Prompt Revision: Prompt #2

2009. A symbol is an object, action, or event that represents something or that creates a range of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning, or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

                In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a conch shell is used to symbolize order and civilization throughout the novel. This is done through the uses of the object and changes reflected upon it. Golding also uses the deterioration of the conch to emphasize the absence of society and the effects that it has on the boys.

                At the beginning of the novel, the sound of the conch is used to assemble the boys who are stranded on the island. Once together, it is also used to signify who may speak—whoever holds the shell may talk and all others must remain silent. By having the boys use the conch in these ways it comes to represent order by keeping them together and under control. It also indicates the ideas of civilization through the organization of power and control over the group of boys. Without the shell the boys would not have been able to come together and they would not have been able to hold a mature meeting in which they were able to discuss their options and ideas—a necessity in any orderly civilization.

                As the novel continues, the boys begin to lose their sense of order with which they began.  As this occurs, the conch shell begins to fade in color. For example, as Jack and his followers become more ruthless in their hunting and start to rebel against Ralph’s leadership, the once deep pink of the shell turns to a pale cream. As the story progresses, the conch continues to become meekly colored by a cloudy transparency. Finally when Piggy (the only character to truly maintain all of the ideals of civilization throughout the novel) is killed, the conch shell shatters completely. This is representative of the complete deterioration of all order that the boys began with.

            William Golding also uses the decomposition of the conch shell to show the meaning of the novel, which is that without the rules of society, people would be consumed with self-interest and be evil in nature. The symbolization affiliated with the conch shell signifies the process of this occurring with the youth in the story. Because children have not been exposed to civilization for as long as adults, they are able to lose their grasp on the importance of it. As this occurs, they also become more self-indulgent and vicious—without true purpose. Since the order that the boys once knew fades along with the color of the conch, Golding’s overall meaning in the novel is emphasized.

                The conch shell in Lord of the Flies not only symbolizes order and civilization as it begins to deteriorate throughout the novel, but also contributes to the overall meaning of the work that Golding was portraying. The corresponding of the loss of all remnants of the ideals of society and the fading conch emphasizes the effects on the boys and the savagery consumes them. This ultimately reflects that without the rules and constraints of civilization, humans would be selfish and evil.

Summary & Analysis: Ceremony

Author: This novel was written by Leslie Marmon Silko, who was of a mixture of Mexican, white, and Laguna Pueblo ancestry. She was born in 1948 and lived in New Mexico. She attended Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools, and then the University of New Mexico. This was written in the 1970s.

Setting: This novel is set to be shortly after World War II, however flashbacks range since the main character’s adolescence in the 1920s. The main location of it is in a Laguna reservation near route 66, although there are flashbacks to the Philippines and other places that Tayo has been.

Plot: The main character, Tayo, is suffering from what we would call post-traumatic stress disorder. He has returned from fighting in WWII and his cousin Rocky died there. He is looking for a way to cure himself of his PTSD—a ceremony. They are also in the midst of a draught where Tayo lives (which he believes to be his fault because he prayed for rain to stop when he was at war), so the ranch has suffered. Tayo’s uncle Josiah died while he was at war and he had a delusion, seeing Josiah as one of the Japanese soldiers who was killed. When Tayo returned to the United States he stayed at the veteran’s hospital until he was well enough to return home. Even then, he was under the care of his Auntie, Robert, and Grandma.

Tayo’s friend Harley and Pinkie, Leroy, and Emo all fought in the war and returned to the reservation. They all suffer some sort of stresses and they let it out through booze. While out, they relive the “glory days” and reminisce in the respect that they got while wearing their uniforms and Tayo realizes how much discrimination there is. Tayo wasn’t getting better and considered returning to the veteran’s hospital, but his grandmother called in a medicine man to help him. He performs a ceremony but the ancient remedies are not suited for his issue. It helps a little, but doesn’t make a huge impact. Tayo starts to think about his past. He remembers how close him and Rocky were the summer before they went off to the war and how Rocky called them brothers. That same summer, Josiah had a scandalous relationship with Night Swan, who was a Mexican woman. She gave him the idea to purchase Mexican cattle as well so Tayo helped him get them and watch them. There was a draught that summer so Tayo goes to a spring to do a rain ceremony and the next day it rains. Because of this, Josiah can’t make it to go see Night Swan so he asks Tayo to deliver a note for him. She seduces Tayo.

