There is a significant difference between the concept of law in lines 1-34 and 35-60 in “Law like Love” by W.H. Auden. At first, law is described to be something definite, and though it applies to various aspects of life, it is defined in each of those meanings. Auden begins by stating the meaning of law to different people in society. For example, in line 1, he says, “law, say the gardeners, is the sun.” This passage insinuates that the sun is the law of the gardeners. The gardeners can only have a successful harvest when the sun permits. Therefore, they must abide by the sun as their law, for they cannot be successful without it. In the second stanza, Auden continues by saying, “law is the wisdom of the old (L5).” Similarly to the way a harvest comes with the sun, wisdom comes with age. Auden continues to describe the existence of law in society in terms of the young, priesthood, and judicial trials.
Following these comparisons, Auden begins to express the true meaning of law. He says, “law is neither wrong nor right, law is only crimes punished by places and by times (L 20-22),” implying that the concept of law is determined by society. Each sector has their own idea of what law is and what they, in their life, must abide by. The turn in the poem occurs in line 29, when Auden states, “law is no more, law has gone away.” From this point, the speaker addresses the idea that law is undefinable. The specificities of law depend on the person who is following it. It is impossible to explain the law in terms of another word. For that reason, it is similar to love.
In the last stanza, Auden compares law to love. Like law, love cannot be defined. It is an inanimate part of space and time that relies on the person, or group of people, who feel it. Auden makes this comparison to love specific to he and his lover. The last line of the poem states, “like love we seldom keep.” This sets forth the idea that, just as the law is not always followed, love is not always kept the way it should be. It varies on the couple and the situation that they are in, just like societal groups and their views of law.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
One Art
Elizabeth Bishop expresses the immense anguish she feels over losing her lover through a dichotomy between lines 1-15 and lines 16-19. By doing so, she shows how much more pain she felt over losing this important person in her life as compared to the trivial things that people seem to lose every day. For example, in lines 1-5, Bishop says, “The art of losing isn’t hard to master;/ so many things seem filled with the intent/ to be lost that their loss is no disaster./ Lose something every day. Accept the fluster/ of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.” Here, Bishop shows that she is never fazed by losing insignificant things such as door keys or time. She continues on by saying that losing things becomes a part of one’s daily life, whether they are losing places, names, or their memory in general. Each of these “lost” items serves as a comparison to the speaker losing her beloved.
Later on in the poem, Bishop begins to mention the loss of more important things in life. In line 10, she speaks of losing her mother’s watch, and in line 11, she says that she has lost three houses. Further on, she parallels the idea of moving with losing. The reader can tell from lines 13-15 that the speaker has moved often in her life, as she discusses losing two cities, two rivers, and a continent. By speaking in these vast terms, one can understand that the speaker losing her lover must have been quite a disaster, as she states in line 15. If losing this significant other has been more detrimental to her being than losing a continent, as she says, the speaker must be in dire anguish over the circumstances. These comparisons help to exaggerate her argument.
In the final stanza of the poem, the speaker finally admits to the reason that she has mastered the “art” of losing. She says that although all losing may seem like disaster, it is only that way in certain forms. However, she says “I shan’t have lied,” in line 17. Through this phrase, it is evident that although she says that losing is not hard to master, losing her lover has been particularly difficult. She has been able to endure the loss of many other things, but this absence in her life is seemingly impossible to recover from.
Later on in the poem, Bishop begins to mention the loss of more important things in life. In line 10, she speaks of losing her mother’s watch, and in line 11, she says that she has lost three houses. Further on, she parallels the idea of moving with losing. The reader can tell from lines 13-15 that the speaker has moved often in her life, as she discusses losing two cities, two rivers, and a continent. By speaking in these vast terms, one can understand that the speaker losing her lover must have been quite a disaster, as she states in line 15. If losing this significant other has been more detrimental to her being than losing a continent, as she says, the speaker must be in dire anguish over the circumstances. These comparisons help to exaggerate her argument.
In the final stanza of the poem, the speaker finally admits to the reason that she has mastered the “art” of losing. She says that although all losing may seem like disaster, it is only that way in certain forms. However, she says “I shan’t have lied,” in line 17. Through this phrase, it is evident that although she says that losing is not hard to master, losing her lover has been particularly difficult. She has been able to endure the loss of many other things, but this absence in her life is seemingly impossible to recover from.
Ogun
The speaker begins by introducing his uncle, a woodworker who was diligent in creating household staples. Braithwaite begins “Ogun” by stating, “My uncle made chairs, tables, balanced doors on, dug out/ coffins, smoothing the white wood out,” in line 1. Throughout the next few lines, he describes the working of his uncle. He uses onomatopoeia to mimic the sounds of carpentry. Braithwaite states, “He was knock-knee’d, flat-/footed and his clip clop sandals slapped across the concrete,” in lines 7-8. The reader grasps the noise that they might hear had they been in the room with the speaker’s uncle through phrases like “knock-knee’d” and “clip clop.” This helps to accentuate the imagery of the scene that the speaker is describing.
