Hyonjee+Joo

Funny Blog Post
 21 March 2012  Such a happy baby. (:

 media type="youtube" key="NE-Cqsk5pFY?rel=0" height="315" width="420" align="center"

Hamlet vs. King Claudius
Hamlet Blog Post #4 19 February 2012

Scene 5.2 indeed captures the tragedy of the play - Hamlet, Leartes, Gertrude, and Claudius all die. Besides the deaths, it's also interesting to note that the characters seem to be ultimately loyal to Hamlet and not Claudius. The real battle is not between Hamlet and Leartes but between Hamlet and Claudius, and, although Hamlet and Claudius both end up dying, Hamlet comes out on top.

QUEEN GERTRUDE No, no, the drink, the drink,--O my dear Hamlet,-- The drink, the drink! I am poison'd. (Dies) HAMLET O villany! Ho! let the door be lock'd: Treachery! Seek it out. LAERTES It is here, Hamlet: Hamlet, thou art slain; No medicine in the world can do thee good; In thee there is not half an hour of life; The treacherous instrument is in thy hand, Unbated and envenom'd: here I lie, Never to rise again: thy mother's poison'd: I can no more: the king, the king's to blame.

From the text, we can see that Gertrude confirms her loyalty to Hamlet by warning him of the dangers. Saying, "O my dear Hamlet," she tells her son, with her last words, that there was foul play and implies that her death could have very well been his. She is looking out for the best interest of Hamlet, not Claudius. Furthermore, Leartes blurts out "the kind, the king's to blame." He originally planned Hamlet's death with Claudius but eventually ratted him out. Leartes felt that Hamlet deserved the truth and Claudius deserved none of his loyalty.

So do these displays of loyalty mean that Hamlet is not actually that "far gone?" If Leartes and Gertrude believe that Hamlet is more deserving than Claudius, then I believe that Hamlet is not actually insane. His dramatic actions and behavior have reason, whether the reason is intense grief or anger caused by injustice. They are not simply out-of-the-blue or completely uncalled for, as would be characteristic of madness. Hamlet is, quite contrarily, driven with purpose. Insanity is aimless.

To Be or Not to Be
Hamlet Blog Post #3 10 February 2012

Nobody can deny that Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" speech is pretty famous. But, does it paint Hamlet in a positive way? Here is a video clip of the speech in Laurence Olivier's 1948 Hamlet film: media type="youtube" key="5ks-NbCHUns?rel=0" height="315" width="420"

"To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?"

The film emphasizes just how dramatic the beginning of this speech is, with the music and the "special" effects. Hamlet comes across as a bit of a drama queen. He, in fact, seems to be adding an element of bravery to both life ("sling and arrows of outrageous fortune") and death ("to take arms against a sea of troubles"). In a way, he is setting himself up to look better. If he chooses to live, he is courageously enduring the "slings and arrows." If he chooses to die, he is courageously "taking arms."

Hamlet's back-and-forth ramblings are concerning. They demonstrate the great magnitude of his internal conflicts. Perhaps his internalized struggle is evidence of madness. This speech suggests Hamlet is crazy from the inside out; it's not just an act.

Hamlet's Loyalty
Hamlet Blog Post #2 4 February 2012

Now wears his crown.
 * Ghost:** The serpent that did sting thy father's life
 * Hamlet:** O my prophetic soul! My Uncle!

A few lines later, Hamlet continues to say "O most pernicious woman! O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!" Hamlet's loyalty to his deceased father is quite apparent. He takes the ghost's story word for word and blames his mother and his uncle for the hideous crime. The O's and the exclamations illustrate Hamlet's rage and tormenting emotions. Hamlet's anger leads him to say some harsh, nasty things. For example, calling his mother a "woman" (as if she was a stranger) and adding such a despicable hateful adjective as "pernicious," seems to be a bit extreme. Does his mother not deserve the same love and loyalty as his father? Maybe not if the ghost's story is completely true, but, if Hamlet felt equal loyalty he would not have formed such quick, intense, and blind emotions. Hamlet kind of reminds me of this bull... If Hamlet reacts so rashly, the question becomes whether or not we can rely on his sanity. For an outside observer who could not see the ghost, Hamlet's violent reactions to thin air would be quite disturbing. Yet, if we concluded that the ghost was reliable based on Hamlet's loyalty and its story was completely true, then Hamlet's madness could have reason. It all depends on perspective.

The Ghost of Hamlet's Father - Is It Real?
Hamlet Blog Post #1 29 January 2012

The ghost of Hamlet's father plays a pivotal role in the first two scenes of Act 1, and the apparition, as we will soon discover in later scenes, essentially cause Hamlet to embark on his obstinate journey for revenge. But, how can we, in fact, know that the ghost is not merely the work of imagination? In Act 1, Scene 1, Bernardo and Marcellus eagerly take Horatio to see the ghost that has supposedly visited on previous nights. Upon close examination, we see that Bernardo and Marcellus are the ones who first proclaim the ghost's entrance and that Horatio only comments on the ghost after he is provoked to do so. Marcellus says, "Speak to it, Horatio," and Bernardo adds, "Looks it not like the king? Mark it, Horatio." At that moment, Horatio is swept along by the group mentality and is convinced of the ghost's reality. In Act 1, Scene 2, Horatio and Marcellus practically convince Hamlet of the return of his father's spirit even though he has not yet been taken to see it. This further suggests that the group mentality, conveyed by the words and accounts, has a persuasive power of its own. Take a look at the following passage, and its enactment in Kenneth Branaagh's film version of //Hamlet// (start at 6:10):

Then saw you not his face? O, yes, my lord; he wore his beaver up. What, look'd he frowningly? A countenance more in sorrow than in anger. Pale or red? Nay, very pale. And fix'd his eyes upon you? Most constantly. His beard was grizzled—no? It was, as I have seen it in his life, A sable silver'd. I will watch tonight; Perchance 'twill walk again. I warrant it will. media type="youtube" key="KsM_03b2Cz8?rel=0" height="315" width="560"
 * Hamlet **
 * Marcellus **
 * Hamlet **
 * Marcellus **
 * Hamlet **
 * Horatio **
 * Hamlet **
 * Marcellus **
 * Hamlet **
 * Hamlet **
 * Horatio **
 * Hamlet **
 * Marcellus **

As the short lines increase the pace of the conversation, this question-and-answer exchange creates a sense of excitement. It's easy to see how quickly Hamlet is pulled into believing the reappearance of his father and how there is no idle time left for doubt. In addition, Hamlet's inquiry is met with certainty, and this further eradicates any opportunities for reasonable doubt. Marcellus and Horatio use words such as "very" and "most." Marcellus also "warrant(s)" that Hamlet will see the ghost. When can Hamlet step back and thoroughly reflect upon the supernatural claim being made? The answer, in my opinion, is that he can't.

Essential Question: What is insanity and how do we know if it's real? Who has the right to judge madness? Perhaps an individual is only considered insane when his/her behavior or ideas fail to conform. Belief in a ghost could very well be classified as insanity. Yet, Bernardo, Marcellus, and Horatio aren't portrayed as insane because they all concur with one another. If insanity can be masked by group mentality, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to objectively judge madness.

Hi! Welcome to my page. (:



media type="youtube" key="Ry4BzonlVlw" height="345" width="560"

BBC News

An entire year of world history.