24
May
2009
Right now, you may be in one of the most fearful state of minds. I know I was last year. I had heard some of the most dreadful rumors coming from this class. I walked into the class the first day of the year with trembling knees and chattering teeth. I had not had Mrs. Duke sophmore year and I heard terrifying stories from her English II class. I felt sorry for them and was really glad I wasn’t in her class. But of course, my schedule became my bearer of bad news.
She began the class telling us not to be scared and she flat-out told us she gave a lot of homework, but she also told us it was necessary that we completed our homework so that class could function. So I began the year telling myself this was going to be the hardest class of my life. Seeing as I am lazy, I figured I would do terribly in this class and began freaking myself. I am here to tell you…DON’T DO THAT!!!
Look, I will be the first to tell you that I think homework sucks. I would rather go hit my head on the wall than do homework but it is crucial to succeed in English III with Mrs. Duke. I am not just saying it is vital to maintain a good grade, it is vital to learn and grow in this class. Every assignment sets up a super learning time session. It’s not just filler work. Some of the homework assigned is also needed for activities set up for class. If no one in class does the work, it is really hard to accomplish anything i.e. my class. Many of the larger assignments are assigned at least a week before they are do, so don’t wait until last minute.
As for Mrs. Duke, she is really understanding and will help you out if needed, but do not take advantage of that. Honestly, if I learned anything about her in my class (the “bad” class) it was that she wants and knows everyone can do well and learn. She has really different teaching techniques too. When I say different I mean no other teachers teach the way she does. It’s cool because a lot of the assignments bring us (the students) out of our shells and none of them involve standing in front of the smartboard spelling out every single piece of information with a powerpoint. That’s another thing, she doesn’t just give you the answers. One of the best thing about this class is that we aren’t treated like sixth graders. Another thing that’s cool is that Mrs. Duke is familiar with a lot of whats going on and can compare many things to pop culture, which makes things relatable.
I promise that if you do your work and read, you’ll do well. You learn so much and you won’t get bored. This class can be really fun. If you sit and make yourself miserable you will be. The best piece of advice that I can give you for next year is do not drown yourself in work. Do your work and this will be a really awesome class.
Posted under Uncategorized
24
May
2009
Under your interpretation, we get the impression that Hamlet is weak. It is really funny because for the Acts 1-4, I saw Hamlet as the fragile, distraught character who struggled to do what he thought was right. Yet, in Act 5, of Kenneth Branagh’s film, I saw Hamlet as this superhero who kills his enemy acting on impluses, finally achieving revenge. These two interpretations are on the complete different sides of this Hamlet spectrum. But, I haven’t seen how Branagh began his film and I do not know how you finshed your audio.
Back to your interpretation, I loved it. Listening to your voice, I pictured every scene perfectly in my mind. I put myself in Hamlet’s shoes when I heard each line read. Your acting really influences and draws the character in. Your voice connects the audience and keeps them interested. It worked out so well. I will admit, you sound like Stewie from Family Guy and I found that quite distracting, but seriously you played the perfect Hamlet. The only thing, Hamlet is not an audio tape. It is a play. I wonder what difference it would make if we actually saw you act out the play live and I can’t help but to wonder if I would react differently about Branagh’s perfomance if it was only audio.
Posted under Uncategorized
24
May
2009
(Before I criticize I only saw your version of scene 5)
I liked your interpretation of Hamlet. I like the adventurous/heroic Hamlet. The whole chandelier falling on Claudius and Hamlet swinging on the rope like Tarzan was super cool, but c’mon, Hamlet would not do that. The way I interpreted Hamlet’s mind and actions, I would never set him up to do this impulsive chandelier attack; note that I used the word impulsive. Anyone who has read Hamlet would not call him impulsive. In the To be or Not To Be speech, Hamlet questions whether he should do something or not. He would never be caught doing extemperaneous acts like cutting chandelier ropes. I believe you interpreted the play through an Archetypal lens, in which you set Hamlet up to be the hero and I do not think there is anything wrong with that idea, in fact I do believe Hamlet is a hero in the play, but he is not made to be this super awesome strong muscle-y manly chest hair man. I mean, the throwing of the sword? I doubt that they even knew how to throw spears, aboriginees threw spears to kill, not monarchs.
I give you credit for Ophelia’s burial scene. The setting was perfect and as I set up my movie my setting was similar. The actors chosen to play the gravediggers were perfect. So kudos Kenneth, kudos. This may hurt your feelings, but I mean this in the least offensive way. You are too old. Hamlet is supposed to be in his early twenties. How old are you, like thirty-seven? I am not saying that your age affected your performance, I thought your acting was wonderous. I like your energy and I liked your charisma, because I believe Hamlet is very charismatic. I would also like to give you kudos on the last scene of the movie. I believe it really pulled it together and worked great with your intrepretation of Hamlet, as a redoubtable hero.