At first, the tone of the poem is nostalgic and reverential. The speaker seems to be thinking back on his uncle in a very positive light. There is an overtone of admiration and praise in the speaker’s memory of his uncle. He believes in the natural talent and his ability to create these objects without machinery. This is the cause of the turn in the poem, which begins in the last section, starting on line 21. The conjunction “but” signifies the turn in the poem, as it lies between the former tone and the present. At this point, a more negative overtone is introduced in the poem. In lines 23-26, the speaker says “spine-curving chairs made up on tubes, with hollow/ steel-like bird bones that sat on rubber ploughs,/ thin beds, stretched not on boards, but blue high-tensioned cables, were what the world preferred.” Here, the speaker discusses the turn in worldly events. After the Industrial Revolution, carpenters like the speaker’s uncle were no longer needed because of the invention of machinery. The phrase “spine-curving,” as stated in line 23 to describe a chair, could instead refer to the feelings of the speaker and his uncle. This shows the pain that the duo felt when this occurred, and the talent the world had abandoned.
At first, the tone of the poem is nostalgic and reverential. The speaker seems to be thinking back on his uncle in a very positive light. There is an overtone of admiration and praise in the speaker’s memory of his uncle. He believes in the natural talent and his ability to create these objects without machinery. This is the cause of the turn in the poem, which begins in the last section, starting on line 21. The conjunction “but” signifies the turn in the poem, as it lies between the former tone and the present. At this point, a more negative overtone is introduced in the poem. In lines 23-26, the speaker says “spine-curving chairs made up on tubes, with hollow/ steel-like bird bones that sat on rubber ploughs,/ thin beds, stretched not on boards, but blue high-tensioned cables, were what the world preferred.” Here, the speaker discusses the turn in worldly events. After the Industrial Revolution, carpenters like the speaker’s uncle were no longer needed because of the invention of machinery. The phrase “spine-curving,” as stated in line 23 to describe a chair, could instead refer to the feelings of the speaker and his uncle. This shows the pain that the duo felt when this occurred, and the talent the world had abandoned.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The Metamorphosis & The Stranger Question Essay
In The Stranger by Albert Camus, is it possible that the nonchalant, uncaring nature of Mersault makes him an existentialist? If this is so, is Gregor Samsa, of Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, an existentialist as well? Samsa and Mersault both exhibit characteristics that imply that they do not feel that there is a purpose in the world that they live in, but do they actually feel this way? Are Samsa and Camus really the existentialists that Kafka and Camus present them as? If they are, what has caused them to develop this view of life and the world in which they live?
Is Mersault’s distant relationship to his mother the reason for his existentialist thoughts and views? If this is the case, then is it possible that Samsa develops his personal views because of his detachment from his immediate family? The reader sees that Samsa does not interact much with his family, but could this really drive him to feel so strongly about the pointlessness of life? Mersault only seems to have a slightly close relationship with Marie, just as Samson confides in his sister, but why is it that neither of these men can find their true meaning through the significant women in their lives? It does not seem so at first, but is it possible that these women share a similar view of the world? Is that why they do not try to convince their men that there is meaning in the world?
Is there truly any explanation as to why these men think as they do? Though it does not seem likely, is it possible they have simply always had this view of society and the world in which they live? Does a person, group of people, or event have a greater impact on an individual’s personality? What is it that molds the views and characteristics of a person in themselves?
Is Mersault’s distant relationship to his mother the reason for his existentialist thoughts and views? If this is the case, then is it possible that Samsa develops his personal views because of his detachment from his immediate family? The reader sees that Samsa does not interact much with his family, but could this really drive him to feel so strongly about the pointlessness of life? Mersault only seems to have a slightly close relationship with Marie, just as Samson confides in his sister, but why is it that neither of these men can find their true meaning through the significant women in their lives? It does not seem so at first, but is it possible that these women share a similar view of the world? Is that why they do not try to convince their men that there is meaning in the world?
Is there truly any explanation as to why these men think as they do? Though it does not seem likely, is it possible they have simply always had this view of society and the world in which they live? Does a person, group of people, or event have a greater impact on an individual’s personality? What is it that molds the views and characteristics of a person in themselves?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Existentialism
I don’t think I’m much of an existentialist. I mean, it’s cool to think about and all, but I just don’t understand how some people can be so… negative. But really, I’m an atheist, and it looks like most existentialist views are similar to those of an atheist…i.e. something coming from nothing, having no purpose, etc. I just feel like people do have a purpose, but they create it themselves. I’m a huge nurture person in the whole “nature vs. nurture” debate. I think your environment shapes you into the person that you are. From that, you develop your purpose. You figure out what you’re good at, and more so, what you enjoy, and you run with it. That’s what a purpose is… something that affects both you and the world in some sort of positive way. Why people feel the need to throw the whole “God” thing in there, I don’t know. I’m not into that. I just don’t get it. I’d rather believe in myself than another being. I’d rather know that I’m doing something because I want to do it – not because something more powerful than me made that my destiny. I don’t like listening to too many people. I just want to “do me,” as they say. Why is that so difficult? I just wonder why other people don’t feel the same way. Do they like the idea of being controlled? I think being told that there is a God who predetermined my destiny is the biggest insult someone could lay on me. Why would I ever want to be told that I don’t control my own actions? I am in charge of my own life, or at least I would like to think that I am. And if I’ll never know, then so be it, but I’m happy thinking what I do now.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
To an Empty Page
Robert Pack’s To an Empty Page is his ode to a lost lover. He speaks to the empty page as if it is his beloved. Pack uses rhetorical questions and the concept of an echo to express the narrator’s uncertainty and his beloved’s supposed answers. Every time the narrator asks the “page” a question, it seems to answer. Because of the reality of the situation, it is unlikely that the page is responding to him. Therefore, the empty page must be a metaphor for the book that is life, and the echoes to the narrator’s questions are the responses of his lover.
