Lois+Boylan

=Just watch it. You won't regret it.= = media type="youtube" key="t5jw3T3Jy70" height="315" width="560" = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Hamlet. Blog Post #4. 2/20/12. =

It wouldn't be a tragedy if more than one major character remained living in the end. Luckily, Horatio is the only major character remaining after everyone keels over (also Fortinbras, but I don't really consider him a major character, although important), so the play is able to maintain it's tragic status.

Horatio, in every version of the play that we read/watched, tries to kill himself in the heat of the moment. = = =

= = = I feel bad for Horatio. He doesn't want to live in the world anymore, and right when he's trying to take his own life, Hamlet stops him and says "If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, absent thee from felicity a while, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain to tell my story." Really, Hamlet? Really? How selfish can you get? You pretend to be crazy for the sake of revenge, causing your girlfriend to drown herself, and her brother to swear revenge on you. You mess with everyone's lives, and then, after everyone in your best friend's life is dead/dying you say "No, you can't die too, because I need you to tell everyone that I wasn't really crazy after all."

Poor Horatio. He should have played Legos with a different kid while he was growing up, because obviously Hamlet didn't work out too well. I think it is completely unfair of Hamlet to pin this massive task on Horatio. It's too bad Horatio actually does what Hamlet wishes, because I don't think Hamlet deserves to have his name cleared. He cares more about revenge on his uncle than he does about his oldest friends, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their graves, and demanding that Horatio continue living even when he wants to take his own life. Really, Hamlet?

Hamlet believes Horatio will do what he asks, but Horatio certainly could have denied it all. And maybe Horatio believes that Hamlet really is sorry for the things that he has done, but that doesn't change the reality that Hamlet did terrible and selfish things.

Do you think Horatio should have cleared Hamlet's name? Or should he have basically pulled a "screw you" and done what he wanted to do? = = =

= = = = = = = = = = Hamlet. Blog Post #3. 2/11/12. =

Hamlet. O Hamlet, Hamlet, Hamlet. Whate'er shalt we do with thou? (I was def Shakespeare in a past life. No big deal.) Anyway, Hamlet. I know I talked a lot about his lack of action in my last post, but seriously, this is getting ridiculous. In Act III scene III, Hamlet stumbles upon Claudius who is "praying," completely defenseless and with no one else around. This is the perfect opportunity to finally lop his uncle's head off and be long gone before the body is found. In spite of all of this, Hamlet STILL does nothing. He says, "...and am I then revenged, to take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and seasoned for passage? No!"

Hamlet stops all of his action because he doesn't want his uncle to be forgiven of his sins, thus sending him to heaven. If only he'd have known that Claudius //wasn't// actually praying. THEN he'd have done the deed. Right? //Right?// Now this I'm not so sure about. Hamlet claims he wants revenge- that he wants to go hardcore crazy on his uncle and force him to be in eternal pain, and that he's willing to go to great lengths to do so. But, I wonder if maybe he //doesn't// actually want this. I mean, he's had plenty of opportunities to kill his uncle, and it seems like he had the motivation at one point, so why should there be any issues?

Is there a possibility that Hamlet doesn't want to kill Claudius? Perhaps the only reason why he ends up killing Claudius is because he's spent so long being moody about it that he now feels obligated to, even if he doesn't feel the burning drive to anymore. Maybe Hamlet at some point realizes that enacting revenge would stoop him to his uncle's level. To connect to my class period's essential question, Hamlet perceives that Claudius is guilty (which he is, but that's beside the point), and maybe this thought somehow transfers to Hamlet. Hamlet could subconsciously realize that murder=guilt, and choose not to act.

Is this possible?

The end.

= **Hamlet. Blog Post #2. 1/5/12.** =

So. Hamlet. What is //up// with this guy? I mean, just because his dad was murdered and his uncle married his mom only a month after is NO reason to be upset. Right?

Okay, I know that's ridiculous. If I were in Hamlet's position I would totally hate the world and want to murder everyone who even looked at me funny. However, have you ever thought that maybe he should just, you know, //get over it?// Or at least take action sooner! I mean come on, Hamlet! Man up! Don't just sit there looking like THIS:



In Act 1 Scene 4, after Hamlet finally sees his father's ghost and he spends what seems like 40 minutes being terrified and ranting about how he doesn't know what to do and how maybe he should probably follow the specter, he says " Say why is this? Wherefore? What should we do?"

This line basically epitomizes everything that Hamlet does ever. "Why is this happening? Why? What do I do?" He chooses to answer these questions, of course, by acting insane, brooding, and taking forever to do anything even though he could just stab his uncle nice and quick and get it all over with.

So, I have a question for those of you reading this. Do you think Hamlet should just "Get over it?" Obviously there are intense human emotions associated with everything he has gone through, but do you think that, for the sake of his and everyone else's sanity, that he should just try to be a happy individual, and actually deal with the things that come to him? Relating to my class's essential question. Hamlet perceives that his life sucks, and then it turns out to suck even worse than he originally thought. Could that have been avoided if he just chose to force a smile and deal with things?

The end.

= **Hamlet. Blog Post #1. 1/29/12.** =

Let me begin by saying that Hamlet is my favorite play by Shakespeare. There's action, mystery, romance, and severe mental problems- what's not to love? I saw it Sophomore year in Ashland played by this guy Dan Donahue, whom I am only mildly obsessed with. It was magnificent beyond belief, even after a 10 hour bus ride and being deathly tired. Here's a picture of Dan Donahue:

Splendid, isn't he? Anyway, the essential question for period 4 is '**How does our perception of reality //change// reality?'** Hamlet is definitely an excellent jumping off point for searching for some semblance of an answer.

In my experience, I've always assumed that the ghost of Hamlet's father really does exist. I have never questioned the possibility of a dead guy visiting his son and telling him to seek revenge on his uncle. This is possibly because I've watched enough ghost hunting shows to believe that hey, it could happen! However, this time around, I began to wonder if the ghost of Hamlet's father really //is// haunting the Prince of Denmark, or if there's just something in the water.

I am aware that there are witnesses to this ghost. As **Marcellus** says in act I scene I:


 * Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,**
 * And will not let belief take hold of him**
 * Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:**
 * Therefore I have entreated him along**
 * With us to watch the minutes of this night;**
 * That if again this apparition come,**
 * He may approve our eyes and speak to it.**

Not only do the usual night guards see the apparition, twice so far, but Horatio doesn't believe them. So, Marcellus brings Horatio along to share the scare. As we all know, the ghost appears to the men and stares them down without saying a single word. They then tell Hamlet of the haunting, and thus begins Hamlet's descent into complete obliteration of everything he has ever loved. Fun life.

Despite the witnesses, is there still a possibility that the ghost isn't actually there? Maybe there's some deeper meaning, and all of the men are bent against Hamlet and want to mess with him... which is an incredibly awful thing to do, but still. Or could all of them be "off" and hallucinating together? You never know what they do on those night watches...

I may just be grasping at nonexistent straws, but, could it be that everybody is insane? Shakespeare definitely had quite the imagination, so I wouldn't put it past him.

The end.

Go here just for kicks.