Sam+Faucher

=Funny Blog Post -- April 1, 2012=

Some comics from xkcd.com:







=Hamlet's Revenge -- February 20, 2012=



We often debate whether Hamlet is sane or insane, and it's true that his sanity is questionable at times. But there are other times - and we seem to forget about these - when our fine friend the Prince of Denmark acts perfectly sane, but legitimately evil. Take, for instance, Hamlet's discovery of Claudius' note ordering his execution in Act V Scene I. When Hamlet discovers this betrayal, he takes it out on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, even though they didn't know of the contents of the letter they were delivering. On the other hand, Hamlet does not take any action against Claudius until he's near death and his mother just died, late in Act V Scene II. Here's how Hamlet explains his friends' behavior and justifies his own command to have them murdered:

Why, man, they did make love to this employment; They are not near my conscience; their defeat Does by their own insinuation grow: 'Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes Between the pass and fell incensed points Of mighty opposites.

Hamlet's words are remarkably casual, considering that he just brought about the death of two of his closest school friends. The first line above, in particular, suggests that __obviously__ Hamlet did what he did, since Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were so close to Claudius. What's odd is that Hamlet is also pretty close to Claudius. He's his nephew/son-in-law, after all, and I bet that the two of them meet at all sorts of official Danish functions. True, Claudius is now Hamlet's sworn enemy, but Hamlet hasn't even done anything about it! Why would Hamlet kill two former friends for hanging out with Claudius, but not just kill Claudius himself? It's a good question. And since Hamlet explains all this so logically, despite the inherent lack of logic in it, it makes Hamlet seem a little crazy. He is, at the very least, a terrible revenger. In my humble opinion, if you're going to revenge your father's death, just kill the murderer, not a whole slew of people (Polonius, Rosencranzt, Guildenstern, kind of Laertes) who are peripherally involved.



I hate to break it to him, but if revenge, as this picture says, is a dish best served cold, then Hamlet's revenge is hot, rancid, steaming, and essentially the worst thing ever served in the history of the human race. = = =You are a Tool -- February 12, 2012=

I really liked Act III and Act IV. It was easy to see the different plot lines start to come together. For instance, Laertes' hatred of Hamlet and Claudius' desire to get rid of him seem connected, even before the two of them make their plan. And Hamlet's madness finally works its way into the actions of all of the characters, most notably through his murder of Polonius and the insanity of Ophelia. But there were a couple events that seemed to happen out of nowhere. One was Hamlet's encounter with the pirates. It might have been simpler if Hamlet had just stayed in Denmark, rather than leave for England and get turned around by a band of friendly pirates. The whole thing seems a little improbable. So too does the death of Ophelia. All right, all right, she was crazy and she liked flowers, but her whole death by drowning in close proximity with a bunch of flowers seems a little suspect. But that's fine. These things need to happen for the play to move forward as it does.

Here's a passage I took note of, from Act IV, Scene VII.

To show yourself your father's son in deed More than in words? **KING CLAUDIUS** No place, indeed, should murder sanctuarize; Revenge should have no bounds.
 * KING CLAUDIUS** But, to the quick o' the ulcer:-- Hamlet comes back: what would you undertake,
 * LAERTES** To cut his throat i' the church.

Claudius, as usual, is deceitful and manipulative. Knowing that Laertes is (understandably) outraged by Hamlet's murder of his father, Claudius tries to turn Laertes' rage from a force capable of debasing Claudius' power as King to a channeled rage that would cement Claudius' authority. The references by both characters to murder in a church are interesting, because of what happened earlier, when Hamlet almost murdered Claudius as he sat somewhat praying. Laertes' assertion that he would kill in church puts him in stark contrast to Hamlet. In fact, Laertes and Hamlet seem like character foils of one another. Both Laertes and Hamlet have lost their fathers, and both are very close to Ophelia, although in different ways. But when faced with difficult situations, Laertes rages (see photo below), while Hamlet sits around thinking.