In his use of rhetorical questions and echoic responses, Pack shows both the speaker’s and his lover’s points of view. When the narrator says, “And starting, must I master joy or grief?” and the echo is, “grief,” in line two, the reader can see that the speaker’s lost lover wants him to feel pain over his loss. The rest of the echoed responses are negative, supporting the idea that the speaker’s beloved wants him to painfully mourn their lost relationship.
The concept of the narrator speaking to an empty page is unrealistic. Therefore, it must be that the empty page serves as a metaphor for life as a book. The speaker is writing about his grief and misery on an empty page in his book of life. He begins by asking what thoughts he should begin with, as he is empty and grieving. He continues to ask rhetorical questions, and the echoed responses are those he hears in his head in his lover’s voice.
Pack’s usage of rhetorical questions and extended metaphor serve to convey the meaning of his poem. Without these literary devices, having both the speaker’s and his lover’s thoughts in one poem would be impossible. It is because of the extended metaphor and rhetorical questions that the reader understands both the concept of an empty page and echoed responses respectively.
In his use of rhetorical questions and echoic responses, Pack shows both the speaker’s and his lover’s points of view. When the narrator says, “And starting, must I master joy or grief?” and the echo is, “grief,” in line two, the reader can see that the speaker’s lost lover wants him to feel pain over his loss. The rest of the echoed responses are negative, supporting the idea that the speaker’s beloved wants him to painfully mourn their lost relationship.
The concept of the narrator speaking to an empty page is unrealistic. Therefore, it must be that the empty page serves as a metaphor for life as a book. The speaker is writing about his grief and misery on an empty page in his book of life. He begins by asking what thoughts he should begin with, as he is empty and grieving. He continues to ask rhetorical questions, and the echoed responses are those he hears in his head in his lover’s voice.
Pack’s usage of rhetorical questions and extended metaphor serve to convey the meaning of his poem. Without these literary devices, having both the speaker’s and his lover’s thoughts in one poem would be impossible. It is because of the extended metaphor and rhetorical questions that the reader understands both the concept of an empty page and echoed responses respectively.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Sonnet 116
Shakespeare’s usage of the idea of time reflects the reader’s perception of Father Time. Through personification and other literary devices, Shakespeare effectively shows the relationship between love and time. Associated with time is the concept of change. Shakespeare argues throughout the poem that although time changes, love does not. In making this point, Shakespeare is able to portray love as an everlasting principle that does not, as he says in like 3, “alter” even when it seems that change is inevitable.
In calling love “an ever-fixed mark (L5),” Shakespeare parallels love and time. As time passes, love remains. This establishes the concept that love is stronger than time, so it should be taken more heavily. Strength is carried through to the next line as Shakespeare says that love is “never shaken.” Here, Shakespeare says once you are in love, you cannot escape it. Shakespeare’s use of personification portrays this in a very direct manner.
In his allusion to ships measuring their distance from the stars to find land, Shakespeare shows that love is a necessity. He argues that though the worth of love is not always apparent, it is true that one has not found the meaning of life if they have yet to find love. The way that Shakespeare portrays love as an absolute requisite in life is only made so by the literary devices he uses, such as personification and allusion, without which, his point would be dull and seemingly trivial.
In calling love “an ever-fixed mark (L5),” Shakespeare parallels love and time. As time passes, love remains. This establishes the concept that love is stronger than time, so it should be taken more heavily. Strength is carried through to the next line as Shakespeare says that love is “never shaken.” Here, Shakespeare says once you are in love, you cannot escape it. Shakespeare’s use of personification portrays this in a very direct manner.
In his allusion to ships measuring their distance from the stars to find land, Shakespeare shows that love is a necessity. He argues that though the worth of love is not always apparent, it is true that one has not found the meaning of life if they have yet to find love. The way that Shakespeare portrays love as an absolute requisite in life is only made so by the literary devices he uses, such as personification and allusion, without which, his point would be dull and seemingly trivial.
Sonnet 39 Essay
Sir Philip Sidney’s Sonnet 39 continues his series of poems about Astrophel and Stella, a lover and his beloved who does not love him in return. In Sonnet 39, the speaker, who the reader can assume to be Astrophel, speaks to Sleep, in a desperate need for rest. He begins by mentioning the contents of dreams, such as “the poor man’s wealth, the prisoner’s release (L3),” and calling sleep “the indifferent judge between the high and low (L4).” In these descriptions, it is clear that the speaker believes that dreams allow even the most likely events to occur within them. The way that Astrophel wishes to see Stella in his dreams introduces the theme of unrequited love, which is the essence of the poem in its entirety.