                After the medicine man sees that the ceremony hasn’t succeeded he sends Tayo to a city called Gallup where Tayo lived with his mom. He sees Betonie because he supposedly knows more about mixing cultures. Betonie says they will need to invent a new ceremony and tells him about his grandfather Descheeny and the ceremony to end the white witchery. After Betonie is done, he reminds Tayo that the ceremony is not fully complete. On his way home, Tayo is picked up by Harley, Leroy, and Helen Jean on their way to a bar. He stays for a while but then leaves and follows the signs Betonie told him about. He ends up at Ts’eh’s house where he stays the night with her and then leaves for the mountains. He finds Josiah’s cattle in a white man’s fence so he breaks into it but the cattle run away so he searches for them all night. In the morning, a mountain lion approaches him and leads him to the cattle but patrolmen catch him for trespassing but let him go so he can get the mountain lion. At this, it begins to snow so Tayo can’t find any tracks so he goes back to Ts’eh’s house and she has the cattle.

                Tayo returns home with the cattle and feels better but the draught still hasn’t ended. Robert warns Tayo that Emo has been spreading rumors about him. Emo and the police come for Tayo and Ts’eh tells him how to avoid capture. On his way, Harley and Leroy pick him up but they end up working with Emo so he runs away to an abandoned mine. He realizes that he just needs to spend the night there and the ceremony will be complete. Emo and Pinkie arrive and Tayo has to watch them torture Harley. Tayo returns home after the ceremony is complete and tells the medicine man. The draught ends and the white destruction stops. He spends one night at the medicine man’s house and the ceremony is completed.

Characters: Tayo: The main character. He is only half Laguna because his mother was loose with men before she died. He maintains belief in the traditional culture despite going off to fight in the war. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Rocky: Tayo’s cousin. They were very close and fought in WWII together, but he died there. He did not believe in the traditional culture as much as Tayo.

Auntie: Tayo’s aunt and Rocky’s mother. She is the sister of Tayo’s mother. She tends to favor conforming into the white society and cares a lot about image and reputation. Married to Robert.

Josiah: Tayo’s uncle (the brother of his mother). He was a father figure for Tayo. He taught Tayo about the traditions.

Betonie: The medicine man that helps Tayo make and perform his ceremony. He is looked down upon by many because he strays from tradition to blend with the times.

Harley: Tayo’s best friend who also fought in the war with him. He is an alcoholic.

Grandma: Tayo’s grandmother who intervenes at key moments and is a wise figure.

Ku’oosh: The medicine man that takes Tayo to Betonie.

Emo: Tayo’s acquaintance since childhood who also fought in the war. He is very critical of his mixed background. Antagonist of the novel.

The Woman: Ts’eh. She is a sacred character that helps Tayo complete the ceremony at three points of time.

Voice: This novel is written as a third person narrative but it is the voice of someone who sees the thoughts of grandmother Spiderwoman. It is a relatively uninvolved narrator, but since it comes from the memory of Spiderwoman, it may not be completely reliable. The tone is uninvolved. There is a lot of symbolism involving animals and important figures in Laguna traditional belief. The author also described in great detail and provided intense imagery.

Quotes: “It seems like I already heard these stories before… only thing is, the names sound different.” (Grandma, 260) This quote is significant because it shows the cyclical nature of Tayo’s ceremony. The fact that Grandma has heard the story before, means that she has either heard a legend pertaining to it (such as the poems in the novel), or she has heard of another similar situation. Since she has heard of it before, and it has happened again, it implies that it will occur again and again—it is a repeating cycle.

“Sunrise.” (4) and “Sunrise, / accept this offering, / Sunrise.” (262). The repetition of “sunrise” after the ceremony has taken place, emphasizes the cyclical nature of the novel, and life itself. This reaffirms the idea that the ceremony is a repeated pattern throughout history that is only slightly carried with time.

Theme: The theme of this novel is that everything is cyclical and the importance of finding a balance of culture. This is affirmed by Betonie’s ceremony working on Tayo because it is a new ceremony that combines old ceremonies with new tradition and ideas. By blending cultures to cure the world of white destruction, the author shows that a cooperative mixture of the two cultures is necessary to have good again in the world.

