath the music. However, it is not clear whether he is part of these falling voices or if he has achieved the ideal of music.

Debating Love...

After reading Andrew Marvell's poem, "To His Coy Mistress", I was immediately convinced that Marvell is in fact arguing and debating the reasons to love. Most notably, there are three critical points to Marvell's meticulously calculated argument. These three points serve to create a formidable and threatening argument for immediate love and satisfaction. Moreover, from these three points, the first in particular was most akin to "debating rhetoric", for it is essentially a disclaimer, with the purpose of debunking or nullifying any oppositional arguments or ideas the opposite side may have. He tells this lady that if he did in fact have "world enough" he would love her endlessly. This statements serves to absolve him from all and any blame or regret for he has stated that he would love her "slowly" if he could. Further, if one would simply refer to the text, it is quite evident that the hyperbolic language serves to solidify this, most likely, false statement. Secondly, once he has freed himself from any blame he then turns around and blames "Time". For it is time's fault that he cannot love her inch by inch for all eternity and therefore because of time they must love now. It is a truly compelling argument. Moreover,once he has set the stage for who is to blame, he then begins to refer to the lady specifically. He states, "Thy beauty shall no more be found." This is a clear-cut warning to the girl. That her beauty and significance will be forever gone if they do not act now. This sense of fear and inevitability is furthered by the figurative language of the text. Specifically, his use of words such as worms, dust, ashes, and grave. The aforementioned arguments are then combined and summed up in the third and most important argument. This is what I like to call the "Carpe Diem Argumentum". The "seize the day argument" consists of two important ideas. One that there is not enough time in the world. And two, that there is too much in the world for one to do at any given moment. Therefore we must all seize the day. Marvell articulates this masterfully through numerous devices ranging from his numerous innuendos to his blunt and direct statements. In fact, most of these blunt statements can be found in the last paragraph of third argument. This because the last argument is the most real, the most current, and the most urgent. The combination of these three arguments serves to create an impeccable logical reason for immediate love and satisfaction. Thus, Marvell's success in debating love.

"Had We But World Enough"

The first line of the poem is by far the most important.  It sets the stage for the three arguments to follow. The use of the past perfect 'Had" serves to create a conditional that cannot be achieved, for they do not have this supposed time and therefore must love. However, he implies that if they indeed had this time he would in fact love her endlessly. He claims that if he had all the world he would be able to fittingly love her. The second part of this line is, "this coyness lady would be no crime". Moreover since they do not have this time the coyness is a crime. This subtle chracterization serves to, as I said earlier, set the stage for the rest of the argument.