In offering Sleep such an enticing proposition, including objects such as “smooth pillows” and the “sweetest bed (L9),” the speaker shows that he is willing to rightfully submit Sleep nearly anything in order to get some rest. When Astrophel says, “a chamber deaf to noise and blind to light (L9),” he of course is speaking about a bedroom that is both dark and quiet, two characteristics that sleep-oriented rooms are generally accustomed to. His acts of submission make him seem quite desperate to see his beloved, which is why he is so willing to give up everything he can possibly offer to Sleep
The inner turmoil that the speaker is experiencing is also quite obvious. In lines 5-7, he says, “With shield of proof, shield me from out the prease/ Of those fierce darts Despair at me doth throw; / O make in me those civil wars to cease.” The “civil wars” that exist within his mind most likely involve his unrequited lover. He wants Sleep to protect him from the “fierce darts” that Despair throws at him. The speaker’s personification of “Despair” insinuates that the conflicts he has undergone because of Stella have resulted in his misery. He feels that his love for Stella is not being returned to him by her, and it is causing him to feel desperate for her attention, which he believes he can only attain in his dreams.
The theme of unrequited love that is reflected throughout this poem is the summation of the conflict that exists within Astrophel, the speaker. Because he is not being loved in return by his beloved, Astrophel becomes miserable and wishes to gain an ounce of sleep, which he has clearly not been able to do because of the chaos that exists within his mind. His dreams seem to be the only break from reality and literal rest from the world. In lines 13-14, the speaker says, “Move not thy heavy grace, thou shalt in me,/ Livelier than elsewhere, Stella’s image see.” This demonstrates that Astrophel lives solely for Stella, and not having her in his life makes it not worth living. The last line of the poem shows that Astrophel is liveliest when he sees Stella, so even in sleep, Astrophel would be happiest by seeing Stella anyway he possibly can, even if it is only in his dreams.
In offering Sleep such an enticing proposition, including objects such as “smooth pillows” and the “sweetest bed (L9),” the speaker shows that he is willing to rightfully submit Sleep nearly anything in order to get some rest. When Astrophel says, “a chamber deaf to noise and blind to light (L9),” he of course is speaking about a bedroom that is both dark and quiet, two characteristics that sleep-oriented rooms are generally accustomed to. His acts of submission make him seem quite desperate to see his beloved, which is why he is so willing to give up everything he can possibly offer to Sleep
The inner turmoil that the speaker is experiencing is also quite obvious. In lines 5-7, he says, “With shield of proof, shield me from out the prease/ Of those fierce darts Despair at me doth throw; / O make in me those civil wars to cease.” The “civil wars” that exist within his mind most likely involve his unrequited lover. He wants Sleep to protect him from the “fierce darts” that Despair throws at him. The speaker’s personification of “Despair” insinuates that the conflicts he has undergone because of Stella have resulted in his misery. He feels that his love for Stella is not being returned to him by her, and it is causing him to feel desperate for her attention, which he believes he can only attain in his dreams.
The theme of unrequited love that is reflected throughout this poem is the summation of the conflict that exists within Astrophel, the speaker. Because he is not being loved in return by his beloved, Astrophel becomes miserable and wishes to gain an ounce of sleep, which he has clearly not been able to do because of the chaos that exists within his mind. His dreams seem to be the only break from reality and literal rest from the world. In lines 13-14, the speaker says, “Move not thy heavy grace, thou shalt in me,/ Livelier than elsewhere, Stella’s image see.” This demonstrates that Astrophel lives solely for Stella, and not having her in his life makes it not worth living. The last line of the poem shows that Astrophel is liveliest when he sees Stella, so even in sleep, Astrophel would be happiest by seeing Stella anyway he possibly can, even if it is only in his dreams.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Revised Essay - Beloved
Beloved, a novel about an African American slave who murders her own daughter to keep her from the horrors of slavery, examines the idea of a character emerging from the projected African American mold. In 19th century America, black women hardly had a place in society other than slavery. They were expected to care for their children in a way that would allow them to grow up to be another generation of slaves. The cycle would continue over time, and African American women would be expected to continue their social roles. However, as the main character, Sethe, demonstrates, some women refused to conform. Sethe wished to break the cycle of slavery in her family, so she kills her daughter to prevent her from suffering the way Sethe did. In removing herself from the umbrella of characteristics that African American women were supposed to fulfill during that time period, Sethe shows herself as an independent woman in society, who, although guilty of her actions, is proactive in being a changing force in the world.
Sethe possesses two separate roles that she must constantly fulfill the expectations of. Her slave masters expect her to be a viable servant. As a mother, she must also provide and do well for her family. Because of her two opposing roles, Sethe has trouble fulfilling the expectations of both of them at the same time. Being a good slave, for her, also means not carrying out her duties as a mother to the best of her abilities. The fact that Sethe must succeed as a slave in order to keep her and her family alive results in a major conflict. While Sethe wants to be the best mother she can be, it is virtually impossible for her to fulfill her duties as a slave while taking care of her family. Sethe believes that in being a good mother, she must save her children from a life of slavery. As a result, Sethe slits her own daughter’s throat, killing her, in order to keep her from another generation of slavery on the Sweet Home plantation.