Response to Course Materials #9

                Over the past few weeks we have finished Ceremony, started reading Fifth Business, and talked about Jung’s criticism. In all honesty, I am still pretty confused by Ceremony. Not only was I thrown off by the flashbacks, but I still can’t fully grasp Silko’s intentions of the work. I can’t tell if she believed in taking in a mixture of traditional Laguna and American culture, or if everything associated with white people is “witchery”. Also, I found that aspect of the story to be a bit offensive because personally, I don’t think that I am a spawn of witchery (or at least I hope not). The annotations for this novel were a lot more difficult than those of the plays for me. Not only did they take a lot longer, but I found it harder to find things to analyze having less dialogue. I guess improving on reading into the novel style of literature will end up being helpful on the AP test because what we will be asked questions on probably won’t be straight dialogue.

                I really enjoyed the lecture on Jung’s criticism. I’ve never taken a psych class, but I found these ideas to be very interesting. I haven’t really noticed them while actually reading Fifth Business though, but I haven’t gotten very far so that is probably why. This novel is really interesting, but so far I don’t really understand the author’s purpose in writing it, assuming it wasn’t just for entertainment.  The format is different than most of the books that I have read in the past and I’m not really sure why. It’s written as a first person narrative and the whole thing is supposed to be for his boss to redeem himself after what was written about him in the school paper. One thing that I like is that the situation and the narrative voice tell a lot about who the character is. You get a good feel for his character by his actions alone, but by having him as the narrator as well, expressing thoughts and viewpoints, adds a lot to it. I think we are probably reading this book because it is so different from the other pieces we have read this year. It’s good that we’re being exposed to more kinds of literature because it will help us when we try to interpret passages on the AP test and in future courses.

Prompt Revision: Prompt #1

1982. In great literature, no scene of violence exists for its own sake. Choose a work of literary merit that confronts the reader or audience with a scene or scenes of violence. In a well-organized essay, explain how the scene or scenes contribute to the meaning of the complete work. Avoid plot summary.

                In the novel, Lord of the Flies, William Golding includes various scenes of violence to prove his idea that humans are evil and savage in nature. He does this by adding in scenes with excessive amounts of brutality as the plot progresses, thus showing the reader how the distance from civilization has turned the boys into savages. Being that the characters are still young, they are able to revert back to their natural instincts, according to Golding.

                An example of this is seen is when Jack decides to take some of the boys hunting. The thrill of the hunt causes them to acquire a thirst for blood and they become more violent and ruthless with their killing. As the story progresses the boys grow obsessed with hunting and begin to use brutal tactics and kill baby pigs for the sport of it. These extreme levels of violence in their hunt show the reader that the boys are losing their grip of right and wrong and are becoming savage in the lack of civilization.

               Golding’s use of violence continues when the all of the boys go to a feast at Jack’s part of the island. While there, the boys talk about the “beast” and how they plan to kill it. The excitement grows as they discuss how they will triumph over the beast, causing them to lose their sense of reason. By the time Simon walks in from the forest the boys completely lose control and violently attack him, calling him the “beast”. Nearly all the boys participate and ultimately kill Simon before taking notice of his identity. This scene of violence contributes to the idea that their separation from society has caused the boys to become primitive and savage.

                Another example of Golding’s strategic use of violence is during the climax of the story when Roger drops a boulder that hits Piggy and sends him airborne, and results in his head being crushed by the impact. This is the final and most powerful scene of violence used by Golding and its dramatic imagery gives the reader a sense of horror. The ferocity in this scene is used to emphasize how truly savage the boys have become since their initial arrival on the island. In addition to this, Golding’s targeting of Piggy creates a greater contrast—the one who maintained the ideas of society throughout the novel is being killed in the most savage way. This makes the brutality seem even more extreme, thus reiterating how horrible the boys have become in the absence of civilization.

                Golding uses these various scenes of violence to portray the overall theme and meaning of the novel, that without the rules of society, people would be evil in nature. The brutal acts represent the change in morality within the boys. The more horrific the action, the further they have grown from civilization and the more savage they have become. Since the violence becomes more extreme as the novel progresses, it reiterates the idea that detachment from society returns humans to their more primal state.

Summary and Analysis: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Author: This was play was written by Tom Stoppard. He was born on July 3^rd, 1937 in Zlin Czechoslovakia to a family that was forced to flee multiple homes in multiple countries during World War II. After his father’s death, his mother married a major in the British army and they all moved to England, whose culture Stoppard accepted as his own.