And while Hamlet is very astute when it comes to noticing people's ambitions, flaws, and motivations, Laertes seems rather inept. Which is odd, because he's the "sane" one, whereas Hamlet is, by most definitions, insane. But, I guess, sanity doesn't necessarily mean the ability to see reason in other people's actions. It just means the ability to create reason in one's own.

But regardless, Laertes completely misses the possibility that the King could have some self-interest in the plan they concoct, and so Laertes goes along with it without hesitation. And for getting controlled and wiled so thoroughly by Claudius, Laertes is definitely Claudius' tool. It's too bad, too, because he seems like a nice guy. But unfortunately, I only have one thing to say to Laertes, which is as follows:



= = =The Ghost's Message -- February 5, 2012= The Ghost's message, which seems so simple, actually has a few things going on in it. Look at these lines:

Ghost: If thou didst ever thy dear father love-- Hamlet: O God! Ghost: Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

Of course, the primary message is that Hamlet senior was at the unfortunate end of a "foul and unnatural murder." But he doesn't just come out and say that. Already, right as he brings it up, the father is trying to get his son to do something about it. That's why he says that Hamlet would avenge the murder if Hamlet loved him. The Ghost even refers to himself as a "dear father," practically demanding that Hamlet junior's love and admiration. Obviously, the Prince does indeed love his dad, and wouldn't want to disappoint him right after his tragic death. So the Ghost's words are taken very seriously, and his challenge is bound to be taken up. The Ghost's two lines here, I'd say, are what allows all of the events in the book to go forward. Before these lines, Hamlet was sad, but now he seems to have a sense of desperation and urgency that he didn't have before. He probably would have sought revenge on his own, but his father's encouragement couldn't have hurt.

Related: Have you watched Zoolander? Because the Ghost's lines here remind me of Will Ferrell saying, "kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia!" Here's the scene, with the lines I'm talking about starting at 1:40 or so:

media type="youtube" key="wleJmrlbsMc" width="425" height="350"

Well, that's about all. The Ghost is definitely a shady character..

... but without the abnormally placed yellow eyes.

He could at least show up later in the play to be like, "Wow, Hamlet, don't go crazy and get too many people killed just to avenge my death. It's not THAT big a deal." But no such luck. He's the King, after all, and I guess that both before and after death he's won the right to be powerful and a tad demanding.

=Claudius, The Original Creepy Uncle -- January 29, 2012= Somehow, we have this notion in our society that there are a lot of creepy uncles out there. And although I don't have any personal stories to tell, it's definitely based in fact. Nobody complains about creepy grandparents, or creepy aunts, or creppy cousins, or least of all creepy parents or siblings. It's always the creepy uncle:



And if you're still not convinced, then maybe this will convince you: the creepy uncle, apparently, was one of the top Halloween costumes of 2008. Who knew?

But in Hamlet, at least at the beginning, Claudius seems like a pretty nice guy. Of course, we haven't yet learned that he killed his brother and usurped the throne, which tends to alter anybody's impression of a person. But in Act I, Scene II, Claudius, after handling diplomatic affairs with Norway and Laertes' request to leave Denmark in an amiable manner, gives his nephew Hamlet some advice:

"Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet, To give these mourning duties to your father: But, you must know, your father lost a father; That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound In filial obligation for some term To do obsequious sorrow: but to persever In obstinate condolement is a course Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief" - Act I, Scene II

It has the potential to be very good advice, and it would be quite touching, were the circumstances different. But, knowing what's revealed later, we know that Claudius killed his brother for power. He's a murderer and a megalomaniac, and made choices that many would classify as insane. But here, in this bit of eloquence and apparent compassion, he's anything but. Claudius' duplicity may just be a way to make him seem even more treacherous, but, in any case, his words here aren't mean ones, and could be used to help Hamlet heal, recover, and toughen up. Generally, we will, after all, have to bear the sorrow of seeing our grandparents, parents, aunts, and - yes - even creepy uncles pass away. But, as sad as that is, we'll have to overcome it and move on with our lives. Here, Claudius seems sympathetic and sane -- not a creepy uncle at all. Just one with a country to lead and high expectations for others to follow, like this photo I found from back in the day:



Uncle Claudius, evidently, doesn't want to raise a chicken.