The guilt that Sethe feels for killing her daughter is reflected by the appearance of Beloved in the novel. Beloved, a young girl who would be the same age of Sethe’s daughter if she had lived, whose breath smells like milk, also possesses the same name that was written on Sethe’s daughter’s tombstone. Sethe sees Beloved as the reincarnation of her dead daughter, and her existence reminds Sethe of the guilt and uncertainty that she feels regarding the act she committed. She struggles with the idea of whether or not her act of “love,” as she originally saw it, could really be classified as a murder. The way Sethe views Beloved is the manner in which Sethe may have seen her daughter if she had lived. The effect that the killing has on Sethe’s character makes her a completely different person. The changes that Sethe undergoes after her daughter’s death result in guilt that pervades throughout the rest of the novel.
Beloved displays a major role conflict existing in a woman accurate to the trials and tribulations of the time period in which she lived. The novel serves to express the meaning of motherly love as compared to the loyalty of one’s occupation. It also shows the strains that one sociologically viewed master status can put on another. For example, an outside may view Sethe’s master status in society to be that of a slave. Sethe, however, sees her own master status as being a mother. In order to fulfill her duties as a mother, she felt that she must kill her daughter in order to protect her. This prevented her from being an adequate servant as she forced her masters to lose a generation of potential slaves.
The way in which Sethe breaks out of the mold that is common to African American women of her time speaks volumes for her character. Although she seems to have committed a senseless act of murder against her daughter, it is obvious that she does so out of desperation, and ultimately, love. Beloved shows that the bond between a mother and daughter is strengthened by hardship and is not eradicated after death or disaster, regardless of who is at fault. Beloved treats Sethe with respect, just as her daughter would, showing Sethe that although she feels guilt for taking her daughter’s life, her daughter knows that she did so out of love. This bond between mother and daughter is key to understanding the novel, and ultimately serves as the underlying thread of the force that allowed Sethe to break from the typical mold of an African American slave during the 19th century.
Sethe possesses two separate roles that she must constantly fulfill the expectations of. Her slave masters expect her to be a viable servant. As a mother, she must also provide and do well for her family. Because of her two opposing roles, Sethe has trouble fulfilling the expectations of both of them at the same time. Being a good slave, for her, also means not carrying out her duties as a mother to the best of her abilities. The fact that Sethe must succeed as a slave in order to keep her and her family alive results in a major conflict. While Sethe wants to be the best mother she can be, it is virtually impossible for her to fulfill her duties as a slave while taking care of her family. Sethe believes that in being a good mother, she must save her children from a life of slavery. As a result, Sethe slits her own daughter’s throat, killing her, in order to keep her from another generation of slavery on the Sweet Home plantation.
The guilt that Sethe feels for killing her daughter is reflected by the appearance of Beloved in the novel. Beloved, a young girl who would be the same age of Sethe’s daughter if she had lived, whose breath smells like milk, also possesses the same name that was written on Sethe’s daughter’s tombstone. Sethe sees Beloved as the reincarnation of her dead daughter, and her existence reminds Sethe of the guilt and uncertainty that she feels regarding the act she committed. She struggles with the idea of whether or not her act of “love,” as she originally saw it, could really be classified as a murder. The way Sethe views Beloved is the manner in which Sethe may have seen her daughter if she had lived. The effect that the killing has on Sethe’s character makes her a completely different person. The changes that Sethe undergoes after her daughter’s death result in guilt that pervades throughout the rest of the novel.
Beloved displays a major role conflict existing in a woman accurate to the trials and tribulations of the time period in which she lived. The novel serves to express the meaning of motherly love as compared to the loyalty of one’s occupation. It also shows the strains that one sociologically viewed master status can put on another. For example, an outside may view Sethe’s master status in society to be that of a slave. Sethe, however, sees her own master status as being a mother. In order to fulfill her duties as a mother, she felt that she must kill her daughter in order to protect her. This prevented her from being an adequate servant as she forced her masters to lose a generation of potential slaves.
The way in which Sethe breaks out of the mold that is common to African American women of her time speaks volumes for her character. Although she seems to have committed a senseless act of murder against her daughter, it is obvious that she does so out of desperation, and ultimately, love. Beloved shows that the bond between a mother and daughter is strengthened by hardship and is not eradicated after death or disaster, regardless of who is at fault. Beloved treats Sethe with respect, just as her daughter would, showing Sethe that although she feels guilt for taking her daughter’s life, her daughter knows that she did so out of love. This bond between mother and daughter is key to understanding the novel, and ultimately serves as the underlying thread of the force that allowed Sethe to break from the typical mold of an African American slave during the 19th century.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Hamlet Essay
The gravedigger scene in Hamlet reflects many themes that are explored throughout the entire play. The discussion that the gravediggers have as they prepare Ophelia’s grave offers a sense of nostalgia for the reader, as they gravediggers speak of concepts that have been previously introduced, such as the place of religion in society and the true meaning of life. The purpose of Shakespeare including this scene with the gravediggers is not solely for comedy, as many may first assume. He has the gravediggers speak of Ophelia and the way she died in order to display her in a different light, showing various reasons as to why she may have killed herself in the first place, and why her suicide may not be as much of a sin as Christianity makes it seem. Ophelia’s suicide may be a result of insanity, revenge, and the idea of existentialism, three major themes of Hamlet that affected Ophelia in her own life. For this reason, Shakespeare may have had the clowns speak of Ophelia in this manner to explain more about the purpose of the play.