Setting: The play, although set in the “same” places as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, has a very basic setting. At the beginning of the first scene, the only setting description is “Two Elizabethans passing the time in a place without any visible character.” The setting in this play is very symbolic—it has no character because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are described without character in Hamlet. The lack of description in itself represents how little depth went into the characters in their original form. Also, changes in setting are sudden and without transition. Stoppard only shows where the action happens and the characters seem to suddenly appear there, again a reflection of Shakespeare’s original play and how he did not show anything of these characters backgrounds or outside activities.

Plot: The plot of this play is difficult to identify, being that there is seemingly no goal for the action to follow along with. The play opens on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern walking and flipping coins. When it lands on heads Rosencrantz wins, and tails is Guildenstern. It only lands on heads and Guildenstern questions the probability of that. For a moment they forget what they’re doing there and then they remember that a messenger was sent to get them. Soon they come across a bunch of players who are desperate for money and offer up Alfred’s services for a few coins. They start betting against each other with the coins and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern win and then finally the coin lands tails up.

Suddenly Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are transported into Elsinore where they first see Hamlet and Ophelia go by and are then approached by Claudius and Gertrude who confuse their identities and ask them to find out what is wrong with Hamlet. After they leave, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern begin playing a game of question and answer and then decide to practice questioning one another in preparation of questioning Hamlet, however after a lot of confusion they end up deciding that Hamlet is upset because of the death of his father and his mother’s quick marriage.

Finally Rosencrantz and Guildenstern approach Hamlet who originally addresses them warmly, but also has difficulty identifying which is which. He then goes into a confusing speech for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, causing them to question whether or not he really is insane and Polonius comes in saying that the players have arrived and they enter. Hamlet says there will be a play the next day and the Player, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern discuss what might be wrong with Hamlet and then after the players leave, the two discuss death.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern inform the other characters that Hamlet wants them to go to the play and they leave. Hamlet enters doing his “To be, or not to be” speech and Ophelia comes in as well and the two talk without noticing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The tragedians are performing their Hamlet parallel play and Ophelia enters with Hamlet telling her to go to a nunnery and then leaving. She cries and Claudius and Polonius take her away. After this, the Player talks about the story of Hamlet, the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and then the concept of the representation of death on stage.

The next day, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are asked to find Hamlet, who has killed Polonius. They find him and ask about the body, but he refuses to tell them anything and says they are just Claudius’s tools. Hamlet is brought back by guards. Outside, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern discuss how they must take Hamlet to England. In the final act, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern appear on a boat to England but they cannot see and they begin to question whether or not they are still alive. Hamlet is sleeping near there and they decide to open the letter from Claudius to the king of England. After reading that it calls for the death of Hamlet, they don’t know what to do. The two go to bed, Hamlet switches the letter, and they awake to hearing music coming from barrels on the ship. It is the tragedians and then pirates charge the ship. After the pirates are gone, so is Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tell the Player about the letter and rehearse what they are going to say, thus seeing that the letter now calls for their own death. Guildenstern stabs the Player who falls, but jumps back up, calling it a mediocre death. He then continues to describe the deaths that they can perform. At this, it is now Rosencrantz and Guildenstern whose deaths are coming and they realize it. Guildenstern questions how they ended up there and how they might have changed their fate. It is assumed that they die here because the scene switches to the end of Hamlet where all of the main characters are dead except for Horatio and the English Ambassadors come in and Horatio gives his speech.

Characters: The play includes only characters from the original play of Hamlet, however some with a different purpose and personality. Hamlet, Ophelia, Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius, and Horatio are all the same basic characters that they were originally. Altered characters are as follows:

Rosencrantz: Rosencrantz seems unintelligent on the surface and attempts to enjoy life and not question his surroundings—he just goes with it. He has many significant and meaningful lines, but he rarely intends them to be so insightful.

Guildenstern: Guildenstern questions the world around him from the beginning of the play. He clearly recognizes that things are not as they are supposed to be in his world. He seems to know (at least subconsciously) that they are a part of a play. He often makes comments in which he overestimates his own intelligence and ability to reason. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are often mistaken for one another and even lose track of their own identities.

Player: The Player has some of the most important lines of the play. He directly recognizes that he is an actor at all times and often tells the other characters that they are as well. He serves as a voice for Stoppard and gives Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hints about the false world around them and provides deep insight.

Voice: This play uses both dialogue and narrative voice to express the ideas of the author. Stoppard uses double meanings in most of the lines (both dialogue and description). He also uses symbolism through the “play-within-a-play”. This is supposed to show what they are all a part of. Stoppard also uses audience involvement to get across the idea that the audience should not feel for the characters. For example, Rosencrantz yells “Fire!” and then ridicules the audience for not reacting.