Overall, it was just a little too much for my liking.
Posted under Uncategorized
14
May
2009
I do not want to be cocky or anything but ohhhhmyyygawwdd! I predicted it! I am officially like .2% of an English genius! Just because I do my work and I have a good grade doesn’t mean that I’m actually good at all this English literature. But now…I feel really accomplished. Thank you Mrs. Duke! Let’s get on this final analysis. So I’ll begin with the fact that even in Act 3, where everything comes together, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still confuse the audience, intentionally. An example?…when they say off course and then say of course as if they are mixing up the words even though they did once, but the other time they didn’t. You see even when I explain it its confusing. On page 100, Guil says, “Yes, I’m very fond of boats myself. I like the way they’re–contained. You don’t have to worry about which way to go, or whether to go at all–the question doesn’t arise, because you’re on a boat, aren’t you? Boats are safe areas in the game of tag…the players will hold their positions until the music starts….I think I’ll spend most of my life on boats.” How very Ironic because 22 pages later, Guildenstern says something that is completely opposite from that quote. On page 122, Guil says, “Where we went wrong was getting on a boat. We can move, of course, change direction, rattle about, but our movement is contained within a larger one that carries us along as inexorably as the wind and current…” In my last blog, I stated that I believed that Guil and Ros really did know what was happening, they knew they were going to die at the end and they were just watching everything happen around them. I take that back. On the last couple of pages, I saw innocence, fear, and genuineness from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. When they found the letter that led to their death, the stage directions states that they were “appalled and mesmerized.” Another major aspect about this book that we have seen is the idea of predestination, everything is already written in stone in other terms. In this final act, we see the rejection of that idea. Here we go back to the old coin games. Rosencrantz gets Guildenstern to guess which hand he is a holding a coin in. Guildenstern guesses and wins, he guesses again and wins, again, again, and again. He wins many times. The stage directions say that Guil is getting tense and is desperate to lose. Then, Guil taps one of Ros’ hands and then changes his mind and taps the other, which accidently tricks Ros into opening both hands which reveals he had had a coin in each hand the whole time. What does this prove? I think it is clear; a person’s destiny is in their own hands. I know I know, but they still have to die and are going to die so doesn’t it mean that they are already predestined to die? Well, actually no, Stoppard addresses this because he is a genius. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are talking about the letter and what to do when they get to the King of England they open the letter and find out that Hamlet will be executed. Did you notice that Hamlet was (bunny ears) sleeping (bunny ears) not far from them? This is how Hamlet found out he was being sent to his death, which then motivated him to rewrite the letter, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their death. If they would have just left the letter be, they would be alive. Here is a quote to prove my point, full of dramatic irony, “it would be presumptuous of us to interfere with the designs of fate or even of kings. All in all, I think we’d be well advised to leave well alone.” It is their fault. They mingled with fate by opening that letter. Ok, so let’s get to my favorite part about the reading. The two men hear a recorder. Then they follow the music to find its source, which, of course is the Tragedians. Yeah, yeah I was shocked too. Of course there are in the boat…in barrels? I thought it was weird too. So they all pop out of the barrels, all still in their costumes. Then they start speaking of many different ideas, more and more hints of life and death. Ros, then, starts about Hamlet, he says, “A compulsion towards philosophical introspection is his chief characteristic, if I may put it like that. It does not mean he is mad. It does not mean he isn’t. Very often, it does not mean anything at all. Which may or may not be a kind of madness.” Then Guil continues with this topic, he says, “It really boils down to symptoms, Pregnant replies, mystic allusions, mistaken identities, arguing his father is his mother, that sort of thing; intimations of suicide, forgoing of exercise, loss of mirth, hints of claustrophobia not to say delusions of imprisonment; invocations of camels, chameleons, capons, whales…which at his age is coming on a bit strong.” Basically, they are implying that Hamlet has been acting. This is when they realize, “He’s the Player.” Then all of the facts start rushing to them, they can’t realize they hadn’t recognized this before. This is when it all goes downhill, they realize they are going to die and find the proof when they open the new/switched letter. Then, completely frustrated and flabbergasted, Guil tells the player there is still no way he really knows what death is because he is an actor and kills him. The player falls and dies, everyone watches shocked, but not as shocked as they are when he pops back up and is applauded by his fellow tragedians, proving that “they do believe…it’s what is expected.” Then the Queen is poisoned, the King is stabbed, Laertes is killed and Ros and Guil are killed (all still the tragedians in costume). After everyone is dead and Ros and Guil are left on the stage, Ros asks “Couldn’t we just stay put?” They then disappear of the stage. They had to die, they had to disappear.