When the gravediggers make comments about Ophelia in her death, their contrasting ideas represent those of Hamlet. Hamlet admits his confusion regarding suicide in the misery that results from losing his father. He explains that he is unsure of the real meaning of life, and he feels that life, in itself, is not worth living. It can be said that Hamlet considers suicide because he is in an unhealthy state of mind because of his father’s death, but it is possible that through his sadness, Hamlet sees what he believes to be the truth - that there is no meaning to life. This may be the same view that Ophelia has of life before she drowns herself, which may also stem from her misery.
In scene five, act 1, one of the clowns says, “he/ that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own life.” This proposes the idea that Ophelia was not guilty of her own suicide. The clown does not blame Ophelia for taking her own life because she may have felt violated, so she committed suicide out of self-defense. The line, “How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her own defence?” proves this idea. It can be argued that Ophelia was mentally tortured before her death. She was in love with a man who gave her no attention, and her father, seemingly the only man to look out for her best interests, was killed. This may have resulted in Ophelia experiencing symptoms of madness prior to her suicide, which would mean that Ophelia cannot be blamed for her death, just as Hamlet cannot be blamed by the others for being driven “mad” by his father’s death.
When Hamlet and Horatio arrive, Hamlet, again, seems to be acting madly as he plays with the skulls in the graveyard. The first few skulls he throws around he describes in similar manners of how he speaks of certain characters in the play. He describes the first skull as a relative of Cain, the world’s first murderer according to the Christian Bible. In Act 5, scene 1, Hamlet says,
“That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once:/ how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were/Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! It/might be the pate of a politician, which this ass/now o'er-reaches; one that would circumvent God,/might it not?” Alluding to Cain as a murderer and calling the skull of “politician” refers to Claudius, a murderer who killed his own brother in order to gain power. The second skull Hamlet picks up is that of a courtier’s, as Hamlet says, and as he speaks of how the courtier is unconditionally loyal to the king, it seems that he is speaking of Polonius. The third skull represents Gertrude as Hamlet describes the skull by saying, “chapless, and/ knocked about the mazzard with a sexton's spade.”
Finally, the “lawyer” that is the last skull, can be viewed as the summation of the meaning of all of their lives. He describes the lawyer as a greedy man who works all of his life to become wealthy, but in the end, all he can keep is the coffin that he lies in after death. Again, Hamlet expresses the view that there is no meaning to any of their lives, so all that they have achieved, by love, skill, and murder, is worthless.
Though Christian references can be found in Hamlet, the play explores a very anti-Christian idea – existentialism. Shakespeare shapes Hamlet in a way that allows him to view the world I ways that are not common to people of his time and social stature. In Hamlet, the only reason to live is the idea of revenge for many of the characters. This motivation eventually leads to insanity for these characters. Ophelia truly does go insane on her own accord, Hamlet and Laertes go mad in carrying out their deeds of revenge, and King Claudius drives himself crazy in his quest for power. The conversations that emerge between the clowns during their gravedigging sequence reflects each of these ideas thoroughly as they discuss the meaning of life and the reasons in which someone may want to end their life in a way that reflects the purpose of the rest of the play.
When the gravediggers make comments about Ophelia in her death, their contrasting ideas represent those of Hamlet. Hamlet admits his confusion regarding suicide in the misery that results from losing his father. He explains that he is unsure of the real meaning of life, and he feels that life, in itself, is not worth living. It can be said that Hamlet considers suicide because he is in an unhealthy state of mind because of his father’s death, but it is possible that through his sadness, Hamlet sees what he believes to be the truth - that there is no meaning to life. This may be the same view that Ophelia has of life before she drowns herself, which may also stem from her misery.
In scene five, act 1, one of the clowns says, “he/ that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own life.” This proposes the idea that Ophelia was not guilty of her own suicide. The clown does not blame Ophelia for taking her own life because she may have felt violated, so she committed suicide out of self-defense. The line, “How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her own defence?” proves this idea. It can be argued that Ophelia was mentally tortured before her death. She was in love with a man who gave her no attention, and her father, seemingly the only man to look out for her best interests, was killed. This may have resulted in Ophelia experiencing symptoms of madness prior to her suicide, which would mean that Ophelia cannot be blamed for her death, just as Hamlet cannot be blamed by the others for being driven “mad” by his father’s death.
When Hamlet and Horatio arrive, Hamlet, again, seems to be acting madly as he plays with the skulls in the graveyard. The first few skulls he throws around he describes in similar manners of how he speaks of certain characters in the play. He describes the first skull as a relative of Cain, the world’s first murderer according to the Christian Bible. In Act 5, scene 1, Hamlet says,
“That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once:/ how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were/Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! It/might be the pate of a politician, which this ass/now o'er-reaches; one that would circumvent God,/might it not?” Alluding to Cain as a murderer and calling the skull of “politician” refers to Claudius, a murderer who killed his own brother in order to gain power. The second skull Hamlet picks up is that of a courtier’s, as Hamlet says, and as he speaks of how the courtier is unconditionally loyal to the king, it seems that he is speaking of Polonius. The third skull represents Gertrude as Hamlet describes the skull by saying, “chapless, and/ knocked about the mazzard with a sexton's spade.”