Quotes:

1. “Dying is not romantic, and death is not a game which will soon be over… Death is not anything… death is not… It’s the absence of presence, nothing more… the endless time of never coming back… a gap you can’t see and when the wind blows through it, it makes no sound.” (pg 124). This is a significant quote because it is Stoppard’s way of telling the audience why they shouldn’t experience a sense of pain or loss when a character dies in a play—because nothing really happens to them. No one really experiences anything, so the audience should not feel anything for anyone.

1. “We keep to our usual stuff, more or less, only inside out. We do on stage the things that are supposed to happen off. Which is a kind of integrity, if you look on every exit being an entrance somewhere else.” (pg 28). Despite being an inappropriate joke on the surface, this quote also describes what the players are doing on stage as they perform and what the implications of that are. They say that they are doing what the audience is supposed to be doing—questioning the reality of it all. Then they say that every exit is an entrance because the tragedians get off of their stage in the play and come on stage in the play that we see as the audience of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

1. “Death followed by eternity… the worst of both worlds. It is a terrible thought.” (pg 72). This is also a significant quote because it describes the characters’ situation. Every time the play is performed they all “die”, but they are all brought back again the next time that they perform—an eternity after death.

Theme: There seem to be many possible themes of this play. It could be a critique of Shakespeare’s disregard for some characters, it could be critiquing plays of Stoppard’s day, and it could also be that audiences should feel nothing for the characters in a play. 

Response to Course Materials #7

            Over the past few weeks we have finished Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, started The Ceremony, and worked on some AP practice with essays and multiple choice questions. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was really interesting to annotate because of how meaningless the lines were on the surface, and how profound they were when I took a closer look. It was also fun to read because of how it built on the story of Hamlet while still having its own plot line and meaning. It also critiqued Shakespeare’s work and other writers as well which I thought was interesting, again, because it was never directly on the surface. Doing the annotating for this will really help me to understand passages on the AP exam this May as well as in college classes on literature that I may take in the future. Although I honestly haven’t gotten very far in The Ceremony yet, what I have read is really interesting because of the differences from the Western literature that I have been accustomed to. It has really taught me the importance of knowing the background of the writer because it really does help when trying to understand the meaning of the work—and especially when attempting to annotate it. It’s also interesting because there is not a lot of dialogue and everything else that we have worked on was a play which makes it a little more difficult to annotate.
            The AP practice that we have been doing is going to be really helpful when it comes to the exam. Even though the annotations that we have done have helped met to better understand passages, I still found writing that essay on Wolsey’s speech to be quite challenging. I think that I am still struggling to identify certain aspects of literature, although the exercises that we do at the beginning of the hour most days are helping me with that. The multiple choice practice that we did with this same passage was really helpful as well. Having us write our own questions using the strategies that the actual AP exam uses really helps me to identify incorrect answers and select the right one. I've also noticed that these strategies are used on a lot of other tests that I take so it’s helping me in other classes as well.

Prompt Revision: Prompt #4

1983. From a novel or play of literary merit, select an important character who is a villain. Then, in a well-organized essay, analyze the nature of the character's villainy and show how it enhances meaning in the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.

                In the novel, Lord of the Flies William Golding uses the story’s villain, Jack to emphasize the meaning of the work: without the laws of society, humans would be evil in nature. He does this by eliminating the influence of society from a group of boys by marooning them on an island, and then by having the villain’s character start out as an innocent boy, develop a thirst for blood, and finally transition back into the mere boy when civilization returns.

                By introducing Jack to the story as an innocent choir boy, Golding emphasizes the transition that takes place in his character. For example, when the book begins and the boys all find each other on the island, Jack is all for maintaining order within the group. He even volunteers to be the leader, although Ralph beats him out for the position. As the story continues, however, Ralph becomes more involved in hunting and eventually becomes obsessed with power and control. Because of this, he goes from being a mere boy, to becoming a ruthless leader within his domain on the island. This emphasizes the idea that people would be evil without society because Jack becomes this way because of the absence of civilization. Since he is a young boy, it is easier for him to forget the once obvious rules of which society holds while in the complete isolation of the island, thus allowing him to re-inhibit his natural state of an inherently evil nature.