IMPORTANT!– all the Tragedians represent the King, Queen, Hamlet, Ros, and Guil (all characters in Hamlet) because they are actors. Just like Shakespeare wrote this to be acted out. It is not a story, it is a play, meant to be acted out. I think this is the most postmodern mindblowing-ness of Stoppard’s play, that Stoppard wants to get across. That’s a main reason there is so much metafiction and at the end we don’t see Hamlet kill everyone, we see the Player (who is playing Hamlet) kill everyone (who is played by actors). Do you get it?
Posted under Uncategorized
10
May
2009
When I read the last reading, I felt so comfortable with everything that was going on in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, but no no no, this reading twisted up my mind in many ways. I think that the farther we get in the book the more I look for meaning in each line. My mind is driving me insane with this thirst for knowledge. I sound retarded but I want to understand everything/anything that is going on. So let’s begin with my analysis. The scene begins around Hamlet’s To be or not to be speech. Ros and Guil spot Hamlet and and they Guil asks Ros about what Hamlet is doing in three weird ways. Guil first asks “What is he doing?” and Ros responds with ”Walking.” Then Guil asks three really random things, “On his hands?’ ’Stark naked?’ ‘ Selling toffee apples?” I read these questions and scratched my head. Why would he ask if Hamlet is walking on his hand or naked? Then I thought these things are kind of crazy and don’t they all think Hamlet is crazy. Then I saw some subtle references to chance, but then it became more apparent that this whole play revolves around the idea that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are going to die. There is no chance of their survival. I found it hysterical when Rosencrantz put his hands around, who he thought was, the queen’s eyes and it ended up being Alfred in his costume. First of all, why would Rosencrantz play a game with the queen? And second, its just a weird situation. Then during dress rehearsal, the player is speaking to Ros and Guil and then, sidetracked, tells Alfred to stop picking his nose. There’s something about Alfred that is so bizarre, why does Stoppard put this super random character that has nothing specific to do with the plot? I got seriously confused with the actual play though. In Ros and Guil are dead, the actors go through the play’s rehearsal, the play is a summary of what happens at the end of Hamlet. So we see this summary in the play’s rehearsal form but we never actually see the real play. Then Ros and Guil see themselves in the rehearsal recognize themselves. It is so bizarre and twisted. The play is a mirror and they see that, but they still cannot do anything to stop their fate. Guil says, “Keep back — we’re spectators,” that is what they are in this play. They just sit back and watch what they are doing and where they are going. Everything is going on around them. They are in a different world, I mean their language is so different when they speak with each other rather than when they speak with Hamlet or the King and Queen. So then reading this section, I also had this crazy idea. I do not think it would be incorrect to assume that the player is a parallel to Hamlet. First, one of our original questions was Is Hamlet crazy? We didn’t really know but one of our responses was that Hamlet isn’t crazy, but actually pretending to be crazy to get closer to the Claudius. We decided he could actually be a genius with a master plan. Well, here we see the player with his philosophical ideas and with all of his answers. I began to think this at first when I read that the player plays Lucianus (Hamlet) in the play. Then some lines started to get me thinking. The player says, “We follow directions–there is not choice involved,” and he says “I extract significance from melodrama, a significance which it does not in fact contain; but occasionally, from out of this matter, there escapes a thin beam of light that, seen at the right angle, can crack the shell of mortality.” Ok, so here’s my explanation, so if this is totally wrong, you can see what I saw and maybe understand. The whole following directions, of course has to do with acting and following what a director or script tells you to do, but I thought of it as Hamlet following what his father told him to do. Hamlet questions whether he should follow through with the act, but we all know that he will kill Claudius because that is the way it was written, that is Hamlet’s fate in this play. I mean it is a tragedy, you cannot expect it to end with all the character’s dancing to a song about love and a super duper awesome happy ending. The second quote refers to the player’s acting skills. He says that he has the power of being melodramatic; he says that only in melodrama can you “crack the shell of mortality.” Hamlet is more than melodramatic throughout the play and we’ve already seen him kill Polonius, we know he is going to kill everyone else, through Hamlet the audience sees death. I am not saying that Stoppard put the player in to specifically be thought of as Hamlet, but look at some of the things he says and think back to Hamlet. The Player gives explanations about Hamlet’s character and why he does acts the way he does. Ok, so that’s what I think.