Finally, the “lawyer” that is the last skull, can be viewed as the summation of the meaning of all of their lives. He describes the lawyer as a greedy man who works all of his life to become wealthy, but in the end, all he can keep is the coffin that he lies in after death. Again, Hamlet expresses the view that there is no meaning to any of their lives, so all that they have achieved, by love, skill, and murder, is worthless.
Though Christian references can be found in Hamlet, the play explores a very anti-Christian idea – existentialism. Shakespeare shapes Hamlet in a way that allows him to view the world I ways that are not common to people of his time and social stature. In Hamlet, the only reason to live is the idea of revenge for many of the characters. This motivation eventually leads to insanity for these characters. Ophelia truly does go insane on her own accord, Hamlet and Laertes go mad in carrying out their deeds of revenge, and King Claudius drives himself crazy in his quest for power. The conversations that emerge between the clowns during their gravedigging sequence reflects each of these ideas thoroughly as they discuss the meaning of life and the reasons in which someone may want to end their life in a way that reflects the purpose of the rest of the play.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Grendel
In Grendel, the ideas that reflect what many assume to be “known” in the world, whether by religion or tradition, are challenged. The notions of fate and free will are thought of in terms of the purpose of living by Grendel. A monster-like creature who seems to spend the majority of his time reveling in his human-eating glory, often reflects on his own purpose in the world. He wonders whether someone has a plan for him or if he is in control of his own life. Grendel continues to question his existence at the end of the novel. This most likely occurs because the answer to his question is not definite; it can only be explored and debated, as Grendel does in his own mind. His real struggle, however, lies in trying to find the truth in good and evil. Grendel kills, but he claims to have a decent reason. He ruthlessly murders the humans of Herot because he is trying to bring light to the idea that there is no purpose in the world – only being alive. In this sense, Grendel tries to be the Prometheus of Herot, ultimately making him the protagonist and the idea of God the antagonist in the story.
Grendel sees God as his enemy because he finds that the people are blind sighted by their belief in him. God is the one who prevents Grendel from bringing his light to Herot, showing people the truth of the world. The idea that God has a plan for each and every one of his creations is absurd to Grendel. Though all of Herot sees Grendel as evil, Grendel himself does not. He believes that no one has a predetermined plan for him and professes that he has created a plan for himself – teaching the humans that they have no purpose. Grendel does not see himself as evil because in his mind, there is no evil. The idea of “evil” is relative to each person. What the Geats and the Danes find evil, Grendel does not. In fact, his opinion of what is evil is the exact opposite of theirs. The Geats and the Danes see Grendel as evil and God as the ultimate good. Grendel sees God as his enemy, and the Geats and the Danes are his pointless servants.
In the end, Grendel continues to question his purpose in the world. However, the reader can say that part of his self-proclaimed purpose has been found and met. Grendel acts upon his own free will to try to teach the Hrothgar and his kingdom what he already believes to be fact. Rather than shying away from his efforts when he knows Hrothgar wants him dead, Grendel returns to the castle to continue to mercilessly murder the people of the meadhall in order to prove his point. His perseverance is depicted by the relentlessness of his attacks. Even in death, Grendel proves that he has been the decider of his fate. If he had not gone to the meadhall to confront Grendel, he would not have died. Therefore, it can be said that Grendel, as the protagonist, wins.
Grendel sees God as his enemy because he finds that the people are blind sighted by their belief in him. God is the one who prevents Grendel from bringing his light to Herot, showing people the truth of the world. The idea that God has a plan for each and every one of his creations is absurd to Grendel. Though all of Herot sees Grendel as evil, Grendel himself does not. He believes that no one has a predetermined plan for him and professes that he has created a plan for himself – teaching the humans that they have no purpose. Grendel does not see himself as evil because in his mind, there is no evil. The idea of “evil” is relative to each person. What the Geats and the Danes find evil, Grendel does not. In fact, his opinion of what is evil is the exact opposite of theirs. The Geats and the Danes see Grendel as evil and God as the ultimate good. Grendel sees God as his enemy, and the Geats and the Danes are his pointless servants.
In the end, Grendel continues to question his purpose in the world. However, the reader can say that part of his self-proclaimed purpose has been found and met. Grendel acts upon his own free will to try to teach the Hrothgar and his kingdom what he already believes to be fact. Rather than shying away from his efforts when he knows Hrothgar wants him dead, Grendel returns to the castle to continue to mercilessly murder the people of the meadhall in order to prove his point. His perseverance is depicted by the relentlessness of his attacks. Even in death, Grendel proves that he has been the decider of his fate. If he had not gone to the meadhall to confront Grendel, he would not have died. Therefore, it can be said that Grendel, as the protagonist, wins.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
The Problem of Evil
With Christianity as the core explanation of how the world was both originally created and exists today, evil should not exist. If God is “love” as the Bible says, why is it that such an influx of hate and immorality exists? Christians and the Bible claim that God created the Universe, from start to finish, in the book of Genesis. The Devil is often blamed for tempting sinners, but if God created the universe, He must have created the Devil as well. Even if God did create the Devil, He is supposedly the most powerful being in the world. So why is it that the Devil is able to tempt humans, but God cannot dissuade them from surrendering themselves to these temptations?