                Golding also emphasizes the meaning of this novel by having Jack become bloodthirsty, violent, and threatening. At the beginning of the novel when Jack is still just a boy, he fears killing a pig—even if it is just for food. As the story progresses, however, he becomes obsessed with hunting whatever he can get his hands on, and even kills the baby pigs for sport. Even still, that is not enough for him. At a feast he convinces the other boys to attack, and ultimately kill Simon, one of the only boys who remember to uphold the rules of civilization. This is the first instance in which a character is murdered and shows how truly evil Jack has become. He later goes on to instruct his followers to kill Piggy in what is, perhaps, the most brutal scene of the book. These acts of violence were tools used by Golding to show how evil the villain has become. In doing this it brings the reader back to the easy transition from good to evil in the absence of society.

                Golding continues to support the idea that society is what keeps people from becoming evil by having his villain return to his more innocent state upon rediscovering civilization. This occurs just after the climax of the novel, when Jack decides to burn down the entire island in hopes of killing Ralph. A naval ship discovers the fire and an officer finds the boys. As soon as they are found, Jack goes back to behaving like his original self—the choir boy. This transition back into what society originally made him further emphasizes Golding’s message.

                The villain's character changes from good to evil, and then from evil back to good, as well as the violence that they entailed are used to enhance the meaning of the novel, Lord of the Flies. These transitions show how Jack evolves in the absence of civilization from an evil being, to rediscovering his original form as an innocent boy when reintroduced to society. This embodies the basic meaning of the work as a whole—that without society, humans would be evil in nature.

Response to Course Material #6

                Over the past few weeks we have spent our time finishing up Hamlet and beginning Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I personally found what we did with Hamlet for our final exam to be really interesting. Having to interpret a scene multiple ways forced me to read more into the lines of the characters in order to pull out evidence for both sides. I think that this is going to end up being really helpful for the AP essays as well as essays for other courses because often times my point of view doesn’t seem to have the most textual support and now I know how to work well with the opposing interpretation. That last Hamlet film was pretty interesting as well. I’m not sure that I agree with the director’s take on any of the scenes, but it was intriguing to see them attempt to make Hamlet more relevant in today’s society (although I still don’t find it relatable to my own life at all), but I do think it took away from the message that fate and revenge should be left up to God.

                I’m really glad that we have begun Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead for a lot of reasons—the biggest being that I can understand the lines of the play. Although Shakespeare’s words sound pretty, I often find them nearly impossible to translate. I also find the whole concept of the play to be really interesting. Throughout the entire time we studied Hamlet I never really looked at Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as characters. Stoppard’s representation of them really exposes how little we know about those roles and opens up a lot of possible explanations for why that might be. I also like reading this play because like Hamlet, there are a lot of hidden meanings within the lines. I think that working with pieces like that really helps us interpret literature because the more we are exposed to those hidden meanings, the easier they become to spot—something that I think will prove to be very helpful on the AP exam as well as in future courses.

Summary and Analysis: Hamlet

Author: Hamlet was written by an English poet and Playwright from the 16^th Century, William Shakespeare. He is regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. His career began in the late 1500s in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain’s Men.

Setting: The setting of this is in Elsinore, a castle in Denmark. The time period is in the late medieval period. The duration of time that passes over the course of the play is unknown.

Plot: The play opens on a cold night with the watchmen and Horatio. The watchmen tell him that a ghost has been showing up and Horatio does not believe them, but soon enough, the ghost does. It is the ghost of the former king, named Hamlet. The ghost does not speak and the watchmen and Horatio talk about the battle between Hamlet and Fortinbras and how he conquered some of his kingdom. Horatio decides that he should tell Hamlet’s son who is also named Hamlet. While they go to tell him, Hamlet’s mother has married his uncle, Claudius, and Laertes announces that he will be going away. When Hamlet is informed of his father’s ghost he goes to see it and follows it. It tells him that Claudius killed him by putting poison in his ear and that he must get revenge on him. Hamlet swears to do this and makes Horatio and the watchman swear to secrecy.  Hamlet decides to pretend he has gone mad to do this.

                Laertes leaves and Polonius sends Reynaldo to check up on his behavior. Ophelia comes in to tell Polonius that she is worried about Hamlet because he is acting strange and he decides that Hamlet is maddened by his love for her so he goes off to tell Claudius and Gertrude, who have already summoned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to find out why Hamlet is acting weird. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern first approach Hamlet he forgets that he is supposed to be acting crazy until they call him ambitious and he catches them in their lie and starts acting crazy again. Then, Polonius comes in and announces that the players are coming to perform for them. Since Hamlet wants to be sure Claudius actually killed his father before he kills him, he comes up with a plan to have the players act out a new scene in which the king’s brother kills him and marries his wife. When the play is performed Claudius gets up and leaves when this scene occurs, reassuring Hamlet of his actions so Hamlet goes off to kill him but finds him praying. He decides that killing him now would not be a good enough revenge so he waits.