Posted under Uncategorized
4
May
2009
Hamlet begins this soliloquy because his thoughts are tormenting him. He’s so troubled it seems like he is mentally breaking down. When I imagine this scene in my head, I see Hamlet falling to his knees, maybe tearing up a little, and finally pounding his fists on the ground with a countenance so distraught it would make a songbird stop singing. Who is the audience? When I first read the question, I asked myself, is there an audience? These are Hamlet’s deepest thoughts. He is questioning whether to commit suicide or whether to avenge his father’s death. Not only is he admitting to something that would cause him and his family embarrassment, but he is also considering ending his life. Would you tell this to anyone? So I believe his primary audience is himself. Yet, who is this speech directed to? The answer to this is the secondary audience. Obviously, this soliloquy is directed to people who have experienced in emotions similar to what Hamlet is feeling, people who are confused, fearful, anxious, and full of anguish and disgust; anyone who could fully appreciate or comprehend these thoughts that are driving Hamlet mad. Also, the soliloquy could be directed to anyone who questions themselves and what they should, which is everyone. I think the purpose of this speech to clear Hamlet’s head. So many thoughts are passing through Hamlet’s head. He asks himself questions and answers them and thinks of new ideas and pushes them away. His brain is being attacked right now and overall this soliloquy will give Hamlet the answers he wants and make a decision. The most significant appeal, to me, in the speech is “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns, that patient merit of th’ unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?” This appeal speaks specifically to the audience, which clearly draws us in. “Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them” this could be an ethos appeal and a logos appeal, because here Hamlet is questioning his strength to carry through with what he agreed to follow to end the injustice his uncle created, but also we see this in life every day. If someone does something that threatens you, would you stand up for yourself and end it? Hamlet uses personification to emphasize what he is saying such as when he says “or who would bear the whips and scorns of time.” “The undiscovered country, from whose bourn, no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of?” this undiscovered country is a metaphor to death. His images of “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” “Sea of troubles,” and “whips and scorns of time” all give us a general idea of Hamlet’s expression and his mentality. Hamlet’s soliloquy gives us insight to a distressed mind, but we don’t really need that. Every person has gone through some sort of trauma that has caused them to question themselves, not everyone’s “mental breakdown” has been so drastic, and actually I don’t think everyone can call it a mental breakdown. But we, in general question our own actions. This speech makes Hamlet relatable.
Posted under Uncategorized
30
April
2009
As I read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, I enjoy it more and more. Since we discussed many of the postmodern aspects of the play, I have found many of the characteristics throughout the play. I see metafiction everywhere, which makes me question how I didn’t notice it before because it is pretty apparent. Not only did I see metafiction but I saw serious dramatic irony. I became really excited when Rosencrantz said “He murdered us” (56). I circled and underlined that line 35 times. I also saw a lot of references to questions and answers. Rosencrantz notes that they asked Hamlet twenty-seven questions and he only answered three of them, emphasizing there are always more questions than answers. Then I found a really confusing section, which I know was supposed to be confusing. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern start talking about the wind and in which direction it is coming from. Then they Guildenstern, somewhat, fights to himself if the wind comes from here or there or southerly or northerly. In the stage directions, it is implied that he is going in circles trying to figure out where the wind is coming from, which makes this scene extremely confusing for the audience but also for Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. Then while reading, all of a sudden I see this political statement that slapped me in the face. Rosencrantz screams Fire! and then explains that everything is all right. He continues that he was just “demonstrating the misuse of free speech to prove that is exists” (60). Where did this come from? Also a little before this Guildenstern we see metafiction and dramatic irony displayed, but it also the idea of predestination. Guildenstern says “Wheels have been set in motion, and they have their own pace, to which we are . . . . condemned. Each move is dictated by the previous one — that is the meaning of order” (60). Is this postmodernism mettling? The player comes in and begins speaking with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He has this one part where he speaks their previous play where they had a remarkably similar situation with a guilty King. This confused me. Is it just a coincidence that the same thing will happen again? And then Guildenstern says “And so here you are — with a vengeance” (64) to the player…uhhhh what? Something else that caught my eye. The player seems all knowing. First of all, the player knows which way the wind is blowing, he also seems to be straight with other ideas such as, “Uncertainty is the normal state,” or “You can’t go through life questioning your situation at every turn” (66). I found that last quote extremely important because throughout the whole play everything is questioned. Yeah and as you continue reading some the player’s lines he seems like he knows the perfect answer to everything, I think that is also where Stoppard brings out postmodernism. I seriously also saw the words I think or thoughts all the time. Someone is always thinking. I thought that was interesting. HeHe.
