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.

Close Reading #4

"What Out Below!!!" by Maureen Dowds

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/watch-out-below.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

In the article, “Watch Out Below!!!” Maureen Dowd expresses to her readers that “the cliffhanger” is being overused and is hindering to society. She uses her diction, figurative language, and incorporated details to do this.

The words used by Dowd help her to show the reader that cliffhangers are becoming overkill and are disruptive to society. An example of this is when she refers to the use of the cliffhanger of the end of the world (particularly the most recent outburst—the Mayan prediction) as an “attempt” to alter the general state of mind. In calling it an attempt, Dowd diminishes the logistics of it being the end of the world and makes the idea of it being true seem trivial and foolish, and since it is so impossible, the worry that it causes hinders society. Another example of how Dowd uses her diction is when she says, “There’s a new American trend in hysteria”. By using the word “trend”, Dowd makes the idea that the world is going to end seem like it is just a phase—something insignificant that will soon pass. It also emphasizes the overuse of that particular cliffhanger because it makes it seem like it happens all the time. By using the word “hysteria”, she makes the idea seem unrealistic.

Dowd also uses figurative language to emphasize her idea that cliffhangers are overused and disruptive. For example she says, “…to continually whirl the whole American population into a state of apocalyptic excitement …[is] exhausting”. By referring to it in this way, Dowd makes the end of the world theory seem to not only be perpetual, but also overkill. Figurative language is used again when she says, “But the cliff metaphor is so overused it makes me want to walk off one”. By saying that cliffhangers are used so often she would like to die to be rid of them, it adds drama and the humor makes the reader feel more involved. In doing this, it emphasizes her point that they are overused.

Dowd also incorporates specific details to ensure that her viewpoint towards cliffhangers is prominent and persuasive. An example of this is when she says, “We have reached the quivering moment of truth that Jon Stewart calls “Cliffpocalypsemageddonacaust”.  By including this humorous detail, it diminishes the realism that could have been evident with the cliffhanger of the end of the world. In doing this while relating it to the prominence of the theory of an apocalypse in American society, Dowd shows how this idea hinders society. If everyone is obsessed with the false idea that the world is about to end, they will be unable to pay attention to what really matters. Dowd makes use of detail again when she says, “Lincoln wasn’t cliffy … Lincoln had a goal and pursued it methodically through various means, some shady. He wasn’t interested in hysteria”. By showing the reader that Lincoln, a commended and prosperous President, was the opposite of “cliffy”, she enhances the idea that cliffhangers are hindering to people.

Dowd incorporates strong usage of diction, figurative language, and detail to emphasize the idea that cliffhangers are overplayed and straining in today’s society. She does this by referring to it in ways that make the idea of certain cliffhangers seem insignificant. From there, she continues to examine the hindering effects that believing and obsessing over these cliffhangers has on individuals, and the public as a whole.

                

Prompts #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 making the character start out as an innocent boy, having him develop a thirst for blood, and having him transition back into a 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 ruler of his portion of the island. This emphasizes the idea that people would be evil without society because Jack becomes this way due of the absence of civilization. Since he was a young boy, it was easier for him to forget the once obvious rules with which it society held while isolated on the island, thus allowing him to take up his natural state of an inherently evil nature.

                Golding also emphasizes the meaning of this novel by having Jack become bloodthirsty and violent. At the beginning of the novel when Jack is still an innocent boy, he fears killing a pig. As the story progresses, however, he becomes obsessed with violently hunting 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, saying that he is the beast. This is the first instance in which one of the boys is murdered and shows how truly evil Jack has become. He then goes on to instruct his followers to kill Piggy. These acts of violence were tools used by Golding to show how evil the villain, Jack 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 a naval 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.

                Golding uses the villain's character changes from good to evil, and then from evil to good, and the violence that it entailed to enhance the meaning of the novel, Lord of the Flies. These transitions show how he evolves in the absence of civilization into an evil being, to rediscovering his original form of 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.