                Hamlet goes to talk to his mother but he hears something behind a curtain. He is hopeful that it is Claudius and decides to stab through it to kill him. Unfortunately it is Polonius that he has killed and he is immediately ordered to go to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, where Claudius intends to have him killed. Meanwhile, Ophelia loses her mind because of the grief of her father’s death, Hamlet’s actions, and a possible pregnancy and Laertes comes back, furious because of his father’s death. Then, Ophelia drowns herself and Laertes gets even angrier at Hamlet because he blames him.

                Horatio and the king both get letters from Hamlet saying that his ship was attacked by pirates and that he will be returning to Denmark. Horatio goes to get him and as they come back to Elsinore, they come across a gravedigger and we see how Hamlet’s father was actually less of a father figure for him. Then Ophelia is put in the grave and Hamlet realizes the error of his ways and decides to be good now, but still defends his actions. Laertes has Osric go get Hamlet to agree to participate in a fencing match with him and he says he thinks he will die for some reason but agrees anyways and Horatio tells him not to.

                For the fencing match Laertes has put poison on the end of his sword and taken off the tip of it so that it will actually cut Hamlet. Claudius has also put a poisoned pearl into the cup that he tells Hamlet to drink out of just in case Laertes backs out or does not succeed in hitting Hamlet. Hamlet gets the first two hits and then Gertrude drinks from the poisoned cup and Claudius almost stops her, but doesn’t. Then Laertes actually cuts Hamlet with the sword which makes him really mad and their weapons get switched and Hamlet cuts him back. Gertrude falls and says that the cup was poisoned and then Laertes admits that both he and Hamlet are as good as dead because of the poisoned sword. He also says that the king is to blame so Hamlet goes after him and stabs him with the sword and makes him drink from the poisoned cup to get his revenge. Then he starts to die so Horatio tries to drink the poison as well but he is stopped by Hamlet who tells him he must stay alive to tell his story.

                Then Fortinbras enters with the ambassadors from England who say that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras is shocked by what he sees and moves to take power of the kingdom. Horatio tells him the story and he says that Hamlet must be carried out like a fallen soldier.

Characters: Hamlet (the protagonist of the play, son of the former king and he is the prince of Denmark, supposedly a good person), Claudius (the former king’s brother and Hamlet’s uncle who has married Gertrude), Gertrude (the former king’s wife and now Claudius’s wife, Hamlet’s mother, queen of Denmark), Horatio (Hamlet’s best friend and the only main character to survive at the end of the play, loyal, intelligent, wise), Polonius (lord, friend of the king, Claudius, self-serving), Ophelia (daughter of Polonius, was in a relationship with Hamlet, poorly though out her decisions), Laertes (son of Polonius, young and doesn’t put a lot of thought into his actions), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (childhood friends of Hamlet, don’t care much about their friend), and Fortinbras (son of the former Fortinbras, king of Norway, foil for Hamlet because he does not fulfill revenge).

Style: There is no narrator in this play, however Shakespeare uses the dialogue of the characters to give messages to the audience and emphasize meaning. Hamlet is the biggest example of this. His dialogue often includes double meanings that tell the audience about the other characters, what is going on in his own mind, and foreshadow future events.

Quotes:

1.)    “Shall I strike at it with my partisan?” (Act I, scene I). This is a significant quote because it shows the attitude of most of the people of Elsinore. This was the former king that Marcellus was talking about so he should have felt a sort of loyalty toward him, like Horatio did. Instead, he offers fight against him, which although would have been the wiser decision, shows great disloyalty to the kingdom. This shows that the kingdom is corrupt and not worth following and also shows that attitude of its inhabitants.

2.)    “I am justly kill’d with mine own treachery.” (Act V, scene II). This is an important quote by Laertes because it expresses the overall message of the play. The word “justly” is especially important because it implies that Laertes is aware that this was the fate that he deserved. He lied and betrayed the prince of Denmark, and ended up being killed by the weapon that he, himself, had envenomed.