Posted under Uncategorized
23
April
2009
This reading did make more sense, but not really. I knew what was going on with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but sometimes I didn’t understand what they were doing. I would get confused when they were talking to each other and I would mix them up. But I was also really amused by them I found myself giggling out loud. These guys are so funny and weird. I found myself comparing Ros to me and Guil to Sam only because when they talk to each other it’s like they get what they are saying without having to explain. And they do things that amuse them or help them (the question game) without actually thinking its strange.
The first thing that sticks out as postmodern is the fact that it is so silly. It’s not serious at all, which makes it the complete opposite of Hamlet. While Hamlet is all depressed and his parents are worried, here come in Ros and Guil who are complete jokes. It’s funny to see their thoughts, because Stoppard made them not really want to be there. Ros and Guil are only at the kingdom because they are scared of the King and Queen, but they want to leave as soon as possible. When we read Hamlet in class, I really didn’t pay attention to Ros and Guil. They were just minor characters. Stoppard really thinks the characters through.
I also noticed that Stoppard keeps the same lines for all the other characters. Ros and Guil are the only ones with extra dialogue, well the actors had more lines at the beginning too, but they don’t really count. The contrast in language is different because when Ros and Guil are talking to the King they are formal, but when they talk to each other it quickly changes and they joke and fight and talk….a lot. As I read their conversations , I imagined them talking extremely fast to each other.
Stoppard also shows us a scene in the orginal play that we only hear of but do not actually see. Stoppard shows the scene in which Hamlet goes and acts all crazy with Ophelia and grabs her wrist. Ros and Guil see this happen and we see their reaction. They are shocked but don’t do anything about it. Then meet with Claudius and Gertrude for the first time. I wasn’t sure why Stoppard showed us this scene, I was think it was maybe to show us Ros’s and Guil’s reactions.
So overall, I was really amused by the reading and kind of confused by the reading. It is so weird and twisted. It is really cool to see these perspectives. It is different and similar to the original Hamlet, but is definitely not as conventional.
Posted under Uncategorized
20
April
2009
I began the reading about two men playing and coin game. Ros kept on winning, the coins kept landing on heads. Guil was extremely confused because there is a 50/50 chance that the coin would land on heads and it was highly unprobable that it would land on heads ninety two times in a row. Guil called it a phenomenom and started listing many things that could be happening. But this shows the character of Guil and Ros, Ros just does things without question, while Guil is curious and looks into things. Then Ros starts talking about fingernails and beards and how they grow even after death, but not really toenails. Bothe guys have some trouble with memory. They aren’t real sure where they are going or how they got onto their path. And then their memory seems worse when Ros accidentally introduces himself as Guil to this group of actors, The Tragedians. These Tragedians are strange and would perform many things, including sexual acts for money. Ros calls them out and they get angry but Guil calls them back in by suggesting a coin game. And Guil calls heads and it falls on heads and the last one he assumes it is heads, but it is tails.
These men are on their way to King Claudius the whole time because he greets them at the end of the reading and apparently it was a quick sending.
Posted under Uncategorized
13
April
2009
Before Wednesday, I thought of drama just as acting. I knew it involved plays, but you would have never caught me saying that Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet were dramas. I would just be like yeah shakespeare, acts, hard language. I also thought of drama as a class I took in seventh grade, where I was forced to be a blender infront of dreadful middle schoolers. Yet, I have come to find that there is a lot more to that five letter word. Drama is considered a major form of literature, as well as a genre. Of Course, it’s a show, which includes acts and staging and dialoigue and a plot and characters. The Roman and Greeks had Dramas. We read one, Oedipus the King. Oedipus the King was a tragedy. Two major genres of Drama are comedy and tragedy. Each Drama that I have read has been a tragedy. Well, not really A Streetcar Named Desire, but kind of. And then there is the Elizabethan Era, where Shakespeare wrote. He wrote a bunch of plays. The two I have read were about love and a king. Shakespeare write in iambic pentameter too. I also know that women were’t allowed to act during the Elizabethan Era. So that means men would have to play the women roles. So Shakespeare would try to make some of the woman characters manly. I really have no idea about Modern Drama. In class, we named so many elements of fiction that had nothing to do with Drama. Then we had are mini lesson. Things like metaphors and personification go with literature as a whole. It is not just limited to fiction or nonfiction. That is really important!
Posted under Uncategorized
