Maddie+Eyolfson

Yay! Everybody died! Well almost everybody. What an eventful play. Paranoia, fear, and drama all lead up to death. This cartoon knows what's up: readers don't want a group hug and forgiveness, they want a tragic death for everyone.

I was glad that Queen Gertrude found out about Claudius. She thought her son was going crazy, which he is, and if she's a normal mother, I'm sure that's a little upsetting. She finally figured out Claudius isn't the greatest man on earth, he's actually also quite crazy.

Hamlet says: // I loved Ophelia: forty thousand brothers // // Could not, with all their quantity of love, // // Make up my sum. // I'm not sure if this is true or not. Before now, Hamlet never really acts like he loves Ophelia. This could come from jealousy of Laertes. It seems as though Hamlet loves her from this passage, but when you love someone, you should act like it all the time, not just when they're dead and their brother is grieving.

I think almost everyone went insane in this play. Claudius obviously has something wrong with him if he can justify killing his brother to get a crown and plotting to kill his nephew to keep that crown is okay. He went power crazy and would do anything to keep it; he's not trustworthy at all. He'll kill to keep his kingship, what will stop him from killing you if you get in the way? Gertrude went crazy because she was so confused. She didn't understand why Hamlet is going mad, and getting married two months after your husband to his brother doesn't make a girl look very good. Ophelia went crazy and killed herself. And Hamlet, he started by faking his insanity and obsession led to his crazed mind state. He was so obsessed with what he had to do and so upset with the people around him that his mind just lost control. I wouldn't trust any of these characters with anything. They'll do anything to get what they want, even if it means they all die.
 * Period Three's essential question: where do we draw the line between sanity and insanity? To what extent can we trust the insane? **

Hamlet wanted Claudius dead, and he is. Claudius wanted King Hamlet and Hamlet dead, and they both are. In the end, everyone should be happy. But they can't be, since they're dead.



**Hamlet Blog #3** ** Sunday, February 12, 2012 **

In the begining of the play, Hamlet is not the only one who sees the ghost. First the two guards see it, and then Horatio, and finally Hamlet. But when the ghost shows himself a second time, Queen Gertrude doesn't see it. She thinks Hamlet's gone completely crazy. Why would the ghost not show himself to the Queen? Is he trying to help Hamlet in his 'plan' to act psycho? I don't think King Hamlet's spirit is only a figure of imagination as Queen Gertrude believes because Hamlet's friends saw him as well but the ghost could have shown himself to Gertrude and she would have believed him. She would have believed that Claudius killed King Hamlet and Gertrude maybe would have done something about it. The ghost has a very strange way of trying to get his death avenged.

Two lines I found interesting in this weeks readings are:

// I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is // // southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw. //

Hamlet admits to his friends that he's only crazy sometimes! I like how he uses the directions of a compass as a metaphore, I might have to try that sometime. Hamlet also uses imagery of a hawk and a handsaw, which are two very different things. He admits that he can tell the difference between them, which obviously relate to bigger things in real life, proving that he's not completely mad.

In this week's readings, Hamlet looks both insane and sane. He admits to his friends that he's not completely mad. But in front of his mom, he can see a ghost and she can't which doesn't make him look too good. Although I think he's going insane, I don't think he's completely there yet. He does mistakenly kill Palonius, who had it coming if you ask me. I wouldn't usually trust Hamlet, he kills random people because he thinks they're someone else - Claudius, but there's one place in the play I find myself trusting him: when he admits his mom is wrong about him and he's only crazy half the time. I don't think that one moment has much of an impact overall. Looking at the play as a whole, Hamlet can't be trusted. He's gone mad in trying to avenge his father's death and he'll do anything, anything!, to do it.
 * Period Three's essential question: where do we draw the line between sanity and insanity? To what extent can we trust the insane? **


 * Hamlet Blog #2 **
 * Saturday, February 4, 2012 **

Do ghosts even exist? Even today, it's a topic that not everyone agrees upon the correct answer. I, personally, choose not to think about it because it freaks me out a little bit. The thought of a ghost that can watch you or visit you at any time? That's a little weird. In Hamlet, there is a ghost. It's seen by Hamlet and his guards, and Hamlet talks to it. I found it very interesting to watch all the different interpretations the directors had of the ghost and Hamlet's reaction to his father's spirit.