Theme: The theme of this play is that no individual should seek revenge—revenge, as well as destiny, should be left up to God and not taken into one’s own hands. This is evident because all of the characters that seek revenge end up being killed by one another, and Fortinbras, who does not end up going after revenge, ends up successful and thriving.

Prompt Revisions: Prompt #3

1974. Choose a work of literature written before 1900. Write an essay in which you present arguments for and against the work's relevance for a person in 1974. Your own position should emerge in the course of your essay. You may refer to works of literature written after 1900 for the purpose of contrast or comparison.

            Pride and Prejudice written by Jane Austin in 1813 is a timeless piece, but is it still relevant in today’s society? The answer to that question is both yes and no: in modern times we can still see the importance of reputation and normalcy, however social classes and gender roles are much less defined.

            Pride and Prejudice depicts an individual’s reputation as being of the utmost importance, therefore every decision is dependent on society’s reaction. The characters must be very careful in their behavior because stepping out of social normalcy could lead to ostracism. An example of this is when Elizabeth walks to Netherfield. Not only is it socially unacceptable for a lady to walk such a distance, but she has also become filthy in the process. This causes Miss Bingley to think less of her because it is considered unsuitable behavior. This importance of reputation is relevant in today’s society as well. If someone were to show up somewhere prestigious covered in dirt today it would definitely cause others to draw conclusions about their character. If people are to act in ways that are uncommon, others will tend to judge them, alter their opinion, and build his or her reputation around it—just like in Pride and Prejudice.

            In Austin’s novel, there were three very distinct classes—the upper, middle and lower class. Individuals within these classes rarely transitioned between them, and if they were to do so it was typically a downgrade. People in the upper class also tended to dislike individuals below themselves. This is clearly seen in Miss Bingley who had a strong distaste for nearly every character with less wealth than herself. She could do this because at the time, classes were very strictly defined. Today, social distinctions are much broader and easier to transition between. This makes Miss Bingley’s judgment irrelevant in today’s society because she would not necessarily know who would be below herself, and if she were to be critical toward them, it would be her that would be judged for her bad character.

            One of the most important themes in Pride and Prejudice is the portrayal of women as dependent on men. This is virtually irrelevant in today’s society because the role of women has expanded passed the homemaker. Now women have important roles in all areas of work, including highly authoritative positions. During the time of which this novel was written, however, these occupations for women would have been laughable. In fact, a woman’s place in society was entirely based upon the man she married and she would not have worked outside of the home unless she was a member of the lower class. This is clearly seen in the words and actions of Mrs. Bennett who spends the majority of the novel emphasizing the idea to her daughters that their greatest goal in life is wed a wealthy and proper suitor. Since so much of the novel is focused on this theme, it is not relatable to today’s readers.

            Overall, most of the values that Jane Austin attacked in writing this novel are irrelevant in today’s society. Although an individual might find it easy to relate to the importance placed on reputation and social normalcy, the majority of the novel focuses on themes that have long since been extinct; nowadays people are of every level of wealth and are not as distinctly separated as they were in the 1800's. In addition to this, unequal gender roles are much less prominent. Being that the majority of this novel seems to revolve around these two themes, it makes the main idea irrelevant to individuals in today’s world.

Response to Course Material #5

                Over the past few weeks we have spent most of our class time working with Hamlet, and have also worked with imagery. I find that after watching the film versions of Hamlet, I am able to understand the text better as I write my annotations. This could be because I got used to hearing the language or because it is just easier to comprehend after knowing the plot. While writing my annotations, I have also noticed how precise Shakespeare was in writing the dialogue. For example, he often uses words with double meanings and foreshadows future events. These are things I never would have noticed if I had not gone back through the play specifically to find them. This has given me a new respect for a lot of authors because it is incredibly difficult to do, but my feelings toward the play have not changed. Although I now know what is happening in the play, I still feel that it is mostly irrelevant in society. People lie and betray each other, but most people do not kill others and pretend to have gone mentally insane. Maybe relevance was not important in plays in Shakespeare’s time period, but I think it takes away from the overall message of the play today, at least for me it did.

                I think that the activities that we have done with imagery are really helpful. Since we have to create the tone with our words, it helps us to be able to identify it when other authors do it. This will help us a lot for the AP test. It’s important that we do activities like this in class because we haven’t seen a lot of imagery in the readings we have done so far because they have all been plays. I would like to read some novels because we would be able to see more of these techniques, but I do think that the strategic dialogue that we see in plays is really important to become familiar with as well.