There are multiple supposed explanations for this, but none of them display God in a flawless, amorous manner, the way that Christians and the Bible do. It is not likely that God would have created the Devil to be just as powerful as He. The Bible claims that nothing in the world existed before God, so it cannot be possible that the Devil simply existed next to God. God must have created the Devil. Therefore, God created evil. This portrays God as partially malevolent. Therefore, He is imperfect. With this notion, God must have created both Beowulf and Grendel. Beowulf, a God-like warrior, kills to defend his people. Evil can be seen in this as well, depending on the perspective it is viewed from. Grendel is considered evil for barbarically killing the Danes, but Beowulf is seen as evil to Grendel’s mother after the defeat of the so-called monster. There is evil in both Beowulf and Grendel – both of them being God’s creations.
A flawed God is not what comes to mind when most Christians think of who they believe to be their creator. Of course, this was most likely not the intended idea. Could it be that God is not flawed, but instead, Christianity in general? Ideas conveyed with little to no explanation make this likely. The Christian religion often alters concepts they believe to be true when proven wrong by science or other outside forces. Of course, they are usually philosophies created in earlier times, used to explain some unknown phenomena in the world. But the idea that God is somewhat evil does not only change the religion, it drastically ruptures the image of the God that Christians are devoted to. Could it be possible that the Christians have been wrong about their God all along? Or does he not exist at all? There may be other explanations, but as always, they are derived from matters of both faith and opinion.
There are multiple supposed explanations for this, but none of them display God in a flawless, amorous manner, the way that Christians and the Bible do. It is not likely that God would have created the Devil to be just as powerful as He. The Bible claims that nothing in the world existed before God, so it cannot be possible that the Devil simply existed next to God. God must have created the Devil. Therefore, God created evil. This portrays God as partially malevolent. Therefore, He is imperfect. With this notion, God must have created both Beowulf and Grendel. Beowulf, a God-like warrior, kills to defend his people. Evil can be seen in this as well, depending on the perspective it is viewed from. Grendel is considered evil for barbarically killing the Danes, but Beowulf is seen as evil to Grendel’s mother after the defeat of the so-called monster. There is evil in both Beowulf and Grendel – both of them being God’s creations.
A flawed God is not what comes to mind when most Christians think of who they believe to be their creator. Of course, this was most likely not the intended idea. Could it be that God is not flawed, but instead, Christianity in general? Ideas conveyed with little to no explanation make this likely. The Christian religion often alters concepts they believe to be true when proven wrong by science or other outside forces. Of course, they are usually philosophies created in earlier times, used to explain some unknown phenomena in the world. But the idea that God is somewhat evil does not only change the religion, it drastically ruptures the image of the God that Christians are devoted to. Could it be possible that the Christians have been wrong about their God all along? Or does he not exist at all? There may be other explanations, but as always, they are derived from matters of both faith and opinion.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Imperial Adam
In Imperial Adam, A.D. Hope portrays a woman as a seductive creature when he writes, “She promised the turf of Paradise/ Delicious pulp of the forbidden fruit; / Sly as the snake she loosed her sinuous thighs (L22-23).” By this description, Hope seems to be saying that the woman has been placed upon the Earth by God to seduce the man; she is his temptress. In this case, the man exists to be tempted into committing what seems to be a sin, but is actually surrendering himself to an act that serves as the window to procreation. This can also be seen as the woman being portrayed as an evil being, similarly to the devil. The devil, in both the Bible and modern literature, is known to tempt his subjects into selling their souls to him. Similarly, in this passage, the woman is trying to seduce Adam, causing him to long for the “delicious pulp of the forbidden fruit” that is her body. Like the devil, the woman is sly and knows the object of her game of arousing the man. She is aware that he yearns for the lusciousness of her body and encourages him to fulfill his desires by the relentlessness of her seduction.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Invisible Man Essay
The primary conclusion that the Invisible Man comes to by the end of the novel is that the majority of groups in society do not genuinely want the best for one another. One group spends much of their time trying to convince the other that they are on the same side, when in reality, this is not so. Because of the racial, economic, and other social differences between societal groups, they find that they cannot be honest with one another because their ideas may not be “politically correct.” Therefore, the whites in New York try to convince the blacks that they are working toward the common good of the entire community, when in reality, they are only trying to better themselves.
The Invisible Man also sees the truth in his grandfather’s words that repeatedly resonate in his head. He begins to understand that his grandfather was correct – the blacks serve the whites and “yes them to death,” and as a man who went against the grain in the riots toward the end of the novel, the Invisible Man can be seen as a “traitor” just like his grandfather. The narrator also realizes that the whites do the same to the blacks. In the Brotherhood, the white members constantly told their black “brothers” that they were on their side. They claimed to want equality in society through nonviolence. Though we find out that they were actually trying to produce riots amongst the black members of society, they spent the majority of their time telling the black men that they were working for the common good. This idea could be seen as the white man’s “yes” to the black man.
With all of his experiences throughout the North and South, the Invisible Man has every right to see society the way that he does. He was constantly lied to by Dr. Bledsoe in the South and Brother Jack in the North. It is no wonder that he would feel betrayed by not only the blacks of power, but also the whites who claimed to be on his side. The truth of the matter is that the Invisible Man originally wanted to be a strong black man of power in society who earnestly did want equality for all societal groups. Formerly believing that the rest of his professors and “brothers” wanted the same, his disappointment thoroughly justifies his views of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)