This picture shows Hamlet kneeling down in front of the ghost, like he's afraid. When we read this part of the play in class, I pictured Hamlet being excited and angry when he finds out what his uncle did, but not scared.

The passage this week I found interesting, from 1.5, is the scene where the ghost speaks his monologue and then departs: //"Sleeping within my orchard, // //Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole, // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">With juice of cursed hebenon in a vial, // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">And in the porches of my ears did pour // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">The leperous distilment; // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin, // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible! // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not; // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">But, howsoever thou pursuest this act, // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">Taint not thy mind // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge, // //<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 11px;">Fare thee well at once!" // <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">I like this passage because Hamlet finds out the truth about his father's death. I find it interesting that King Hamlet asks Hamlet to leave his mother alone, and let heaven and God do what they want to her but he wants Hamlet to revenge his death by killing his uncle. If I was king and I died and my wife married my brother, I think I would want a little revenge on her. Maybe he thinks she couldn't control herself, because she's a women or something.

Period Three's essential question: where do we draw the line between sanity and insanity? To what extent can we trust the insane?
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">In today's world, seeing ghosts usually leads a person to being called 'insane'. But seeing his father's ghost doesn't make Hamlet insane in //Hamlet//. His friends see it too. At this point in the play, I don't think Hamlet's insane. The information he just found out will eventually lead him to insanity, but right now he's pretty trustworthy and sane. After his ghost left, I found it a little curious that he didn't tell his friends what his dad's spirit said. If they were that good of friends, Hamlet should have trusted them with the truth. Maybe telling them would have prevented him from going insane.

Sunday, January 29, 2012
Oh Hamlet. Another tragic Shakespeare play where everyone dies in the end. The good thing about all tragic Shakespeare plays is although everyone dies in the end, it all happens differently. In Romeo and Juliet, they kill themsleves. In Hamlet, everyone goes crazy and dies by different means.

I found a sixty second version of Hamlet that's pretty entertaining: media type="youtube" key="k8z4E0_-si4" height="315" width="420" In this week's readings, I found myslef with a few questions: >> ** KING CLAUDIUS says: ** >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet, >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">To give these mourning duties to your father: >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">But, you must know, your father lost a father; >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">That father lost, lost his. . . but to persever >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">In obstinate condolement is a course >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief; >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">We pray you, throw to earth >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">This unprevailing woe, and think of us >> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 13px;">As of a father King Claudius wants Hamlet to get over his father's death and accept the new king as his father. If I were Hamlet, that'd make me pretty mad. This passage says it's "unmanly" to grieve, which isn't true. Claudius makes a good point by saying that every father has lost a father, but that doesn't make it wrong to grieve. I'll bet each father who lost a father was sad for a little while. This passage is beautifully spoken; it flows very nicely. That helps King Claudius convince the audience that what he is saying is the truth, and while it may be for him, it's not for everyone.
 * Why doesn't the ghost just show himself to Hamlet? He shows himself to the guards multiple times but never wants anything from them; wouldn't it have been easier for him to just go to Hamlet?
 * It's been a short time since King Hamlet has died. Shouldn't Hamlet be expected to mourn? His mother and uncle want him to be happy right off, but I think he should have more than two days to mourn.

Here's a "facebook" post poking fun at Hamlet; 'poking' pun intended:

Period Three's essential question: where do we draw the line between sanity and insanity? To what extent can we trust the insane?
So far, I woulndn't say anyone's insane. An insane person acts crazy, and so far, all the characters are being relatively rational. By the end of the play, Hamlet is the "insane" character. But what about King Claudius? In our world, someone that poisons thier brother and marries their sister-in-law would be thought crazy. In modern times, if King Claudius was caught for poisoning his brother and went to court, I bet his defence lawyer would plead insanity. I definitly wouldn't trust King Claudius; if he'll poison his own brother, what wouldn't he do?